DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 1/29/2026.
Claim(s) 4 is withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
Claim(s) 1-4, are now pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2015/0093507 to Kurosawa et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Kurosawa teaches a composition including a mixture of block copolymers [0012] to produce a phase-separated structure [0011] wherein Example 8 comprises 50 parts of BCP-6 [0182, Table 6] which is a PS/PMMA block copolymer (polystyrene/polymethylmethacrylate) [0180] i.e., copolymer A. Example 8 further comprises 50 parts of BCP-7 [0182, Table 6] which is a PS/PMMA block copolymer (polystyrene/polymethylmethacrylate) [0180] reading on the limitations of copolymer B.
Table 5 of Kurosawa discloses the structural period of BCP-6 (Polymer A) is 46.5 nm and the structural period of BCP-7 (Polymer B) is 56.7 nm [0181] therefore the structural period ratio of (L0B/L0A) is reasonably calculated as 1.21 which lies just outside the instantly claimed L0B/L0A range of 0.90 – 1.20. It is the Office's position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Kurosawa does not particularly teach in the preferred embodiment that copolymer A has three blocks.
However, Kurosawa teaches BCP-7 (PS/PMMA) [Table 6] and further teaches block copolymers having 2 or more blocks [0064] thereby teaching a third block with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an additional block of either PS or PMMA in the BCP-7 of Example 9. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” three blocks within block copolymer BCP-7 as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Choosing either PS or PMMA as the third block in BCP-7 of Example 9 would then read on the claim 1 wherein the first block a, third block a and first block b are identical in structure to each other and further read on the second block a and second block b have identical structure to each other.
Regarding Claim 2, Kurosawa teaches the resin composition of claim 1, wherein Example 9 comprises 50 parts copolymer A and 50 parts copolymer B [0182, Table 6] which is reduced to 50:50 and reads on the mass ratio limitation set forth in instant claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Kurosawa teaches the resin composition of claim 1, wherein the first block a, the third block a, and the first block b are PS (polystyrene) [0180] reading on an aromatic group, and the second block a and the second block b are PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) [0180] reading on an (α-substituted) acrylic ester.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Kurosawa’s example 9 does not teach the newly amended L0B/L0A ratio of 0.90 or more and 1.20 or less. Applicant further states the range of 0.90 – 1.20 achieves unexpected results, as shown in instant specification Examples 1-4 and Comparative Examples 1-3 wherein a better process margin is obtained compared to comparative examples outside the range of 0.9-1.2.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 wherein example 8 teaches a L0B/L0A value of 1.21 wherein It is the Office's position that this value is close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. Moreover, the expected similar properties are further supported by instant specification’s data in table 2 and 3, wherein comparative example 3 with a L0B/L0A value of 1.243 that is farther outside the instant claims range than the prior art, has a process margin of 86. This is a higher process margin than inventive examples 5, 6, and 7, that are within the instantly claimed range and have a lower process margin value of 81, 77, and 73, respectively.
Furthermore, this data is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. For example, the language of claim 1 is drawn to block copolymers A and B comprising any type of monomer units, wherein inventive examples specifically comprise PS and PMMA monomer units.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764