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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-20 are pending in the claim set filed 1/19/2025.
Claims 1, 8 and 10-13 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 9 are cancelled.
Applicants’ elected species is as follows: Cationic polymer: polyethylenimine (claims 1-6 and 8-19); polymethylenimine (claim 20); Solvent: water and ethanol: herein extended to include water (claims 1-6 and 8-19); Counterion: Na+ (claim 9): herein species extended to include Hydrogen proton cation (H+), Chloride anion (Cl-) (see Figs. 3A; 10; Organic acid: formic acid (claim 12).
Herein, claims 1-6, 8 and 10-20 are for examination to the extent that they read on the elected species.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inventor Champ et al (US 2009/0226394) in view of Baumann et al (USP6132558) [Baumann], Lan et al (WO2016086012) [Lan] and Amin et al (The Effect of Cationic Charge Density Change on Transfection Efficiency of Polyethylenimine, Iran J Basic Med Sci p.250, February 2013) [Amin] is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments are moot in view thereof.
The rejection of claims 6 and 10 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champ et al (US 2009/0226394) in view of Baumann et al (USP6132558) [Baumann], Lan et al (WO2016086012) [Lan] and Amin et al (The Effect of Cationic Charge Density Change on Transfection Efficiency of Polyethylenimine, Iran J Basic Med Sci p.250, February 2013) [Amin] as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 16, 17 and 20 above and further in view of Purschwitz et al (US20140369953) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments are moot in view thereof.
The rejection of claim 14 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champ et al (US 2009/0226394) in view of Baumann et al (USP6132558) [Baumann], Lan et al (WO2016086012) [Lan] and Amin et al (The Effect of Cationic Charge Density Change on Transfection Efficiency of Polyethylenimine, Iran J Basic Med Sci p.250, February 2013) [Amin] as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 16, 17 and 20 above and further in view of Carmona et al (Removal of chloride ions from an industrial polyethylenimine flocculant shifting it into an adhesive promoter using the anion exchange resin Amberlite IRA-420, Reactive & Functional Polymers p.1218 May 2008) [Carmona] is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments are moot in view thereof.
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 that are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8, 11, 14 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/645,588 [herein ‘588] is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments are moot in view thereof.
NEW GROUNDS of Rejection necessitated by Applicants’ claim amendments
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/663414 [herein ‘414] in view of Curtis et al (Unusual Salt and pH Induced Changes in Polyethylenimine Solutions, PLOS ONE, September 29, 2016) [Curtis].
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Instant Claims and the ‘592 claims are both directed to common subject matter.
Instant claims are directed to a method for forming an antibacterial/antiviral material, comprising the steps of: dispensing a dose of dispensed contents from a container, said dose of dispensed contents comprising a cationic polymer, a solvent, cationic sites, and anionic sites, said cationic sites in said dose of dispensed contents comprising a total cationic charge; reducing a concentration of said solvent in said dose of dispensed contents by mass through evaporation; forming a film comprising said total cationic charge in a range of 0.001 to 10.0 coulombs per square inch, wherein polymer cationic sites of said cationic polymer of said dose comprises greater than sixty percent of said total cationic charge; and inactivating, with said film, at least one of: at least 95% of a gram positive bacteria population within 30 minutes; at least 95% of a gram negative bacteria population within 30 minutes; at least 95% of an enveloped virus population within 30 minutes of contact; at least 95% of a non-enveloped virus population within 30 minutes of contact; and at least 94% of a Clostridium difficile bacteria population within 24 hours of contact; yielding in said film, at least five parts per million, a cation comprising: Na+; delivering said dose of said dispensed contents with a total cationic charge density in a range of 0.005 to 0.3 meq/g; delivering both a polyalkylenimine and a polydiallyldimethyl ammonium chloride from said container in said step of dispensing; delivering at least one quaternary ammonium compound from said container in said step of dispensing, wherein a total cationic polymer charge of secondary amines exceeds a total quaternary ammonium compound charge in said film; delivering at least one of polyalkylenimine and a polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride at a concentration of at least five hundred parts per million from said container in said step of dispensing; reducing a concentration of chloride ions from a solution containing said polyalkylenimine by at least ten percent prior to adding said polyalkylenimine into said container; performing said step of protonating prior to a step of packaging said polyalkylenimine in said container, wherein a solution containing polyethylenimine by at least ten percent prior to adding said polyethylenimine into said container.
‘414 claims are directed to a method for dispensing a biocide, comprising the steps of packaging contents in a container, said contents comprising said biocide and a solvent, said biocide comprising a protonated polymer comprising repeating charged units, said contents comprising a total cationic charge density in a range of 0.001 to 0.95 meq/g, at least ten percent of said total cationic charge density from charges of non-quaternary amines of said protonated polymer; and dispensing said biocide from said container; treating a substrate with said biocide, said step of treating inactivating greater than fifty percent of non-enveloped viruses on said substrate in less than ten minutes; incorporating a polyethylenimine into said container as a component of said protonated polymer; protonating said polyethylenimine with hydrochloric acid in a solution; removing at least ten percent of chlorides added to said solution in said step of protonating; and performing said steps of protonating and removing prior to said step of packaging; yielding chloride counterions to protonated secondary amine sites of said polyethylenimine; and reducing a concentration of said chloride counterions by at least ten percent to a concentration of to less than 900 ppm; and performing said step of protonating prior to said step of packaging; formulating said protonated polymer with counterions, less than fifty percent of said counterions comprising chloride; formulating said protonated polymer with a polymer backbone chain comprising at least two carbons and at least one nitrogen per monomer of said protonated polymer; controlling an activity coefficient, γ, of a protonated site of said protonated polymer, to a value greater than 0.7; delivering protonated polyethylenimine from said container, wherein a total cationic charge of a total concentration of said protonated polyethylenimine in said container represents at least fifty percent of said total cationic charge density in said container; protonating at least ten percent of all nitrogen in a first mass of said protonated polymer with hydrochloric acid, said step of protonating yielding a total mass of said protonated polymer and chloride; and reducing a chloride mass of said total mass by at least ten percent; formulating said protonated polymer with a protonated polyethylenimine, said protonated polyethylenimine comprising at least ten percent of said protonated polymer by mass; delivering a total cationic charge in a range of 0.05 to 0.95 C/ml (i.e., about 12 ppm to 226 parts per million) per delivery dose from said container, of which overlaps with claimed amount- "A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); and, raising a pH of a solution of said protonated polymer to greater than five; performing said step of raising prior to said step of packaging; removing, after said step of raising said pH of said solution to greater than five, greater than ten percent of chloride anions in said solution; and reducing, after said step of removing, said pH of said solution by at least one-half of a pH unit.
‘441 claims differ from Instant claims in that they do not recite that the cation comprises sodium cation.
However, Curtis cures the deficiency.
Curtis teaches unusual salt and pH induced changes in polyethyleimine (PEI) solutions. Curtis teaches linear PEI is a cationic polymer commonly used for complexing DNA into nanoparticles for cell-transfection and gene-therapy applications. Curtis teaches that the polymer has closely-spaced amines with weak-base protonation capacity, and a hydrophobic backbone that is kept unaggregated by intra-chain repulsion. As a result, in solution PEI exhibits multiple buffering mechanisms, and polyelectrolyte states that shift between aggregated and free forms (Abstract; See entire document). Moreover, Curtis teaches NaCl, i.e., provides Na+ cation in solution) prevents PEI aggregation and increases solubility (p.7, see Results and Discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a method for forming an antibacterial/antiviral material, in particular, protonated polyethyleneimine, because polyethylenimine is identical biocide that is recited in both Instant Claims and the ‘441 claims, wherein the cationic charge density for instant claims overlaps with that of ‘414 claims. Instant claims and ‘414 claims are both directed to a container for dispensing a dose of a biocide comprising contents comprising at least ten percent of protonated polyethylenimine. Furthermore, both instant claims and ‘414 are directed to inactivating non-enveloped viruses comprising within less than ten minutes. Instant Claims and ‘414 claims are both directed to protonating said polyethylenimine with hydrochloric acid in a solution and removing at least ten percent of chlorides added to said solution in said step of protonating and delivering protonated polyethylenimine from said container, wherein a total cationic charge of a total concentration of said protonated polyethylenimine in said container represents at least fifty percent of said total cationic charge in said container. Furthermore, forming a film comprising total cationic charge of 0.0001- 10.0 coulombs is considered routine optimization within the purview of one skilled in the art. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably expect success. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955) & MPEP 2144.05. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the dose delivered to the surface of a substrate to best achieve a desired result. Moreover, ‘441 claims make prima facie obvious delivering a total cationic charge in a range of 0.05 to 0.95 C/ml (i.e., about 12 ppm to 226 parts per million) per delivery dose from said container, of which overlaps with claimed amount. Moreover, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to provide sodium cation as the cation because it prevents PEI aggregation and increases solubility as taught by Curtis. Thus, one skilled in the art would have recognized the benefit of using sodium cation and thus would have been motivated to include the teachings of Curtis in the above Double Patenting Rejections having a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, Instant Claims are obvious in view of the subject matter as recited in the '414 claims in view of Curtis, wherein Instant claim and ‘414 claims are both directed a method for dispensing biocide comprising protonated polyethyleneimine from a container.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 and 8 and 10-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2, 5-7, 10, 16, 18 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/905,986 [herein ‘986]. in view of Curtis et al (Unusual Salt and pH Induced Changes in Polyethylenimine Solutions, PLOS ONE, September 29, 2016) [Curtis].
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Instant Claims and the ‘986 claims are both directed to common subject matter.
Instant claims are directed to a method for forming an antibacterial/antiviral material, comprising the steps of: dispensing a dose of dispensed contents from a container, said dose of dispensed contents comprising a cationic polymer, a solvent, cationic sites, and anionic sites, said cationic sites in said dose of dispensed contents comprising a total cationic charge; reducing a concentration of said solvent in said dose of dispensed contents by mass through evaporation; forming a film comprising said total cationic charge in a range of 0.001 to 10.0 coulombs per square inch, wherein polymer cationic sites of said cationic polymer of said dose comprises greater than sixty percent of said total cationic charge; and inactivating, with said film, at least one of: at least 95% of a gram positive bacteria population within 30 minutes; at least 95% of a gram negative bacteria population within 30 minutes; at least 95% of an enveloped virus population within 30 minutes of contact; at least 95% of a non-enveloped virus population within 30 minutes of contact; and at least 94% of a Clostridium difficile bacteria population within 24 hours of contact; yielding in said film, at least five parts per million, a cation comprising: Na+; delivering said dose of said dispensed contents with a total cationic charge density in a range of 0.005 to 0.3 meq/g; delivering both a polyalkylenimine and a polydiallyldimethyl ammonium chloride from said container in said step of dispensing; delivering at least one quaternary ammonium compound from said container in said step of dispensing, wherein a total cationic polymer charge of secondary amines exceeds a total quaternary ammonium compound charge in said film; delivering at least one of polyalkylenimine and a polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride at a concentration of at least five hundred parts per million from said container in said step of dispensing; reducing a concentration of chloride ions from a solution containing said polyalkylenimine by at least ten percent prior to adding said polyalkylenimine into said container; performing said step of protonating prior to a step of packaging said polyalkylenimine in said container, wherein a solution containing polyethylenimine by at least ten percent prior to adding said polyethylenimine into said container.
‘986 claims are directed to a method of packaging in a container a solution of a polyethylenimine with a pH of less than seven, said polyethylenimine comprising protonated nitrogen sites and counterions to said protonated nitrogen sites; spraying said formulation onto the substrate to form a film, said film reducing activity of the first bacteria contacting said film by: greater than 9% and less than 99.99995% in less than three minutes; and greater than 99.99995% in less than seven days, wherein the step of packaging said formulation in a container, said formulation comprising a total cationic charge density, from said polyethylenimine, in a range of 0.001 to 0.95 meq/g, where 0.001 meq/q Sodium equals about 23 ppm), of which overlaps with claimed amount- A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); comprising hydrochloric acid, said hydrochloric acid comprising chloride counterions to said protonated nitrogen sites; wherein counterions electrostatically offset at least 95% of said total cationic charge density.
‘986 claims differ from Instant claims in that they do not recite that the cation comprises sodium cation.
However, Curtis cures the deficiency.
Curtis teaches unusual salt and pH induced changes in polyethyleimine (PEI) solutions. Curtis teaches linear PEI is a cationic polymer commonly used for complexing DNA into nanoparticles for cell-transfection and gene-therapy applications. Curtis teaches that the polymer has closely-spaced amines with weak-base protonation capacity, and a hydrophobic backbone that is kept unaggregated by intra-chain repulsion. As a result, in solution PEI exhibits multiple buffering mechanisms, and polyelectrolyte states that shift between aggregated and free forms (Abstract; See entire document). Moreover, Curtis teaches NaCl, i.e., provides Na+ cation in solution) prevents PEI aggregation and increases solubility (p.7, see Results and Discussion).
Thus, Instant Claims are obvious in view of the subject matter as recited in the '986 claims in view of Curtis. Moreover, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to provide sodium cation as the cation because it prevents PEI aggregation and increases solubility as taught by Curtis. Thus, one skilled in the art would have recognized the benefit of using sodium cation and thus would have been motivated to include the teachings of Curtis in the above Double Patenting Rejections, having a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 and 8 and 10-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6, 9-11 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/885,695 [herein ‘695] in view of Curtis et al (Unusual Salt and pH Induced Changes in Polyethylenimine Solutions, PLOS ONE, September 29, 2016) [Curtis].
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Instant Claims and the ‘695 claims are both directed to common subject matter.
Instant claims are directed to a method for forming an antibacterial/antiviral material, comprising the steps of: dispensing a dose of dispensed contents from a container, said dose of dispensed contents comprising a cationic polymer, a solvent, cationic sites, and anionic sites, said cationic sites in said dose of dispensed contents comprising a total cationic charge; reducing a concentration of said solvent in said dose of dispensed contents by mass through evaporation; forming a film comprising said total cationic charge in a range of 0.001 to 10.0 coulombs per square inch, wherein polymer cationic sites of said cationic polymer of said dose comprises greater than sixty percent of said total cationic charge; and inactivating, with said film, at least one of: at least 95% of a gram positive bacteria population within 30 minutes; at least 95% of a gram negative bacteria population within 30 minutes; at least 95% of an enveloped virus population within 30 minutes of contact; at least 95% of a non-enveloped virus population within 30 minutes of contact; and at least 94% of a Clostridium difficile bacteria population within 24 hours of contact; yielding in said film, at least five parts per million, a cation comprising: Na+; delivering said dose of said dispensed contents with a total cationic charge density in a range of 0.005 to 0.3 meq/g delivering both a polyalkylenimine and a polydiallyldimethyl ammonium chloride from said container in said step of dispensing; delivering at least one quaternary ammonium compound from said container in said step of dispensing, wherein a total cationic polymer charge of secondary amines exceeds a total quaternary ammonium compound charge in said film; delivering at least one of polyalkylenimine and a polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride at a concentration of at least five hundred parts per million from said container in said step of dispensing; reducing a concentration of chloride ions from a solution containing said polyalkylenimine by at least ten percent prior to adding said polyalkylenimine into said container; performing said step of protonating prior to a step of packaging said polyalkylenimine in said container, wherein a solution containing polyethylenimine by at least ten percent prior to adding said polyethylenimine into said container.
‘695 claims are directed to a method comprising the steps of packaging a solution comprising a polyalkylenimine, chloride counterions to protonated sites of said polyalkylenimine, chloride ions, and a pH of less than two; wherein said solution is in a container, said solution comprising a total cationic charge density in a range of 0.001 to 0.95 meq/g, where 0.001 meq/q Sodium equals about 23 ppm), of which overlaps with claimed amount- "A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); said total cationic charge density at least partially offset with anionic counterions, at least ten percent of said total cationic charge density from charges of secondary amines of said polyalkylenimine; and dispensing said solution from said container prior to said step of forming said film; further comprising the step of: reducing activity of first bacteria contacting said film by: greater than 10% and less than 99.999% in less than one minute; greater than 99.999% in less than seven days; the step of: inactivating, in less than ten minutes, at least 99% of second bacteria coming into contact with said film, said step of inactivating occurring at least seven days after said step of reducing activity of the first bacteria contacting said film by greater than 10% and less than 99.999% in less than one minute; formulating, prior to said step of producing a film, a dose of a formulation of said solution with a total cationic charge density greater than 0.003 meq/g, said total cationic charge density offset with negative counterions; including in said formulation at least one quaternary ammonium; and increasing said total cationic charge density to greater than 0.0035 meq/g; further comprising the step of inactivating greater than fifty percent of a virus upon contact of the virus with said film containing said polyalkylenimine for a period exceeding five minutes and less than one day.
‘895 claims differ from Instant claims in that they do not recite that the cation comprises sodium cation.
However, Curtis cures the deficiency.
Curtis teaches unusual salt and pH induced changes in polyethyleimine (PEI) solutions. Curtis teaches linear PEI is a cationic polymer commonly used for complexing DNA into nanoparticles for cell-transfection and gene-therapy applications. Curtis teaches that the polymer has closely-spaced amines with weak-base protonation capacity, and a hydrophobic backbone that is kept unaggregated by intra-chain repulsion. As a result, in solution PEI exhibits multiple buffering mechanisms, and polyelectrolyte states that shift between aggregated and free forms (Abstract; See entire document). Moreover, Curtis teaches NaCl, i.e., provides Na+ cation in solution) prevents PEI aggregation and increases solubility (p.7, see Results and Discussion). Thus, one skilled in the art would have recognized the benefit of using sodium cation and thus would have been motivated to include the teachings of Curtis in the above Double Patenting Rejections, having a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, Instant Claims are obvious in view of the subject matter as recited in the '695 claims, wherein Instant claim and ‘695 claims in view of Curtis are both directed a method of providing a solution comprising protonated polyethylenimine in container, wherein the counterion comprises chloride ion, wherein the biocide solution inactivates bacteria and viruses, and further dispensing the solution comprising said solution from a container. Moreover, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to provide sodium cation as the cation because it prevents PEI aggregation and increases solubility as taught by Curtis. Thus, one skilled in the art would have recognized the benefit of using sodium cation and thus would have been motivated to include the teachings of Curtis in the above Double Patenting Rejections, having a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, Instant Claims are obvious in view of the subject matter as recited in the '895 claims in view of Curtis.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the Double Patenting Rejections are overcome in view the newly added claim amendment: yielding in said film, at least five parts per million, a cation comprising: Na+;
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the newly added teachings of Curtis et al (Unusual Salt and pH Induced Changes in Polyethylenimine Solutions, PLOS ONE, September 29, 2016) [Curtis] cure the deficiencies thereof. Curtis teaches unusual salt and pH induced changes in polyethyleimine (PEI) solutions. Curtis teaches linear PEI is a cationic polymer commonly used for complexing DNA into nanoparticles for cell-transfection and gene-therapy applications. Curtis teaches that the polymer has closely-spaced amines with weak-base protonation capacity, and a hydrophobic backbone that is kept unaggregated by intra-chain repulsion. As a result, in solution PEI exhibits multiple buffering mechanisms, and polyelectrolyte states that shift between aggregated and free forms (Abstract; See entire document). Moreover, Curtis explicitly teaches NaCl, i.e., provides Na+ cation in solution) prevents PEI aggregation and increases solubility (p.7, see Results and Discussion). Thus, one skilled in the art would have recognized the benefit of using sodium cation and thus would have been motivated to include the teachings of Curtis in the above Double Patenting Rejections having a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusions
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thurman Wheeler whose telephone number is (571)-270-1307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/T.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1619 /SARAH ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619