DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 08/18/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 4 and 9-19 are withdrawn.
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Claims 4 and 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected plurality of particles, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/18/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-3 and 5-8 in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 recites “at least one moiety per micelle is chemically linked to the monomer and/or the cross-linking agent and the micelle.” Claim 8 is being interpreted such that the moiety may be a moiety of a micelle of the plurality of micelles, of the monomer, of another component of the composition and/or of the cross-linking agent.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “monomer” in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean “a precursor or starting material of a polymer,” while the accepted meaning is “a repeating subunit or building block of a polymer.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Specifically, Claim 3 recites “the monomer comprises… poly(ethylene glycol)”. Poly(ethylene glycol) is a polymer comprising repeating units of ethylene oxide.
Claim 8 recites “per micelle”. It is unclear if the “micelle” of Claim 8 is the same or distinct from the “plurality of micelles” of Claim 1, upon which Claim 8 depends.
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 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent US8252186B1 (‘Blake’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a composition.
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 5-8, Blake teaches a composition (abstract), comprising:
a monomer (Fig. 2, C7/60-C8/L18); and
a plurality of micelles (Fig. 2, C7/60-C8/18, micelles of surfactant SDS), wherein each micelle of the plurality of micelles comprises a hydrophilic shell and a hydrophobic core (C10/L12-15);
wherein the micelles are configured to absorb and/or release a hydrophobic molecule (C10/L12-15).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: a crosslinking agent (Fig. 2, C7/60-C8/L18, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) crosslinking agent) comprising a functional moiety configured to link the monomer and at least a portion of the plurality of micelles (Fig. 2).
Claim 5: each micelle of the plurality of micelles comprises a surfactant (C7/L59-63, surfactant SDS).
Claim 6: the crosslinking agent comprises ethylene glycol (Fig. 2, C7/60-C8/L18, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) crosslinking agent) and/or N,N-methylene bisacrylamide.
Claim 7: the functional moiety comprises an acrylate moiety (Fig. 2, C7/60-C8/L18, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) crosslinking agent) and/or acrylamide moiety.
Claim 8: at least one moiety per micelle is chemically linked to the monomer (C8/L11-18, comonomers added in molar ratios of 0.33 and 0.5 with respect to acrylonitrile, or 0.00152 and 0.0023 mol of comonomer) and/or the cross-linking agent and the micelle.
Sample calculation:
C
7
L
60
-
65
.
15
m
L
×
0.1
M
S
D
S
=
0.0015
m
o
l
S
D
S
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US8252186B1 (‘Blake’) in view of U.S. Publication US20100062968A1 (‘Pulendran’) and in further view of U.S. Publication US20020187199A1 (‘Ranger’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a composition.
Regarding Claim 3, Blake discloses the composition of Claim 1, except that the monomer comprises ethylene glycol or poly(ethylene glycol).
Pulendran also relates to a composition ([0010]), including that monomer comprises ethylene glycol or poly(ethylene glycol) (Fig. 8, [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the monomer of Blake to comprise ethylene glycol or poly(ethylene glycol), as demonstrated by Pulendran, because poly(ethylene glycol) chain gives stability to the micelles (Pulendran, [0085]) and because poly(ethylene glycol) is hydrophilic (Ranger, [0031]. Note that Blake does not limit the choice of comonomer and specifies comonomers to be hydrophilic so as to take water inside more readily, Blake, C3/L4-23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights