DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to nonprovisional application filed 08/07/2023. Original claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 01/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copy of the IDS is included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action.
Objection – Claims
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: referring to line 1 of each claim, the phrase –at least one-- should be inserted after “the” for consistency in terminology (cf., claim 1, line 3).
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: replacing “comprises” with –comprising-- (i.e., membrane comprising the cured composition of claim 1) is recommended.
Appropriate correction of the aforementioned claims is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim initially defines compositional component (b) as a “sulfonated styrenic” block copolymer but subsequently refers to the corresponding block B as “derived from a vinyl aromatic monomer” (see lines 7 and 14-15). The latter recitation is substantially broader than the former, as it literally encompasses block B residues derived from non-styrenic monomer(s) such as, e.g., vinyl naphthalene and/or vinyl benzocyclobutane. This creates uncertainty as to the overall composition of the block copolymer, i.e., whether “styrenic” is restrictive to “vinyl aromatic” for the block B, or merely exemplary thereof. Clarification at least by way of explanation is required. In addition, recited ranges for weight percent values of components (a) and (b) (see lines 3, 7) are ambiguous absent identification of the basis for calculating the values. It is presumed the weight percent values are based on total weight of the cured composition, per claim 19 (cf., lines 5-6). If this is in fact the case, amendment of claim 1 to include corresponding weight-percent basis language would obviate this aspect of the rejection.
Claims 2-20 depend on claim 1 such that the above reasoning used to reject the base claim will be relied upon to reject the depend portions of said claims.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2 and 3, by reciting a polymer polyol having a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of “0.5 to 30 kg/mol” and “0.7 to 22 kg/mol,” respectively, fail to include all the limitations of parent claim 1, which stipulates a molar mass of “less than 0.5 kg/mol” for the corresponding hydroxyl group containing compound (a) selected from, inter alia, polymeric polyols (cf., Cl. 1, lines 4-6). It is not seen wherein a polymeric polyol having a Mw as per claim 2 or 3 can concurrently fulfill the molar mass requirement of claim 1, upon which both claims depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Insofar as claim 17 literally reads on a degree of sulfonation of precisely 10 mol% (see line 2: 10 to 100 mol%), the claim fails to include all the limitations of claim 1, upon which it depends, as the parent claim stipulates a degree of sulfonation of greater than 10 mole % (cf., lines 15-16: degree of sulfonation of > 10 mole%). Thus, claim 1 is exclusive of the degree of sulfonation delimited by the lower endpoint of the range as recited in dependent claim 17.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pottick et al (US 5516831) is cited merely to show analogous art, i.e., art relating to blends of selectively sulfonated styrenic block copolymers and extender resins typified by hydrocarbon resins (note Examples). The citation does not contemplate providing a cured composition by curing a curable composition comprising 3 to 50 wt% of at least one hydroxyl group containing compound corresponding to the Applicant’s component (a) as claimed.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20, as presently understood, would be allowable if amended or rewritten to overcome the objection (re: claims 2-6, 20) and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Pending claims are deemed to distinguish over the closest prior art to Willis (US 2011/0086982 A1; cited in 01/24/2024 IDS) at least on the basis of claimed features of: “a cured composition obtained by curing a curable polymer composition comprising:
(a) 3 to 50 wt.% of at least one hydroxyl group containing compound selected from the group consisting of diols, triols, tetraols, polyols, polymeric polyols, and mixtures thereof, wherein each of diols, triols, tetraols, and polyols independently has a molar mass of less than 0.5 kg/mol;
(b) 50 to 97 wt.% of a sulfonated styrenic block copolymer comprising a block A, a block B, and a block D, wherein … the cured composition is characterized as having:
a tensile stress per ASTM D412 of:
6.2 to 30 MPa in a dry state, and
3 to 10 MPa in a wet state after 1 day, both measured as described in
the specification; and
a Gel Content of > 70%, measured according to Gel Content Test as
described in the specification.”
(Claim 1)
Willis is drawn to amine neutralized sulfonated block copolymer and a method for neutralizing a sulfonated block copolymer (Abs.). The neutralized block copolymers have at least two polymer end or outer blocks A and at least one saturated polymer interior block B, wherein each A block is a polymer block resistant to sulfonation and each B block is a polymer block susceptible to sulfonation ([0058]), with preferred sulfonation levels ranging from about 10 to about 100 mol percent ([0110]). Willis broadly teaches that the neutralized block copolymers may be blended with a large variety of other polymers, including olefin polymers, styrene polymers, hydrophilic polymers and engineering thermoplastic resins, with polymer liquids and other fluids such as ionic liquids, natural oils, fragrances, and with fillers such as nanoclays, carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, and traditional fillers such as talcs, silica and the like ([0154]-[0162]). However, Willis nowhere teaches the present invention, especially a cured composition having claimed parameters of tensile stress and Gel Content and obtained by curing a curable composition comprising 3 to 50 wt% of at least one hydroxyl group containing compound fulfilling the requirements of Applicant’s component (a) as claimed.
Furthermore, the Examiner has not, as of the date of this Office action, located or identified any prior art document(s) that can be used singularly or in combination with another reference including Willis to render the present invention anticipated or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/02-19-26