DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 3/30/26. In particular, claim 20 has been amended to removed species, require air and require the composition is free of activation agents. Claims 40-47 are new.
The newly introduced limitations and/or the new claims were not present at the time of the preceding 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 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 43-47 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.
Claim 43 (which claims 44-47 depend upon) recites the limitation "the one or more solvents" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 20-22, 24-25, 27, 31, 43-45 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. Journal of Polymer Science: Part A: Polymer Chemistry Vol. 48, 2716-2721, 2010 (herein Jiang).
As to claims 20-21, 24, 43-45, Jiang discloses a polymerization composition that comprises solvent (DMSO), a nitrogen containing ligand (Hexamethylated tris(2-aminoethyl)amine, Me6 -TREN) and a dormant (inactive) transition metal (Cu2O and/or CuO, see page 2717). See examples. The composition is prepared in the presence of air and is activated by removal of oxygen and heating. See examples. Note that further addition of air deactivates the system into a dormant state and further removal of oxygen (purging via a degassing cycle) once again activates the system. The composition is prepared at room temperature.
The system does not comprise activation agents capable of activating the dormant transition metal catalyst system, as it can only be activated by removal of oxygen. See examples on page 2720. The dormant species (Cu2O and/or CuO) are formed from adding the ligand to copper wire (Cu source). See pages 2717-1720. Further, note that the Cu(0) wire wrapped on a stirbar could be seen as an activation agent, however it is removed from the composition (“held above the reaction mixture”). Thus, no activation agent is present.
As to the preamble, Jiang is silent on the composition for forming polymer brushes on a surface of a substrate, however this is an intended use. Since the polymerization composition is identical, it is capable of this intended use. Further, page 2716, left column states that the polymerization composition is suitable for graft polymerization to form graft polymers.
As to claim 22, the composition comprises acrylates (e.g. methyl acrylate, MA). See examples on page 2720.
As to claim 25 and 31, the stirbar with copper wire is readded/remixed to the reaction mixture, which acts as an oxygen scavenger. See page 2717 stating that “O2 was scavenged by the Cu(0) wire”.
As to claim 27, Jiang also discloses that hydrazine hydrate can be utilized to help reactive the copper. See page 2717.
As to claim 47, the ligan (Me6Tren) is in excess to the dormant species after removal of the stirbar. See examples noting that the ligand is in equilibrium and that excess Cu is removed when the stirbar is removed.
Claim(s) 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0090516 (herein Mantha).
As to claims 43-44, Mantha discloses a method of preparing a polymerization composition comprising adding a nitrogen containing ligand (bis(2-pyridylmethyl) octadecylamine) containing a solid Cu source (CuBr2 powder) in air to form a dormant transition metal catalyst system. See paragraph 31. Wherein the dormant system is formed the Cu source and the ligand. The composition is free of activation agent (hydrazine), which is added later. See paragraph 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 25, 27, 31, 43-45 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. Journal of Polymer Science: Part A: Polymer Chemistry Vol. 48, 2716-2721, 2010 (herein Jiang).
The discussion with respect to Jiang set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claims 25, etc. assuming arguendo that Cu wire does not read on activation agent, page 2717 states that the freeze pump thaw cycles may be removed by utilizing small amounts of hydrazine hydrate to activate the Cu catalyst and reduce the induction period and time overall for the polymerization process. In doing so, the reaction can be performed in the air.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition and method of Jiang with adding hydrazine hydrate to the reaction mixture as an activation agent to polymerize the composition and thus reducing steps, material (nitrogen) and time.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. Journal of Polymer Science: Part A: Polymer Chemistry Vol. 48, 2716-2721, 2010 (herein Jiang) and US 2014/0221573 (herein Schall)
The discussion with respect to Jiang set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
Jiang is silent on the catalyst copper source being copper (Cu) tubing.
Schall teaches similar ATRP polymerizations. See abstract and examples. Schall teaches that the catalyst may be copper wire or copper tubing etc. See paragraph 122.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition and methods of Jiang with the copper tubing as a copper source as suggested by Schall because Schall teaches that it is a suitable source for copper for ATRP.
Claim(s) 20-22, 24-25, 27, 31, 33, 37, 40-41, 43-44 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,033,159 (herein Husson) in view of Jiang et al. Journal of Polymer Science: Part A: Polymer Chemistry Vol. 48, 2716-2721, 2010 (herein Jiang).
As to claims 20, 22, and 43-44, Husson discloses a polymerization composition comprising monomers (e.g. methacrylate, see col. 3, lines 33-50), a solvent (see col. 4, lines 10-55), a nitrogen containing ligand (HMTETA, see col. 4, lines 25-57) and a dormant transition metal catalyst derived from Cu (see col. 4, lines 35-55). Note that Copper oxide (CuO or Cu2O powder, see col. 4, lines 45-50) reads on the dormant metal. Also see examples.
The composition may comprise oxygen scavengers (see col. 5, lines 20-25) and reducing agents (see col. 4, lines 25-55) such as hydrazine.
As to the limitation “for forming polymer brushes on a surface of a substrate”, see col. 3, lines 4-15 and col. 5, lines 13-60 stating that membranes (substrate) surfaces are grafted with the composition to form “brushes” via “surface-initiated ATRP.”
Husson is silent on the reaction being in the presence of air.
Jiang is directed towards similar ATRP polymerizations. See abstract and examples. Jiang states that the addition of hydrazine hydrate allows the polymerization to proceed under air, thus reducing steps such as freeze pump thaw cycles to remove air and reducing time, including reducing the induction period and time overall for the polymerization process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition and method of Husson with adding hydrazine hydrate to the reaction mixture under air as an activation agent to polymerize the composition and thus reducing steps, material (nitrogen) and time and arriving at the claimed invention.
As to claim 21, the composition appears to be prepared at room temperature since no temperature is given in the examples.
As to claim 25, 27 and 31, a reaction (polymerization) composition is taught comprising the composition disclosed above and an oxygen scavenger to remove dissolved oxygen to prevent problems (see col. 5, lines 20-25), such as deactivation of polymerization (see paragraph bridging col. 1-2). With the recitation “activated on demand”, the composition is polymerized with the oxygen scavenger (reducing agent) present, which, as elucidated above, allowed polymerization.
As to claims 33, 39 and 41, a method for forming polymer brushes on a membrane (substrate) is taught comprising providing a substrate having polymerization initiators attached to the surface. See col. 3, lines 4-15 and col. 5, lines 13-60. Also see examples. Mixing a polymerization composition comprising monomers (e.g. methacrylate, see col. 3, lines 33-50), a solvent (see col. 4, lines 10-55), a ligand (see col. 4, lines 25-57) and a transition metal catalyst derived from Cu (see col. 4, lines 35-55). Also see examples. The composition is also mixed with additional reducing agent (oxygen scavenger, see col. 5, lines 20-25) such as ascorbic acid. See col. 4, line 46. Note that ascorbic acid is added after all else in the examples.
The reaction composition is brought into contact with the substrate and brushes are formed on the polymerization initiators (sites). See examples.
As to claim 37, the substrate is immersed. See claim 1 of Husson.
As to claims 39-40, the instant order of adding the substrate after mixing in the activation agent is not explicitly taught. However, changes in the sequence of adding ingredients has been shown to be prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. C. In the instant case, one would have been faced with only a few sequences to chose from and one may chose to add the substrate second after adding the hydrazine for convenience.
As to claim 47, the ligand is in excess. See examples.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,033,159 (herein Husson) in view of Jiang et al. Journal of Polymer Science: Part A: Polymer Chemistry Vol. 48, 2716-2721, 2010 (herein Jiang) and US 6858,309 (herein Kambouris).
The discussion with respect to Husson and Jiang set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 34, Husson is silent on repeating the step to form additional layers of polymer brushes.
Kambouris discloses that the “polymerization may be repeated multiple times to generate complex co-polymers and ter-polymer grafts” via utilizing different monomers (and thus reading on claim 34). See col. 7, lines 45-65. Further, the act of repeating the brush step would obviously increase the thickness of the brushes (if same monomer and thus reading on claim 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have repeated the process of Husson as suggested by Kambouris because one would want to arrive at the desired complexity of the polymer brushes/grafts and to increase the thickness of the brushes.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,033,159 (herein Husson) in view of Jiang et al. Journal of Polymer Science: Part A: Polymer Chemistry Vol. 48, 2716-2721, 2010 (herein Jiang) and US 2003/0060587 (herein Roos).
The discussion with respect to Husson and Jiang set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 36, Husson is silent on GMA.
Roos teaches that GMA (glycidyl methacrylate) is a suitable monomer. See paragraph 179.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition of Husson with GMA as suggested by Roos because Roos teaches that it is a suitable monomer in ATRP.
Claim(s) 42 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,033,159 (herein Husson) in view of Jiang et al. Journal of Polymer Science: Part A: Polymer Chemistry Vol. 48, 2716-2721, 2010 (herein Jiang) and US 2014/0221573 (herein Schall)
The discussion with respect to Husson and Jiang set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
Husson is silent on the catalyst copper source being copper (Cu) tubing.
Schall teaches similar ATRP polymerizations. See abstract and examples. Schall teaches that the catalyst may be copper wire or copper tubing etc. See paragraph 122.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the composition and methods of Husson with the copper tubing as a copper source as suggested by Schall because Schall teaches that it is a suitable source for copper for ATRP.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 3/30/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 11,834,541 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights