DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
This application has PRO of 63418196 filed 10/21/2022.
Accordingly, claims 1-28 are afforded the effective filing date of 10/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024 (2) have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing of this office action.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-28 are pending in this instant application, and examined herein on the merits for patentability.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language clarity, “in addition” is not needed in the claim and suggested to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “is selected from an oil soluble (meth)acrylate selected from group consisting of a bi-functional (meth)acrylate, a tri-functional (meth)acrylate, a tetra-functional (meth)acrylate, a penta- functional (meth)acrylate, a hexa-functional (meth)acrylate, a hepta-functional (meth)acrylate, an octa-functional (meth)acrylate and mixtures thereof” is an improper Markush language. It is noted that a proper Markush language for the above recitation can be: “is selected from the group consisting of an oil soluble (meth)acrylate selected from group consisting of a bi-functional (meth)acrylate, a tri-functional (meth)acrylate, a tetra-functional (meth)acrylate, a penta- functional (meth)acrylate, a hexa-functional (meth)acrylate, a hepta-functional (meth)acrylate, an octa-functional (meth)acrylate and mixtures thereof.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the multiple recitations of “selected from” and “or” are improper Markush group language. It is noted that when materials recited in a claim are so related as to constitute a proper Markush groups, they may be recited in the conventional manner, or alternatively. For example, if “wherein R is a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D” is a proper limitation, then “wherein R is A, B, C or D” shall also be considered proper. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language clarity, please remove “in addition” and insert “further”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “selected from one or more of an isocyanate monomer, oligomer or prepolymer, dimer or trimer, having at least two isocyanate groups” is an improper Markush language. It is noted that when materials recited in a claim are so related as to constitute a proper Markush groups, they may be recited in the conventional manner, or alternatively. For example, if “wherein R is a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D” is a proper limitation, then “wherein R is A, B, C or D” shall also be considered proper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language clarity, please remove “in addition” and amend claim 21 to “the core further comprises…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: please amend “incorporating” to the transitional phrase “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-28 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, “reaction product of: an amine-thiol-ene conjugate” renders claim 1 indefinite because the metes and bounds of “the reaction product of an amine-thiol-ene conjugate” is unclear, as “reaction product” is a product of reaction of substances or reactants, but there is only one reactant recited (“amine-thiol-ene conjugate”). There is not another reactant to react with the amine-thiol-ene conjugate so as a “reaction product” can be formed. Thus, it is also unclear what is the actual “reaction product” or the product that is from the “reaction product.” Clarification by amendment in claim 1 is required. Claims 2-28 are also rejected as they depend directly or indirectly from indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “in addition” renders claim 6 indefinite because it is not clear if the recitation of “a free-radically crosslinked reaction product of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate with one or more of a multifunctional (meth)acrylate and an isocyanate” following “in addition” is a separate and different component from the amine-thiol-ene conjugate or is a component that is part of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate. Clarification by amendment in claim 6 is required.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “in addition” renders claim 7 indefinite because is it not clear if the recitation of “a reaction product of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate with a multifunctional (meth)acrylate” following “in addition” is a separate and different component from the amine-thiol-ene conjugate or is a component that is part of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate. Clarification by amendment in claim 7 is required.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “in addition” renders claim 9 indefinite because it is not clear if the recitation of “a reaction product of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate crosslinked with an isocyanate” following “in addition” is a separate and different component from the amine-thiol-ene conjugate or is a component that is part of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate, as in “the amine-thiol-ene conjugate comprises a reaction product of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate crosslinked with an isocyanate.” Clarification by amendment in claim 9 is required.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “the alkyl amine is selected from a 3 to 18 carbon alkyl moiety” renders claim 14 indefinite because metes and bounds of selected from a 3 to 18 carbon alkyl moiety is unclear as there is not alternative species of 3 to 18 carbon alkyl moiety for selection. Thus, it is unclear what 3 to 18 carbon alkyl moiety is selected as the alkyl amine because claim 14 does not define those 3 to 18 carbon alkyl moiety. One cannot “select” when a Markush group of species are not listed. Clarification by amendment in claim 14 is required.
Regarding claims 16, 20-23, and 25: a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
claim 16 recites the broad recitation “.75/1/1.25 to 1.25/1/0.75,” and the claim also recites “preferably 0.85/1/1.15 to 1.15/1/0.85” and “more preferably 0.95/1/1.05 to 1.05/1/0.95,” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 20 recites the broad recitation “a fragrance,” and the claim also recites “preferably a fragrance comprising perfume raw materials characterized by a logP of from about 2.5 to about 4.5,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a partitioning modifier selected from the group consisting of isopropyl myristate, vegetable oil, modified vegetable oil, mono-, di-, and tri-esters of C4-C24 fatty acids, dodecanophenone, lauryl laurate, methyl behenate, methyl laurate, methyl palmitate, methyl stearate, and mixtures thereof,” and the claim also recites “preferably isopropyl myristate,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 22 recites the broad recitation “above 30% CO2 in 60 days following OECD 301B test,” and the claim also recites “preferably above 40%CO2,” “more preferably above 50%CO2,” and “even more preferably above 60%CO2 (maximum 95%),” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 23 recites the broad recitation “a coating material,” and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the coating material is selected from the group consisting of poly(meth)acrylate, poly(ethylene-maleic anhydride), polyamine, wax, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinylpyrroli done co-polymers, polyvinylpyrrolidone-ethyl acrylate, polyvinylpyrroli done- vinyl acrylate, polyvinylpyrrolidone methacrylate, polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate, polyvinyl acetal, polyvinyl butyral, polysiloxane, poly(propylene maleic anhydride), maleic anhydride derivatives, co-polymers of maleic anhydride derivatives, polyvinyl alcohol, styrene-butadiene latex, gelatine, gum arabic, carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, other modified celluloses, sodium alginate, chitosan, chitin, casein, pectin, modified starch, polyvinyl acetal, polyvinyl butyral, polyvinyl methyl ether/maleic anhydride, polyvinyl pyrrolidone and its co polymers, poly(vinyl pyrrolidone/methacrylamidopropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride), polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate, polyvinyl pyrrolidone/dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate, polyvinyl amines, polyvinyl formamides, polyallyl amines, copolymers of polyvinyl amines, and mixtures thereof,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 25 recites the broad recitation “from 5 microns to 150 microns,” and the claim also recites “even from 10 to 50 microns” and “even from 15 to 50 microns,” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) 16, 20-23, and 25 are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation of “thiolactone” renders claim 17 indefinite because claim 17 is dependent from claim 10, to which said claim 10 is dependent from claim 9, and claim 9 is dependent from claim 1. Neither claims 1, 9, nor 10 is drawn to having a thiolactone. It is noted that claims 1, 9 and 10 are all drawn to “thiol” and not thiolactone. Thus, it is unclear what “the thiolactone” is claim 17 referencing to, as there is lack of antecedent basis for thiolactone in claims 1, 9 and 10. Clarification by amendment in claim 17 is required.
Regarding claim 19, the Markush group recitation of “selected from one or more of an isocyanate monomer, oligomer or prepolymer, dimer or trimer, having at least two isocyanate groups” renders claim 19 indefinite because metes and bounds of the alternative species for selection is unclear. The Markush group is written with the inclusion of many “or” makes it difficult to comprehend. For example, it is unclear how a “dimer or trimer, having at least two isocyanate groups” can be selected when “at least two isocyanate groups” encompassed tetramer, which are not dimer or trimer. It is noted that a proper Markush group of isocyanate compound of claim 19 can be: “selected from the group consisting of an isocyanate monomer, isocyanate oligomer, isocyanate prepolymer, isocyanate dimer, isocyanate trimer, isocyanate having at least two isocyanate groups, and mixtures thereof.” Clarification by amendment in claim 19 is required.
Regarding claim 22, the recitation of “the wall” renders claim 22 indefinite because there is lack of antecedent basis for “the wall” in claim 1 (to which claim 22 depends from). It is unclear what “the wall” is claim 22 referencing to, as the delivery particle of claim 2 does not contain a wall.
Regarding claim 22, the parenthetical recitation “(maximum 95%)” is indefinite because it is unclear if the text within the parenthesis are alternative limitations of the claims or merely descriptors of other elements of the claims. It is noted that [p]arenthetical expressions are not permissible which do not contribute to clearness or exactness in stating Applicant’s invention (Ex parte Cahill, 1893 C. D., 78; 63 O. G., 2125).
Regarding claim 23, the recitation of “the wall” renders claim 23 indefinite because there is lack of antecedent basis for “the wall” in claim 1 (to which claim 23 depends from). It is unclear what “the wall” is claim 23 referencing to, as the delivery particle of claim 2 does not contain a wall.
Regarding claim 24, the recitation of “the recitation of “as determined by the Leakage Test described in TEST METHODS section” renders claim 24 indefinite because it is unclear what description in the test methods section is claim 24 referring to, as the metes and bounds of test methods section or the leakage test is not clearly defined in the claim. It is noted that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification and thus, it is also improper to incorporate by reference a description from the specification into the claim. Clarification by amendment of 24 is required.
Regarding claim 28, the recitation of “the agricultural active” renders claim 28 indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 26. It is noted that claim 28 is dependent from claim 26, yet claim 26 is not drawn to an agricultural active. Thus, it is unclear what “the agricultural active” is claim 28 referencing to, as claim 26 does not contain an agriculture active.
As a result, claims 1-28 do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of patent protection desired.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-11, 17-21, 23, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akrach et al (WO 2022/013821 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Akrach teaches a biodegradable microcapsule comprising a core material, and a shell encapsulating the core material, wherein the core material is selected from the group comprising agrochemicals, aliphatic esters, anti-microbial agents, anti-fungal, anti-fouling agents, antioxidants, anti-viral agents, biocides, catalysts, cosmetic actives, dyes, colorants, detergents, edible oils, emollient oils, essential oils, fats, fatty acids, fatty acid esters, food additives, flavors, fragrances, hair care actives, halogenated compounds, hydrocarbons, insecticides, insect repellants, lipids, lipophilic scale inhibitors, mineral oil, oral care actives, organic solvents, organic esters, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, perfumes, preservatives, skin care actives, UV absorbers, vegetable oils and combinations thereof ([0001], [0017]-[0023], [0030]-[0039], [0060], [0073]-[0080], [00103], [00115]-[00131], [00155], [00294]-[00375]; claims 1-94). Akrach teaches the shell comprises a polymer containing an amine-thiol-ene conjugate formed from a reaction product of alkyl diamine or alkyl triamine with a thiol and a multifunctional (meth)acrylate ([0001], [0017]-[0023], [0030]-[0039], [0060], [0073]-[0080], [00103], [00115]-[00131], [00155], [00294]-[00375]; claims 1-94).
Regarding claim 2, Akrach teaches the amine is an alkyl diamine or alkyl triamine ([0030]-[0039], [0119], [00294]-[00375]; claims 17 and 81).
Regarding claim 5, Akrach teaches the ene is vinyl compound or an acrylate ([00294]-[00375]; claims 21-23 and 87-88).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 9-11, Akrach teaches the shell contains a free-radically crosslinked reaction product of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate with multifuctional (meth)acrylate and/or an isocyanate or a crosslinked reaction product of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate with a Michael adduct containing a multifunctional (meth)acrylate ([0017]-[0023], [0030]-[0039], [0060], [0073]-[0080], [00103], [00115]-[00131], [00155], [00294]-[00375]; claims 1-94).
Regarding claim 8, Akrach teaches the vinyl compound is a triacrylate such as trimethylolpropane triacrylate ([0123] and [00294]-[00375]).
Regarding claim 17, Akrach teaches the multifunctional (meth)acrylate is used in molar excess when compared to the thiol and amine ([00294]-[00375]).
Regarding claim 18, Akrach teaches the multifunctional (meth)acrylate is selected from the group consisting of trimethylol propane triacrylate, pentaerythritol triacrylate, pentaerythritol tetra acrylate, dipentaerythritol penta acrylate, and dipentaerythritol hexa acrylate ([0123] and [00294]-[00375]; claims 22 and 88).
Regarding claim 19, Akrach teaches the shell contains an isocyanate such as a difunctional or multifunctional isocyanate ([0160]).
Regarding claim 20, Akrach teaches the core material is a raw perfume fragrance material ([0030]-[0039], [0110], [0128], [00294]-[00375]; claims 27 and 28).
Regarding claim 21, Akrach teaches the core further contains isopropyl myristate or vegetable oil ([00128], [00167], [00279], [00292]).
Regarding claim 23, Akrach teaches the shell of the microcapsule is further coated with material such as sodium alginate ([00351]-[00352]).
Regarding claims 26-28, Akrach teaches agricultural product containing the biodegradable microcapsule ([00128], [00131], [00155]; claim 27).
As a result, the aforementioned teachings from Akrach are anticipatory to claims 1, 2, 5-11, 17-21, 23, and 26-28 of the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-11, and 17-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akrach et al (WO 2022/013821 A1). The delivery particles of claims 1, 2, 5-11, 17-21, 23, and 26-28 are discussed above, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claim 22, Akrach teaches that biodegradable microcapsule have biodegradability in accordance with OECD Test methods ([0067]-[0069], [00141]-[00150, [00159], [00353]-[00360]). Given that the delivery particle of claim 1 have been structurally taught by Akrach supra, the biodegradability property as recited in claim 22 would have been implicit in the structurally same delivery particle of Akrach, as it was discussed above, Akrach teaches that biodegradable microcapsule have biodegradability in accordance with OECD Test methods. Thus, it is noted that [w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 24, Akrach teaches the biodegradable microcapsule has long term retention before release of their cargo (release of the core material) ([0078], [00130], [00147], [00149]). Given that the delivery particle of claim 1 have been structurally taught by Akrach supra, the leakage property as recited in claim 24 would have been implicit in the structurally same delivery particle of Akrach, as it was discussed above, Akrach teaches that the biodegradable microcapsule has long term retention before release of their cargo (release of the core material). Thus, it is noted that [w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 25, Akrach teaches the biodegradable microcapsule has an average particle size in the range from about 1 µm to 100 µm ([00157]), which overlaps the claimed particle size range of claim 25. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results showing criticality from the claimed parameters, the optimization of the particle size of the delivery particle would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention. See MPEP §2144.05 (I)-(II).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1-21, 23, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akrach et al (WO 2022/013821 A1), and further in view of Espeel et al (European Polymer Journal, 2015, 62: 247-272).
The delivery particles of claims 1, 2, 5-11, 17-21, 23, and 26-28 are discussed above, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 12-13 and 15, Espeel teaches the use of thiolactone as thiol in the production of amine-thiol-ene conjugate (Abstract; pages 248-267). Espeel teaches that thiols have known issues of unpleasant smell and have a poor shelf life due to oxidation reactions and thus, the use of thiolactones as latent thiols resolve the thio-related issues, as thiolactones are not smelly and are recognized to be stable compounds (pages 248-252). Espeel teaches most commonly used thiolactones are γ-thiolactone derivatives such as α-amino-γ-butyrothiolactone and homocysteine-γ-thiolactone (pages 248-252).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a thiolactone such as amino-γ-butyrothiolactone or homocysteine-γ-thiolactone as the thiol in the production of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate of Akrach, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Espeel provided the guidance to do so by providing the direct guidance for using of thiolactone such as amino-γ-butyrothiolactone or homocysteine-γ-thiolactone as the thiol in the production of amine-thiol-ene conjugate of Akrach, as latent thiols such as amino-γ-butyrothiolactone and homocysteine-γ-thiolactone are preferred over thiols due to their advantage of resolving the known thio-related issues of unpleasant smell and poor shelf life. Thus, an ordinary artisan would have looked to using a thiolactone such as amino-γ-butyrothiolactone or homocysteine-γ-thiolactone as the thiol in the production of the amine-thiol-ene conjugate of Akrach so as to avoid unpleasant smell and provide a resultant amine-thiol-ene conjugate that is stable, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Akrach teaches suitable alkyl amine for use as the amine in the amine-thiol-ene conjugate includes diethylene triamine, tetraethylene pentamine, and polyethyleneimine ([0030]-[0039], [0119], [00294]-[00375]; claims 17 and 81).
Regarding claim 16, Espeel teaches the suitable molar ratio of the amine to thiol to ene in the conjugate include an equimolar ratio of 1:1:1 (pages 249-255).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely optimize the molar ratio of the amine to thiol to ene in the conjugate to a molar ratio as claimed, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Espeel provided the guidance to do so by providing the direct guidance for optimizing the molar ratio of the amine to thiol to ene in the conjugate to an equimolar ratio of 1:1:1, as this ratio is a suitable molar ratio for obtaining the amine-thiol-ene conjugate. Thus, an ordinary artisan would have looked to optimize the molar ratio of the amine to thiol to ene in the conjugate to a molar ratio of 1:1:1 so as to achieve the desired amine-thiol-ene conjugate, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOAN THI-THUC PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3288. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/DOAN T PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613