DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “the molar” with “a molar”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “the net” with “a net”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “the molar” with “a molar”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “the molecular” with “a molecular”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “2,2-trifluoroethyl” with “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “2,2-trifluoroethyl” with “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl”.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the average” with “an average”.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “the net” with “a net”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for anionic repeat units comprising “methacrylate, acrylate, methacrylamide, acrylamide, styrene, or vinyl derivative comprising carboxylic acid, sulfonate, phosphate, does not reasonably provide enablement for the set of all “other ionizable or charged group”. For instance, the specification does not contemplate, suggest, or teach use of anionic repeat units containing borate, aluminate, or phosphonate groups. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for anionic repeat units comprising “methacrylate, acrylate, methacrylamide, acrylamide, styrene, or vinyl derivative comprising carboxylic acid, sulfonate, phosphate, does not reasonably provide enablement for the set of all “other ionizable or charged group”. For instance, the specification does not contemplate, suggest, or teach use of cationic repeat units containing oxazolinium, tetrazolium, or triphenylcarbenium groups. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim recites the term “molecular weight” without defining the type of molecular weight (molar mass, weight average molecular weight (Mw), number average molecular weight (Mn), etc.). As such, the scope of the claims is rendered vague and indefinite. Ex parte Simpson, 61 USPQ2d 1009 (BPAI, 2001).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. According to the specification at page 12, the term “anionic” describe a species that carries an overall excess of electrons relative to that total valence electron count of the species. The repeat units methacrylamide (CH2=C(CH3)C(O)NH2), acrylamide (CH2=CHC(O)NH2), styrene (CH2=CHC6H5), and vinyl derivative comprising a carboxylic acid group (CH2=CH~CO2H) do not have an excess of electrons and therefore, they do not qualify as anionic repeat unit.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim is drawn to a polymer comprising an anionic repeat unit that is an “other ionizable or charged group”. Without qualification, it is unclear what repeat units are envisioned by, and encompassed in, the set of “other ionizable or charged group”.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. According to the specification at page 12, the term “anionic” describe a species that carries an overall excess of electrons relative to that total valence electron count of the species. The repeat units methacrylic acid, 2-sulfoethyl methacrylate, and L-tryptophan methacrylate do not have an excess of electrons and therefore, they do not qualify as anionic repeat unit.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. According to the specification at page 13, the term “cationic” describe a species that carries an overall deficiency of electrons relative to that total valence electron count of the species. The repeat units methacrylate, acrylate, methacrylamide, acrylamide, styrene, and vinyl derivative comprising an amine, do not have a deficiency of electrons and therefore, they do not qualify as cationic repeat unit.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim is drawn to a polymer comprising an cationic repeat unit that is an “other ionizable or charged group”. Without qualification, it is unclear what repeat units are envisioned by, and encompassed in, the set of “other ionizable or charged group”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 18, 19, 21, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anthony et al. (US 2006/0107469)
Anthony et al. discloses a polymer comprising units derived from a linear C4-C18 alkyl methacrylate, acrylic acid, and 3-methacrylamidopropyl trimethylammonium chloride (MAPTAC) with a molar ratio of acrylic acid/MAPTAC ratio of 60/40 to 30/70 and having a mean molar mass by weight of 50,000 to 250,000; see paragraph [0262].
Claims 1, 2, 5, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 27, 31, 33, 34, 37, 42, 43, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alexiou et al. (WO 2020/231797)
Example 1A of Alexiou et al. discloses a polymer comprising 61.85 wt % of units derived from 2,2,2-trifluoromethacrylate, 31.74 wt % of units derived from sulfobetaine methacrylate, and 6.42 wt % of units derived from methacrylic acid. It is noted that the term “about” allows for flexibility in the range, and since the specification provides no guidance regarding the specific boundaries of the range covered by the description “about 0.5 wt % to about 30 wt %”, it is deemed that 31.74 wt % reads on “about 30 wt %”. According to inventors, the molecular weight of the copolymer is in a range of 20,000 to 1,000,000 (paragraph [0067]).
In example 3A, the polymer is applied as a 0.5 to 1 µm film onto a PES ultrafiltration support membrane. Figure 4A displays a SEM image of the PES ultrafiltration support showing that it contains large pores. Figure 4B reveals that the pore size of a film of the copolymer is considerably smaller. The disclosure teaches that the effective pore size is in a range of 0.1 nm to 5 nm (paragraph [0080]). Membranes of the invention exhibit significant salt rejection including Na2SO4 rejections around 95 % (paragraph [0062]). Thus, membranes of the invention find use in removing contaminants in water (paragraph [0087]).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 18, 21, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nonaka et al. (J. Membrane Science 2003, 212, 39-53).
Nonaka et al. discloses a polymer comprising units derived from 2,3-epithiopropyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, methacrylic acid, and N,N-dimethylaminopropyl acrylamide.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. (US 8,241,462).
Example 1-1 in Table 1 of Sakai et al. discloses a polymer containing units derived from hydrophobic monomers styrene and butyl acrylate, cationic monomers dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate and dimethylaminopropyl acrylamide, and anionic monomers methacrylic acid and itaconic acid. The polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 260,000.
Example 1-7 discloses a polymer containing units derived from hydrophobic monomers styrene, methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, and isobutyl methacrylate, cationic monomers dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate and methacryloyloxyethyl trimethylammonium chloride, and anionic monomers itaconic acid and acrylic acid. The polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 180,000.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 9, line 1, please replace “2,2-trifluoroethyl” with “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl”
On page 9, line 5, please replace “2,2-trifluoroethyl” with “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights