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
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1–14, in the reply filed on July 21, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that LASKOWSKI discloses an ABC triblock copolymer rather than the claimed ABAC tetrablock copolymer and therefore does not defeat the patentability of the elected claims. This is not found persuasive because LASKOWSKI was not relied upon as expressly disclosing the claimed ABAC tetrablock copolymer, but rather to show that the tetrablock configuration would have been obvious over the disclosed ABC triblock configuration and therefore does not constitute a special technical feature over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 21, 2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (has PRO 63201382, filed on April 27, 2021; is 371 of PCT/IB2022/053064, filed on April 01, 2022) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “10 to 70 mole percent first monomeric unit of Formula (I)” should be corrected to read “10 to 70 mole percent of first monomeric unit of Formula (I)” for grammar.
The phrase “and [[a]] 30 to 90 mole percent of second monomeric unit of Formula (II)” should be corrected to read “and 30 to 90 mole percent of second monomeric unit of Formula (II)” for grammar.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “at least 35 weight percent A block” should be corrected to read “at least 35 weight percent of the A block” for grammar.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “wherein the tetrablock has 10 to 30 weight percent C block” should be corrected to read “wherein the tetrablock copolymer has 10 to 30 weight percent C block” for consistency with the previously introduced term.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “has [[a]] 0 to 40 mole percent of unsaturated carbon-carbon double bonds” should be corrected to read “has 0 to 40 mole percent of unsaturated carbon-carbon double bonds” for grammar.
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.
Claims 1-14 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 1 recites “first monomeric unit of Formula (I)” and “second monomeric unit of Formula (II).” It is unclear whether “first” and “second” are intended to distinguish the monomeric units represented by Formula (I) and Formula (II), respectively, or whether the recitation of a “first monomeric unit of Formula (I)” implies the existence of a second monomeric unit of Formula (I), and the recitation of a “second monomeric unit of Formula (II)” implies the existence of a first monomeric unit of Formula (II). Applicant may amend Claim 1 to clarify the relationship, for example, by reciting “a first monomeric unit consisting of Formula (I)” and “a second monomeric unit consisting of Formula (II).” Claims 2–14 depend from Claim 1 and are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the tetrablock has 10 to 30 weight percent C block.” It is unclear whether the weight percent is based on the total weight of the tetrablock copolymer, the combined weight of particular blocks, or another basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “0 to 40 mole percent of unsaturated carbon-carbon double bonds post hydrogenation.” The instant SPEC discloses that the 0 to 40 mole percent represents the proportion of the original carbon-carbon double bonds in the B block that remain after hydrogenation (¶[0037]). It is unclear whether the recited 0 to 40 mole percent refers to the proportion of the original double bonds remaining after hydrogenation or to the mole percent of unsaturated carbon-carbon double bonds present in the hydrogenated B block. Applicant may amend Claim 11 to clarify the basis of the recited 0 to 40 mole percent.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOK et al. (US20200047135A1, hereinafter MOK) in view of SCHÖMER et al. (Water-Soluble “Poly(propylene oxide)” by Random Copolymerization of Propylene Oxide with a Protected Glycidol Monomer, 2012, hereinafter SCHÖMER).
Regarding Claim 1, MOK discloses a porous membrane comprising a pentablock copolymer, wherein the porous membrane is prepared by solvent-induced phase separation and the pentablock copolymer comprises two terminal blocks, two glassy intermediate blocks, and a rubbery central block (¶¶[0028]–[0029]).
The hard B blocks are selected from vinyl aromatic monomers, including styrene (¶[0033]), which correspond to the claimed “A blocks.” The C blocks are selected from polymerized conjugated diene monomers, including butadiene and isoprene, and include hydrogenated conjugated diene blocks (¶[0036]), which correspond to the claimed “B blocks.” The A blocks comprise poly(alkylene oxide) blocks, including poly(ethylene oxide) and poly(propylene oxide), and are derived from ring-opening anionic polymerization of oxiranes, including ethylene oxide and propylene oxide (¶¶[0042]–[0044]), which correspond to the claimed “C blocks.”
Transitioning from a carbon-centered propagating anion to an oxygen-centered propagating anion terminates anionic polymerization of the vinyl aromatic or conjugated diene. Addition of ethylene oxide to a styrenic anion end-caps the polymer chain with a hydroxyl, oxygen-centered anionic functionality that prevents further vinyl aromatic or conjugated diene polymerization while initiating further ring-opening polymerization (¶[0063]).
The functional initiator is reacted with B monomers followed by C monomers to form a Li–[C block]–[B block]–FG intermediate, which is further reacted with a second quantity of B monomers and ethylene oxide or another oxirane to monofunctionalize a terminus, followed by deprotection to form a difunctional telechelic block copolymer and reaction with additional A monomer to form the pentablock copolymer (¶[0069]). The disclosed A-B-C-B-A pentablock corresponds to C-A-B-A-C in the terminology of the instant claim and contains the claimed A-B-A-C tetrablock sequence.
In Preparatory Example 6, a poly(ethylene oxide-styrene-isoprene-styrene-ethylene oxide) pentablock copolymer (OSISO) is prepared from an HO-SIS-OH triblock precursor by initiating ring-opening polymerization with potassium naphthalenide and reacting the precursor with ethylene oxide to form terminal poly(ethylene oxide) blocks (¶¶[0165]–[0170]), which correspond to the claimed Formula (I) units where R² is hydrogen.
In Preparatory Example 7, a poly(propylene oxide-styrene-isoprene-styrene-propylene oxide) pentablock copolymer (PSISP) is prepared from an HO-SIS-OH triblock precursor by reacting the precursor with propylene oxide in the presence of P4 phosphazene base and tri-isobutyl aluminum to form terminal poly(propylene oxide) blocks (¶¶[0171]–[0174]), which correspond to the claimed Formula (II) units where R³ is methyl (CH₃), an alkyl.
However, MOK does not explicitly disclose the C block comprising both a first monomeric unit of Formula (I) and a second monomeric unit of Formula (II), wherein the C block comprises 10 to 70 mole percent of the first monomeric unit and 30 to 90 mole percent of the second monomeric unit, based on total moles of monomeric units in the C block.
SCHÖMER discloses hydrophilic, functional poly(propylene oxide) (PPO) copolymers prepared by anionic random copolymerization of propylene oxide (PO) with the protected glycidyl derivative ethoxy ethyl glycidyl ether (EEGE), followed by acidic deprotection to obtain hydroxyl-functional PPO copolymers (Abstract, pg. 3039).
In Synthesis of Multifunctional Poly(propylene oxide)s, the monobenzyl-protected ethylene glycol initiator 2-(benzyloxy)ethanol was used as a cesium salt to initiate copolymerization of PO and EEGE to form PPO-co-PEEGE copolymers. The ring-opening anionic polymerization of EEGE proceeds without side reactions and provides copolymers having narrow molecular-weight distributions. Following polymerization, acidic hydrolysis of the acetal protecting groups releases primary hydroxyl groups and generates linear glycerol units (pgs. 3040–3041). The linear glycerol units correspond to Formula (I) where R² is –CH₂OH, and the PO units correspond to Formula (II) where R³ is –CH₃.
Table 1 reports BnO-PPOn-co-linPGm−OH copolymers containing 11 to 54 mol% linear glycerol units and 46 to 89 mol% PO units (pg. 3041). The disclosed 11 to 54 mol% linear glycerol units fall within the claimed range of “10 to 70 mole percent first monomeric unit of Formula (I),” and the disclosed 46 to 89 mol% PO units fall within the claimed range of “30 to 90 mole percent of second monomeric unit of Formula (II).”
The glycidol-containing PPO copolymer disclosed by SCHÖMER provides increased polarity and water solubility through incorporation of free hydroxyl groups into the PPO chain (pg. 3039). In view of MOK using poly(propylene oxide) in a block copolymer used to form porous membranes, a person skilled in the art would modify the poly(propylene oxide) block to incorporate glycidol-derived units to predictably increase polarity and water solubility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate glycidol-derived units, as disclosed by SCHÖMER, into the poly(propylene oxide) block in the block copolymer by MOK.
Regarding Claim 2, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. MOK discloses that the LSISL copolymers have GPC molecular weights ranging from 105 to 279 kg/mol (¶[0159]), the OSISO copolymers have GPC molecular weights ranging from 99 to 225 kg/mol (¶[0170]), and the PSISP copolymer has a GPC molecular weight of 137 kg/mol (¶[0174]).
Regarding the limitation “tetrablock copolymer has a molecular weight ranging from 60,000 to 200,000 grams/mole,” molecular weight is considered a result-effective variable obtainable through optimization by routine experimentation. In view of modified MOK, a person skilled in the art would have optimized the polymerization conditions to obtain a tetrablock copolymer having a molecular weight within the claimed range (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 3, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. MOK discloses that the hard B blocks comprise 30 to 80 weight percent of the block copolymer (¶¶[0032]–[0033]), and the hard B blocks corresponding to the claimed A blocks.
Regarding the limitation “at least 35 weight percent of the A block,” the relative amount of the hard blocks is considered a result-effective variable obtainable through optimization by routine experimentation. In view of modified MOK, a person skilled in the art would have optimized the relative amount of the A blocks in the tetrablock copolymer to obtain at least 35 weight percent of the A block (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 4, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. MOK discloses that the OSISO copolymers comprise 58.0 weight percent styrene and 24.0 weight percent isoprene, and 60.7 weight percent styrene and 31.6 weight percent isoprene (¶[0170]). The styrene blocks correspond to the claimed A blocks and the isoprene block corresponds to the claimed B block. Comparing the weight of the A blocks to the B block provides ratios of about 2.42:1 and 1.92:1, respectively.
Regarding the limitation “a weight ratio of the A blocks to the B block ranging from 4:1 to 1:1,” the relative amounts of the A and B blocks are considered result-effective variables obtainable through optimization by routine experimentation. In view of modified MOK, a person skilled in the art would have optimized the relative amounts of the A and B blocks in the tetrablock copolymer to obtain the claimed weight ratio (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 6, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. MOK discloses that the OSISO copolymer PE-6A comprises 58.0 weight percent styrene, 24.0 weight percent isoprene, and 18.0 weight percent ethylene oxide (¶[0170]). The styrene blocks correspond to the claimed A blocks, the isoprene block corresponds to the claimed B block, and the poly(ethylene oxide) blocks correspond to the claimed C block.
Regarding the limitation “35 to 75 weight percent A blocks, 10 to 45 weight percent B block, and 10 to 30 weight percent C block based on the total weight of the tetrablock copolymer,” the relative amounts of the A, B, and C blocks are considered result-effective variables obtainable through optimization by routine experimentation. In view of modified MOK and the disclosed relative amounts of the corresponding blocks, a person skilled in the art would have optimized the relative amounts of the A, B, and C blocks in the tetrablock copolymer to obtain the claimed ranges (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 7, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. Table 1 of SCHÖMER discloses BnO-PPOn-co-linPGm−OH copolymers containing 11 to 54 mol% linear glycerol units and 46 to 89 mol% propylene oxide (PO) units (pg. 3041). The disclosed 11 to 54 mol% linear glycerol units fall within the claimed range of “10 to 55 mole percent monomeric units of Formula (I),” and the disclosed 46 to 89 mol% PO units fall within the claimed range of “45 to 90 mole percent monomeric units of Formula (II).”
Regarding Claim 8, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. SCHÖMER discloses BnO-PPOn-co-linPGm−OH copolymers comprising PO units and linear glycerol units obtained following deprotection of the glycidyl-derived units (pgs. 3040–3041). The linear glycerol units correspond to Formula (I) where R² is –CH₂OH, and the PO units correspond to Formula (II) where R³ is –CH₃.
Regarding Claim 9, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. SCHÖMER discloses BnO-PPOn-co-linPGm−OH copolymers having cloud points of 21.2, 32.6, 35.9, and 39.3 °C and the cloud point varies with the linear glycerol content and polymer concentration (Table 1, pgs. 3041, 3044–3045). The disclosed cloud points fall within the claimed range of “greater than 10 degrees Celsius and lower than 60 degrees Celsius.”
Regarding the limitation “in a 5 weight percent aqueous solution,” polymer concentration is considered a result-effective variable for cloud point obtainable through optimization by routine experimentation. In view of SCHÖMER disclosing that cloud point varies with polymer concentration, a person skilled in the art would have optimized the polymer concentration to 5 weight percent to obtain a cloud point within the claimed temperature range (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 10, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. MOK discloses that the pentablock copolymer has a polydispersity ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 (¶[0104]).
Regarding the limitation “the polydispersity index is less than 1.5,” the polymerization conditions affecting polydispersity are considered result-effective variables obtainable through optimization by routine experimentation. In view of modified MOK, a person skilled in the art would have optimized the polymerization conditions to obtain a tetrablock copolymer having a polydispersity of less than 1.5 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. MOK discloses that the conjugated diene blocks are optionally hydrogenated and, when hydrogenated, have a vinyl content ranging from 0 to 40 mole percent post hydrogenation (¶[0036]). The conjugated diene blocks correspond to the claimed “B block,” and the disclosed vinyl groups present in the conjugated diene blocks inherently contain unsaturated carbon-carbon double bonds, such that the disclosed 0 to 40 mole percent vinyl content reads upon the claimed “0 to 40 mole percent of unsaturated carbon-carbon double bonds post hydrogenation.”
Regarding Claims 12-13, modified MOK makes obvious the tetrablock copolymer of Claim 1. MOK discloses a porous membrane comprising the pentablock copolymer (¶¶[0028]–[0029]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified MOK makes obvious the article of Claim 13. MOK discloses that polymer membranes prepared from PEO copolymers have high hydrophilicity and PPO pentablock membranes are hydrophilic (¶[0212]). SCHÖMER discloses that incorporation of glycidol as a more hydrophilic comonomer increases the polarity and can provide water solubility to PPO copolymers (pg. 3039). In view of the disclosures, a person skilled in the art would have understood that a porous membrane formed from the modified block copolymer would have a hydrophilic surface due to the increased polarity and water solubility provided by the glycidol-derived units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights