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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant’s request for continued examination and amendment/remarks filed 12/22/2025. Claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 17-25 are currently pending.
The IDS statement filed 12/22/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
Response to Amendment & Arguments
The 103 rejections of independent claims 1 and 11 and their dependent claims over or based-on Poncelet et al. (US 2014/0027668 A1) and Poncelet et al. (US 2014/0027668 A1) in view of Townsend (US 2014/0190644 A1) are withdrawn in view of the above amendment and Applicant’s present remarks.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The current rejection utilizes new references under new grounds of rejection over newly added claims 20-25. See the new 103 rejections, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molyneux (Water-Soluble Synthetic Polymers: Properties and Behavior, Vol. I, Chapter 2, Nonionic Polymers, p.19-71, 1983).
As to claim 20, Molyneux teaches a section on polypropylene oxide, aka polypropylene glycol or PPG, and its general properties and behavior including water solubility (p.45-56). Notably, p.48 and 49 disclose phase equilibria for PPG solubility in water. Generally, Molyneux teaches solubility decreases when molecular weight increases. The reference reports solubility of various PPG molecular weights at various concentrations and temperatures. The critical temperature disclosed in the reference is equivalent to a cloud point (the temperature at which PPG separates from the water and forms a second phase distinct from the water).
The teachings of Molyneux fail to meet the claims under the meaning of anticipation.
Entry 5 in Table 5 on p.49 discloses a PPG with a molecular weight up to 1025 across concentrations of 1-79 wt.% in water. While this entry was performed for determining solubility at 27°C (rather than determining cloud points/solubility at temperatures less than 18°C as claimed), this entry in the table nevertheless motivates mixtures of a roughly 1,000 molecular weight PPG and water with a PPG concentration overlapping that claimed. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a glycol polymer composition comprising about 20-25 wt.% PPG and remainder (about 75-80 wt.%) water from the cited teachings of Molyneux.
Alternatively, the second paragraph in subsection F on p.48 discloses various critical temperature, i.e., cloud point, values for various aqueous PPG solutions (e.g., 30 wt.% of 400 Mw PPG has a critical temperature of 50°C, 25 wt.% of 400 Mw PPG has a critical temperature of 44°C, 60 wt.% of 1,200 Mw PPG has a critical temperature of -7°C, etc.). These values coupled with Molyneux’s additional teaching that PPG oligomers of molecular weights up to 2,000 are appreciable water soluble and are generally insoluble in water above molecular weights of 2,000 (see the first paragraph in subsection A. on p.46) motivate and encompass mixtures of PPG with a molecular weight up to 2,000 in water with a PPG concentration overlapping that claimed. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a glycol polymer composition comprising about 20-25 wt.% PPG and remainder (about 75-80 wt.%) water from the cited teachings of Molyneux in order to determine solubility (and insolubility), i.e., critical temperatures/cloud points, of PPG with a molecular weight up to 2,000 in water.
While Molyneux’s PPG+water compositions intrinsically contain an enthalpy of liquid-liquid phase transition (or else there would not be a transition of solubility to insolubility) and cloud point temperature (Id.) the precisely claimed values/ranges thereof would flow naturally from the disclosure of the reference as Molyneux motivates 20-25 wt.% PPG and 75-80 wt.% water compositions that has a critical temperature/cloud point, where the two are soluble below the value and insoluble above the value, which is substantially the same as and encompasses that claimed. The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). The discovery (or quantification, etc.) of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Any remaining claim limitations (presence of a dialkylene glycol alkyl ether) are optional.
As to claims 21 and 22, the rationale set forth above has one rationale to a molecular weight of about 1,025 which overlaps or is within the claimed range of 1,000-3,000 and another rationale to a molecular weight of up to about 2,000 which overlaps or is within the claimed range of 1,000-3,000 and encompasses a molecular weight of about 2,000 (Id.).
As to claim 23, the above rationale of claim 20 encompasses and meets the claimed limitation hat the amount of water comprises about 75 wt.% of the composition (Id.).
As to claim 24, the reference meets the claimed limitations because they are directly recited as entirely optional.
As to claim 25, the recited limitations are essentially the combined scope of claims 22-24, which the reference meets for the reasons explained above.
Claims 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (WO 89/07976 A1).
As to claim 20, Harris is drawn to poly(alkylene carbonate) polyahl surfactants having the ability to disperse in water and/or solubilize incompatible components (abstract and p.3 lines 31-36). An exemplary composition that is solubilized by the inventive surfactant is a blend of polypropylene glycol (PPG) of 2000 molecular weight and water (p.37 lines 8-15). It is disclosed 10g of each component were combined with agitation (meaning the composition comprises 50 wt.% of PPG and 50 wt.% water), and the mixture rapidly separates into two immiscible liquid phases (meaning there exists a liquid-liquid phase transition, enthalpy thereof, and the cloud point of the composition is a temperature value that is less than room temperature; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the temperature of the experiment was performed at room temperature absent a disclosure to the contrary).
While Harris’s example fails to meet the about 20-25 wt.% concentration of PPG, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to nevertheless arrive at a glycol polymer composition comprising about 20-25 wt.% PPG and remainder (about 75-80 wt.%) water from the cited teachings of Harris as Harris’s disclosure teaching a 50/50 blend of PPG/water as forming two liquid phases that can be stabilized by their inventive surfactant motivates other mixtures of 2000 molecular weight PPG and water forming two liquid phases that can be stabilized by their inventive surfactant. Differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
While Harris’s PPG+water composition intrinsically contains an enthalpy of liquid-liquid phase transition and cloud point temperature (Id.) the precisely claimed values/ranges thereof would flow naturally from the disclosure of the reference as Harris motivates a 20-25 wt.% PPG and 75-80 wt.% water composition that forms two liquid phases which is precisely the same as and encompasses that claimed. The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). The discovery (or quantification, etc.) of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Any remaining claim limitations (presence of a dialkylene glycol alkyl ether) are optional.
As to claims 21 and 22, the disclosed PPG has a molecular weight of about 2,000 (Id.).
As to claim 23, the above rationale of claim 20 encompasses and meets the claimed limitation hat the amount of water comprises about 75 wt.% of the composition (Id.).
As to claim 24, the reference meets the claimed limitations because they are directly recited as entirely optional.
As to claim 25, the recited limitations are essentially the combined scope of claims 22-24, which the reference meets for the reasons explained above.
Claims 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheluget et al. (“Liquid-liquid equilibrium of aqueous mixtures of poly(propylene glycol) with NaCl”, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 1994, 39, 127-130).
As to claim 20, Cheluget et al. teach glycol polymer compositions that form aqueous two-phase system comprising aqueous mixtures of polypropylene glycol (PPG) with NaCl (abstract). Generally, stock solutions of components comprising water and polypropylene glycol are mixed and then their liquid-liquid phase separation characteristics analyzed (pages 128-129). Cheluget et al. teach the effect of temperature on the binodal curve of PPG (with a molecular weight of 425) + NaCl + water at various temperatures (278 K, 298 K, and 333 K, i.e., 5°C, 25°C, and 60°C) at Figure 4. Note that Figure 2 displays a binodal curve of the same PPG 425 + NaCl + water and indicates the composition is a single liquid phase below the curve, two liquid phases above the curve, and a mix of a liquid and solid phases above a straight line drawn between the two extremities of the curve. This means that, in Figure 4, the composition is a single liquid phase below the respective curve, two liquid phases above the respective curve, and a mix of a liquid and solid phases above a straight line drawn between the two extremities of the respective curve. Accordingly, Figure 4 encompasses compositions comprising 20-25 wt.% PPG and water that are present as a single liquid phase at temperatures below 18°C but present as two liquid phases above 18°C (meaning there exists a liquid-liquid phase transition and enthalpy thereof) as claimed.
While the teachings of Cheluget et al. are not fairly anticipatory of the claimed limitations, they nevertheless describe phase equilibria of compositions equivalent to or overlapping those claimed with cloud point characteristics that motivate formulation of composition with components and features overlapping those claimed.
See the below annotation of Figure 4. The dotted lines correspond to 1) about 20 wt.% PPG, about 8 wt.% NaCl, and remainder about 72 wt.% water and 2) about 25 wt.% PPG, about 6.5 wt.% NaCl, and remainder about 68.5 wt.% water that are both present as a single liquid phase at 5°C but present as two liquid phases at 25°C, meaning they have a cloud point between the two encompassing the claimed cloud point temperature of less than about 18°C as claimed:
PNG
media_image1.png
352
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The trend in Figure 4 (the trend that increasing the temperature increases the area of a two-phase coexistance) also motivates other compositions with larger amounts of NaCl (above the curve(s), within the liquid-liquid region(s) of the reported 5, 25, and 33°C, e.g., 1) about 20 wt.% PPG, about 9 wt.% NaCl, and remainder about 70 wt.% water and 2) about 25 wt.% PPG, about 8 wt.% NaCl, and remainder about 67 wt.% water) that would be a single liquid phase at lower temperatures (below the lowest reported 5°C) but then present as two liquid phases at 5°C, which certainly have a cloud point temperature of less than about 18°C as claimed.
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a glycol polymer composition comprising about 20-25 wt.% PPG, some amount of NaCl, and remainder water from the cited teachings of Cheluget et al. teaching and motivating blends thereof that are a single liquid phase at low temperatures but then have a cloud point encompassing the less than 18°C range claimed to amount to two liquid phases at higher temperatures of 5°C and 25°C.
While Cheluget et al.’s composition intrinsically contains an enthalpy of liquid-liquid phase transition (Id.) the precisely claimed value/range thereof would flow naturally from the disclosure of the reference as Harris motivates a composition comprising 20-25 wt.% PPG and water that forms two liquid phases above a relatively low cloud point which is substantially the same as and encompasses that claimed. The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). The discovery (or quantification, etc.) of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Any remaining claim limitations (presence of a dialkylene glycol alkyl ether) are optional.
As to claim 24, the reference meets the claimed limitations because they are directly recited as entirely optional.
Claim 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheluget et al. (“Liquid-liquid equilibrium of aqueous mixtures of poly(propylene glycol) with NaCl”, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 1994, 39, 127-130) as applied to claims 20 and 24 above, and further in view of Molyneux (Water-Soluble Synthetic Polymers: Properties and Behavior, Vol. I, Chapter 2, Nonionic Polymers, p.19-71, 1983).
The disclosure of Cheluget et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Cheluget et al. teaches compositions comprising PPG, NaCl, and water that are a single phase at lower temperatures and form two liquid phases at higher temperatures (Id.). Cheluget et al., citing Molyneux, teach low molecular weights of PPG are soluble in water while high molecular weights are only partially soluble (second paragraph, introduction section). However, the exemplary PPG in the reference are limited to PPG with molecular weights of 425 and 725.
As to claims 21 and 22, Cheluget et al. fail to teach or suggest PPG with molecular weights of 1,000-3,000 or about 2,000, as claimed.
However, Molyneux teaches a section on polypropylene oxide, aka polypropylene glycol or PPG, and its general properties and behavior including water solubility (p.45-56), clarifying that PPG oligomers of molecular weights up to 2,000 are appreciable water soluble and are generally insoluble in water above molecular weights of 2,000 (see the first paragraph in subsection A. on p.46).
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide PPG with a molecular weight of up to 2,000 as the PPG in the PPG+NaCl+water system of Cheluget et al. in order to obtain other additional liquid-liquid systems (beyond the 425 and 725 examples) with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 23, the combination of references meets the claimed limitations. Cheluget et al. teach another trend in their compositions is that, at a fixed PPG concentration, the NaCl concentration to form a two liquid phase system-capable composition decreases as the molecular weight of PPG increases (see Figure 5 and Results and Discussion section). Accordingly, provision of a higher molecular weight PPG (from Molyneux) into Cheluget et al. substantially decreases the amount of NaCl needed to form a two liquid phase system-capable composition, meaning the amount of water (in compositions comprising about 20-25 wt.% PPG and a decreased amount of NaCl) increases to amounts encompassing about 75 wt.% water as claimed.
As to claim 25, the recited limitations are essentially the combined scope of claims 22-24, which the references meet for the reasons explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 17-19 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to teach or suggest liquid-liquid phase transition compositions comprising a glycol polymer in an amount greater than zero and less than about 18 wt.%, a solvent, and a C1-C6 alkyl glycol ether (independent claim 1) or comprising polypropylene glycol with a number average molecular weight of 2,000-3,000, water, and a C1-C6 alkyl glycol ether with a cloud point temperature that is less than about 18°C (independent claim 11).
Poncelet et al. (US 2014/0027668 A1) Poncelet et al. teach an antifreeze agent composition where the composition comprises a polymer having a critical solubility temperature or LCST in water of 20 to 80°C (abstract). The composition has a reversible hydrophilic/hydrophobic phase change mechanism such that below 20°C/the LCST the polymer is miscible in water but phase separates into a two-phase medium above 20°C/the LCST (para. 0011-0018). The polymer comprises 20-50% volume weight of the composition (para. 0026). Poncelet et al. teach the composition may further comprise glycols as alcohol additive(s) such as diethylene glycol (para. 0063-0073); diethylene glycol is an alkylene glycol alkyl ether where the alkyl group is a C1-C6 alkyl; see also other glycol ether species in para. 0073. However, Poncelet et al. fail to teach or suggest (and arguably teaches away from) the claimed features that the glycol polymer is in an amount of less than about 18% of the composition as recited in claim 1 and the cloud point temperature of the composition is less than about 18°C as recited in claim 11. See also Applicant’s persuasive arguments to Poncelet et al. in the remarks filed 12/22/2025.
Townsend (US 2014/0190644 A1) teaches release agent compositions comprising a release agent comprising a quaternary imidazoline compound, an imidazoline free base, and/or an oil-based dispersion and a polyether including polypropylene glycol and/or polyethylene glycol where the release agent composition has a cloud point in water of 1-98°C (abstract). However, Townsend et al. fail to teach or suggest the additional presence of a C1-C6 alkyl glycol ether as claimed. Townsend et al. also arguably fails to teach the presence of water/solvent as claimed as the cloud point is merely describing the composition when placed in water not that the composition comprises water.
Molyneux (Water-Soluble Synthetic Polymers: Properties and Behavior, Vol. I, Chapter 2, Nonionic Polymers, p.19-71, 1983), Harris (WO 89/07976 A1), and Cheluget et al. (“Liquid-liquid equilibrium of aqueous mixtures of poly(propylene glycol) with NaCl”, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 1994, 39, 127-130) each teach and suggest various blends of polypropylene glycol and water that have liquid-liquid phase transition properties. However, these references fail to teach or suggest the additional presence of a C1-C6 alkyl glycol ether as recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or described above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
March 11, 2026