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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-27 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/30/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to as reading “triacryl” not “triacyl” glyceride. This appears to be an inadvertent typographical error. For the purpose of on the merits the Examiner will interpret the claims as reciting “triacyl” instead of triacryl. Appropriate correction is requested.
Specification
The specification is objected to for reading “triacryl” instead of triacyl (Paragraph [0007]), Line 23), (Paragraph [0008], Line 3), (Paragraph [0009], Line 6), (Paragraph [0058]), Line 16), and (Paragraph [0068]), Line 20). This appears to be an inadvertent typographical error. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez US 20190300637.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, Hernandez teaches a block copolymer comprising three blocks PA, PB and PC (Paragraph [0022]). Hernandez teaches block A is a polymerized lactic acid monomer (Paragraph [0023]). The PLLA block reads on the limitations of formula (1) where R3 is a C2 substituted alkylene and b is zero. Hernandez also teaches the PLLA block or PA block comprises CTA end groups (Paragraph [0047]). The PLLA block reads on the claimed polylactide. This reads on the limitations of claim 1 where R4 is an carbonotrithioate substituted alkyl group where the end group is -S-C(S)-S- (Paragraph [0037]), and d and e are zero.
Hernandez also teaches the PC block comprises a polymerized triglyceride (Paragraph [0025]). Hernandez teaches the polymerized triglyceride can be an acrylated epoxidized soybean oil (Claim 53). It would have been obvious to select acrylated epoxidized soybean oil as the polymerized triglyceride because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. This reads on the claimed “soybean oil”
A polymerized acrylated epoxidized soybean oil has the structure of formula (II) where R1 is a hydrogen and R4 is a carbonotrithioate substituted alkyl group where the end group is -S-C(S)-S-.
Hernandez is silent on the value of a, and c. However, Hernandez does teach that the PA block has a MW of 10-30kDa and PC block has a MW of 5-500 KDa (Paragraph [0022]). The range of 5-500 kDa overlaps with the claimed range of 10-1000 kDa. Hernandez also teaches the total degree of polymerization of the block is less than 100,000 (Paragraph [0009]).
The MW of the repeat unit polylactide is 72 therefore the a value of the PA block is from 138-416. This falls within the claimed range of a+b.
The MW of AESO is 1200-1300. The range of the PAESO or PC block is therefore 4-400. This overlaps with the claimed range of c.
Regarding claim 2, Hernandez teaches the PA block is made by polymerizing one or more monomers (Paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious for the PA block to be made by polymerizing more than one monomer because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. This reads on the claimed “copolymer.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 ET.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights