DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/550,587. The response to the restriction/election requirement dated 21 July 2026 is acknowledged.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction groups have been reconsidered following the amendment to Claim 109 which now depends upon Claim 74. The restriction between Group II, Group III and Group IV has been withdrawn. The restriction between Group I, Group II and Group V is maintained. The restriction groups are now the following:
Group I, Claims 1-4, 10-11, 24, 37, 45, 59, 102, 105-108 drawn to a block copolymer of structure E-A-L-B-L-A-E, a composition including the block copolymer in solvent, and methods of orienting two block copolymer domains with the block copolymer-solvent composition.
Group II, Claims 74, 78-79, 93, 95-96, 109, 112-115 drawn to a block copolymer of structure E1-A1-L1-B2-B1-B2-L1-A1-E1, a composition including the block copolymer in solvent, and methods of orienting two block copolymer domains with the block copolymer-solvent composition.
Group V, Claims 116, 126-129, 131-133, 135-139, drawn to the compound with the recited diarylethene structure (C1).
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-4, 10-11, 24, 37, 45, 59, 102, 105-108 in the reply filed on 21 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the oligo-flexible groups recited in Group I play the same role of kinetically enhancing the removal of defects during annealing as the low Tg B2 block segments recited in Group II, and because Group V (Claim 116) has been amended to recite a compound selected from a group of 1,1-diarylethene compounds that are not taught by ENOMOTO. This is not found persuasive because there is no required structural overlap between the oligo-flexible groups recited in Claim 1, which may be present on only one of the E, A, L and B blocks, and the alkene, alkadiene and alkatriene B2 blocks recited in Claim 74 which do not require oligo-flexible groups. Further, Claim 1 does not require the specific 1,1-diarylethene compounds recited by Claim 116 as the L group recited by Claim 1 can be satisfied by a direct valence bond or a by 1,1-diarylethene compound that does not satisfy Claim 116. Additionally, search burden not relevant for restriction of cases filed under 35 USC 371 where the requirement is focused on unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 74, 78-79, 93, 95-96, 109, 112-116, 126-129, 131-133, and 135-139 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 21 July 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 10-11, 24, 37, 45, 59, 102, 105-108 are objected to for the following reasons:
Claim 1 is objected to because it contains multiple sentences. A period should only occur at the end of the claim. The period is at the end of line 20. Claims 2-4, 10-11, 24, 37, 45, 59, 102, 105-108 are also objected to because they depend upon, and therefore include, Claim 1.
In Claim 1, in the definition of the E segment, please replace “carbonyloxyalkyl (-C=O-O-alkyl,” with “carbonyloxyalkyl (-C=O-O-alkyl),” so that the open parenthesis is paired with a closed parenthesis.
Claim 59 is objected to because the structural image in the claim has been corrupted and is no longer readable. Please restore the structural image for the claim that was present in the previous claim set.
In Claim 106, in the a1) section, please replace “the thickness of the average thickness” with “the average thickness”.
In Claim 107, please replace “Lo” with “L0” on the fifth line of the claim.
In Claim 107, at the end of the claim, please replace “the of topographical pattern.” With “of the topographical pattern.”
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.
Claim 106 and Claim 108 is 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 106 recites in the b1) section that the block copolymer domains are confined within “the recessed region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The presence of a recessed region has not been established in the claim language. The specification also provides no guidance that recessed regions are present in the first patterned substrate.
Claim 108 recites a formula for the pitch P2 which includes "L0". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not define L0. The claim depends upon and includes the limitations of Claim 102 and Claim 1, but neither Claim 102 nor Claim 1 define L0. Claims 105-107 each define L0 as either the periodicity of the block copolymer or periodicity of the block copolymer domains, but Claim 108 does not depend on any of Claims 105-107. Please define L0 within the scope of this claim so that the skilled users can apply it in the formula for the pitch P2 and can know whether they are within the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 37 and 102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARSHNEY (FR-2649401-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, VARSHNEY teaches a triblock copolymer A-B-C with blocks representing an acrylic, vinyl aromatic or methacrylic sequence (Abstract). VARSHNEY teaches that blocks A and C can be chosen from the same class of monomers, teaches A-B-A block structures (p. 5, par 4), and specifically mentions acrylic-b-vinylaromatic-b-acrylic and methacrylic-b-vinylaromatic-b-methacrylic sequences (p. 3, par. 2; p. 6, par. 2). These sequences match the recited E-A-L-B-L-A-E structure where E=H, L=direct valence bond, A=(meth)acrylic monomers and B=vinyl aromatic monomer. VARSHNEY teaches styrene and many styrene derivatives for its vinyl aromatic monomer and exemplifies styrene (p.2, par. 4; Examples 5 and 7) which satisfies the requirement that the B block has styrenic repeat units. VARSHNEY does not exemplify a (meth)acrylic-styrene-(meth)acrylic block copolymer but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of VARSHNEY and form a (meth)acrylic-styrene-(meth)acrylic block copolymer based on the teachings of the specification.
VARSHNEY teaches preparing its polymer by anionic polymerization and obtaining a polydispersity of 1.05-2 (Abstract; p. 2, par. 3, Claim 1). VARSHNEY exemplifies polydispersity as low as 1.10 which is close to the “about 1.09” maximum recited by the claim. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the examples of VARSHNEY and form block copolymers with a polydispersity within the 1.04-2 generally taught by VARSHNEY that is also within the range recited by the claim.
VARSHNEY teaches that its acrylic monomer can be a primary, secondary or tertiary alkyl acrylate with 1-18 carbon atoms which overlaps with the 6-19 carbon length specified in the instant specification for the length of an oligo flexible tethered group (cur spec: [0057]) and VARSHNEY teaches specific acrylates which satisfy the definition of having oligo flexible side groups including nonyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate and stearyl acrylate (p. 2, par. 5). VARSHNEY does not exemplify a (meth)acrylate with an oligo flexible side group, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the examples and use an acrylate with an oligo flexible groups such as nonyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate or stearyl acrylate based on the teachings of the specification. This puts oligo flexible groups on the A segments which satisfies the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, modified VARSHNEY teaches the invention of Claim 1 where VARSHNEY teaches acrylates such as nonyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate or stearyl acrylate (p.2, par. 5) which are alkyl 2-methylenealkanoates (see cur spec: [0045] for (meth)acrylates being alkyl 2-methylenealkanoates) with side chains of 9, 12 and 18 carbons which are within the 6-19 carbon length in the spec for oligo flexible groups (cur spec: [0057]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified VARSHNEY teaches the invention of Claim 1. VARSHNEY teaches that the molecular weight of its block copolymer ranges from about 20,000-300,000 (p. 2, par. 3) suggesting an overlaps with the 20,000-200,000 recited for each block, which calculates to an overall molecular weight of 60,000-600,000 for the claimed copolymer. VARSHNEY exemplifies many blocks, including styrene blocks and acrylate blocks, with molecular weights of 21,000-150,000 (Examples 2, 3, 45, 6, 7). It would be obvious to modify the invention of VARSHNEY and form styrene and acrylate copolymer blocks within the recited molecular weight range of 20,000-200,000 based on the teachings of the specification.
Regarding Claim 37, modified VARSHNEY teaches the invention of Claim 1 where VARSHNEY makes obvious a (meth)acrylate-styrene-(meth)acrylate block copolymer with oligo flexible groups in the (meth)acrylate blocks. This satisfies structure (5) where E=H, L=direct valence bond, and R3=R4=R5=R6=R7=H which is OK because the oligo flexible groups are on the (meth)acrylate (B) blocks. VARSHNEY does not specifically teach the -CH2-CH2- bond at the center of the styrenic block copolymer, but VARSHNEY teaches a similar of block copolymer formation using anionic polymerization that is disclosed in the instant application. One would inherently expect that the styrene blocks taught by VARSHNEY would also have these central -CH2-CH2- units in its styrene blocks where the orientation of the styrene changes direction.
Regarding Claim 102, modified VARSHNEY teaches the invention of Claim 1. VARSHNEY teaches polymerizing its copolymers in a solvent and specially teaches the solvent diglyme (p. 5, par. 5) which is a synonym for diethylene glycol dimethyl ether, which is one of the spin casting solvents disclosed in the instant specification (cur spec: [0129]).
Claims 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARSHNEY (FR-2649401-A1) in view of D’ALELIO (US-3287298-A).
Regarding Claim 37, modified VARSHNEY teaches the invention of Claim 1 above where VARSHNEY makes obvious a (meth)acrylate-styrene-(meth)acrylate block copolymer with oligo flexible groups in the (meth)acrylate blocks. This satisfies structure (5) where E=H, L=direct valence bond, and R3=R4=R5=R6=R7=H which is OK because the oligo flexible groups are on the (meth)acrylate (B) blocks. Claim 37 is rejected above under the argument that the -CH2-CH2- group in the center of the styrene block would be inherently present in the copolymer taught by VARSHNEY because VARSHNEY teaches similar anionic polymerization of block copolymers as is disclosed in the instant application. To the extent that VARSHNEY does not teach the presence of a central -CH2-CH2- group, D’ALELIO, in an invention of anionic polymerization of block copolymers with central styrene groups (Col 2: 35-40), teaches that its central styrene block can be prepared either in steps or in a single operation (Col 6: 6-66) which allows for regulated internal blocks (Col 7: 15-20). D’ALELIO teaches that its styrenic monomers can form dianions during the polymerization forming dianionic styrenic block:
PNG
media_image1.png
87
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This structure displays methylstyrene units in the middle, but D’ALELIO teaches that the same type of dianion is produced by starting with styrene dimers (Col 6: 34-35). This results in styrene blocks with a central -CH2-CH2- group allows for alignment of the styrene units with adjacent blocks (Col 7:20-23). This matches the similar section in structure (5) recited by the claim. That is, the central styrene block taught by D’ALELIO matches the styrene block in structure (5) where R3=R4=R5=R6=R7=H. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of VARSHNEY, if needed, with the teachings of D’ALELIO and allow the formation of dianionic styrenic blocks to form during its anionic polymerization for the purpose of allowing for regulated internal blocks in its copolymer.
Claims 1, 3-4, 37 and 102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’ALELIO (US-3287298-A) in view of VARSHNEY (FR-2649401-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, D’ALELIO teaches triblock copolymers with the following structure (Col 2: 35-40; Claims 2-3):
PNG
media_image2.png
108
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is an A-B-A block copolymer with A=stearyl methacrylate and B=styrene. This satisfies the recited structure where E=H, L=direct valence bond and the A blocks contain stearyl groups with 18 carbons which is within the 6-19 carbon length specified in the instant specification for the length of an oligo flexible tethered group (cur spec: [0057]).
D’ALELIO teaches anionic polymerization (Col 4: 6), but does not measure a polydispersity for its block copolymers. VARSHNEY, in an invention of block copolymers of acrylic, methacrylic and vinyl aromatic blocks (Abstract), teaches anionic polymerization of its block copolymers (p. 4, par 1) and teaches a polydispersity of 1.05-2 which overlaps the recited range of 1-1.09. It would be obvious to modify the anionically polymerized block copolymers of D’ALELIO with the teachings of VARSHNEY and obtain a polydispersity within the teachings of VARSHNEY that is also within the range recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, modified D’ALELIO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where D’ALELIO teaches an A-B-A copolymer between stearyl methacrylate and styrene (Col 2: 35-40; Claims 2-3). Stearyl methacrylate is an alkyl 2-methylenealkanoate (see cur spec: [0045] for (meth)acrylates being alkyl 2-methylenealkanoates) with a side chains of 18 carbons which are within the 6-19 carbon length in the spec for oligo flexible groups (cur spec: [0057]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified D’ALELIO teaches the invention of Claim 1. D’ALELIO teaches that the number of repeat units in each block is between 4 and 100,000 (Col 63-65) which corresponds to a molecular weight range of 417-10,400,000 for the styrene blocks and 1354-33,900,000 for the stearyl methacrylate blocks which encompasses the 20,000-200,000 range recited by the claim. D’ALELIO does not exemplify molecular weights for its blocks within the recited range but it would be obvious to modify the examples of D’ALELIO and use molecular weights for its blocks within the range taught by D’ALELIO in its specification that are also within the range recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 37, modified D’ALELIO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where D’ALELIO teaches an A-B-A copolymer between stearyl methacrylate and styrene (Col 2: 35-40; Claims 2-3) with oligo flexible stearyl groups in the methacrylate blocks. This satisfies structure (5) where E=H, L=direct valence bond, and R3=R4=R5=R6=R7=H which is OK because the oligo flexible groups are on the methacrylate (B) blocks. D’ALELIO teaches that its central styrene block can be prepared either in steps or in a single operation (Col 6: 6-66) which allows for regulated internal blocks (Col 7: 15-20). D’ALELIO teaches that its styrenic monomers can form dianions during the polymerization forming dianionic styrenic block:
PNG
media_image1.png
87
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This structure displays methylstyrene units in the middle, but D’ALELIO teaches that the same type of dianion is produced by starting with styrene dimers (Col 6: 34-35). This results in styrene blocks with a central -CH2-CH2- group allows for alignment of the styrene units with adjacent blocks (Col 7:20-23). Note that this alignment matches the structure cited in the Claim 1 rejection where the stearyl methacrylate blocks are oriented in the opposite direction on each end of the styrene block. This matches the similar section in structure (5) recited by the claim. So, the central styrene block taught by D’ALELIO matches the styrene block in structure (5) where R3=R4=R5=R6=R7=H.
Regarding Claim 102, modified D’ALELIO teaches the invention of Claim 1. D’ALELIO teaches polymerizing its copolymers in a solvent and teaches several ethylene glycol ether derivatives (Col 8: 35-45) which are listed in the instant specification as suitable spin casting solvents (cur spec: [0129]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10-11, 24, 45, 59, and 105-108 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, VARSHNEY (FR-2649401-A1), cited in the rejections above, teaches (meth)acrylate-styrene-(meth)acrylate block copolymer where the (meth)acrylate blocks can contain oligo flexible groups, but VARSHNEY does not teach lactone unites recited by Claim 2, diphenylethylene units that are recited in Claims 10-11, 24, 45, and 59, the end groups recited in Claim 45, or the methods of orienting block copolymer domains that are recited in Claims 105-108. D’ALELIO teaches a stearyl methacrylate-styrene-stearyl methacrylate block copolymer with oligo flexible stearyl groups in the methacrylate blocks but D’ALELIO does not teach lactone units recited by Claim 2, diphenylethylene units that are recited in Claims 10-11, 24, 45, and 59, the end groups recited in Claim 45, or the methods of orienting block copolymer domains that are recited in Claims 105-108.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights