DETAILED ACTION
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1 and 4-6 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on Jun. 18, 2026. In particular, independent claim 1 has been amended to contain a limitation regarding a molar ratio. Therefore, claim 1 and claims 4-6 which ultimately depend on amended claim 1 are now different in scope from what they were at the time of the preceding Office action. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ACS Macro Letters, 2017, 6(2), 185-189 (herein “Carmean”).
As to claims 1 and 4: Carmean describes a method (see the bottom paragraph on p. 3 of the Supporting Information) comprising a step of dissolving a polymer including a thiocarbonylthio terminal group (see TTC in the preparation of PDMA-TTC on p. 2 of the Supporting Information; and see 2-(Dodecylthiocarbonothioylthio)-2-methylpropionic acid in the Materials section) and methanol, and irradiating the solution with a UV light source. The examiner has calculated that the molar ratio of thiocarbonylthio terminal groups to methanol in the cited example is about 304:1 methanol: thiocarbonylthio terminal groups.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Controlled Radical Polymerization: Mechanisms (herein “Xu”) in view of Organic Process Research & Development, 2016, 20(10), 1792-1798 (herein “Clark”) and ACS Macro Letters, 2017, 6(2), 185-189 (herein “Carmean”). Copies of Xu and Clark are attached to the Office action mailed on Mar. 19, 2026.
Xu describes photopolymerization of methyl methacrylate in the presence of a RAFT agent (see the procedure at the bottom of p. 251) including irradiating the reaction mixture with a blue LED light. Xu does not disclose the presently recited steps of using a rotating reactor or the presently recited steps of removing the thiocarbonylthio group from the polymer.
Clark describes a photoreactor (see the abstract and Figure 1) including a rotary evaporator inclined with respect to the vertical direction and LEDs that are used to irradiate the reaction flask. Clark discloses that the reactor works on the principle of creating a thin film by rotation of the reaction flask (see the top right of p. 1793), and Clark discloses that the reactor as advantages regarding productivity, temperature control, and decoupling of the residence time from the flow rate (see the paragraph bridging pp. 1793-1794).
In light of Clark, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform Xu’s photopolymerization in Clark’s rotary evaporator for the advantages regarding productivity, temperature control, and decoupling of the residence time from the flow rate.
Carmean describes a method (see the bottom paragraph on p. 3 of the Supporting Information) comprising a step of dissolving a polymer including a thiocarbonylthio terminal group (see TTC in the preparation of PDMA-TTC on p. 2 of the Supporting Information; and see 2-(Dodecylthiocarbonothioylthio)-2-methylpropionic acid in the Materials section) and methanol, and irradiating the solution with a UV light source. The examiner has calculated that the molar ratio of thiocarbonylthio terminal groups to methanol in the cited example is about 304:1 methanol: thiocarbonylthio terminal groups. Carmean further discloses (see the first paragraph at the right column of p. 185) that RAFT CTA chain ends are often unstable at high temperatures and are reactive with a variety of nucleophiles.
In light of Carmean, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mix Xu’s polymer in a solution with methanol and irradiate the solution with a UV light source in the manner taught by Carmean in order to render Xu’s polymer more stable at high temperatures and less reactive with nucleophiles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed Xu’s photopolymerization in Clark’s rotary evaporator; and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Carmean’s process to remove the thiocarbonylthio group from Xu’s polymer, thereby arriving at the presently claimed methods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if written in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Jun. 18, 2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part.
The rejections that were set forth in the preceding Office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment of independent claim 1 and in light of the terminal disclaimer submitted on Jun. 18, 2026.
In light of the amendment of independent claim 1, new grounds of rejection have been set forth above in paragraphs 5-13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant's reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM EST.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights