DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Husson et al (US 9,033,159 B1) and Zhang et al (Surface-initiated Cu(0) mediated controlled radical polymerization…, Polymer Chemistry, 2015).
With respect to claim 1, Husson teaches microporous membranes (porous supports) in which the surface includes a grafted polymeric film, including grafted chains which act as brushes or the like [Abs]. The brushes may be formed by ATRP using e.g. a transition metal catalyst complex (Husson claims 1 and 9]. Husson is silent to the specific steps of positioning a reactant substrate adjacent the membrane after attaching initiators in order to facilitate polymerizing with a reaction medium.
Zhang teaches forming such brushes using Cu(0) in the form of a copper plate, producing dense brushes on a surface at room temperature, with fast processing and good control of brush layer thickness [Abs]. Further, the process may be simple and low-cost, as the copper plate can be reused and the reagent requirements are minimal compared to more traditional ATRP processes. Zhang teaches examples in which a silicon substrate is grafted using the Cu(0)-mediated process, requiring only a self-assembled monolayer of standard ATRP-initiator on the substrate [pg. 2727, Results and Discussion, first paragraph]. As such, Zhang teaches providing a substrate, with an ATRP-intiator thereon, and then teaches positioning a reaction substrate (copper plate) adjacent to the surface, and a reaction solution therebetween, and reacting to form the grafted polymer brushes. Zhang is silent to providing a membrane as the initial substrate for modification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Husson’s taught product to form it by a Cu(0)-mediated controlled radical polymerization method because, as in Zhang, such a process is easy, low cost, and gives good control and fast reaction to form dense polymer brush layers on a substrate.
Additionally, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang’s taught product i.e. an example brush-grafted substrate of silicon or the like, and to form such brushes on a substrate such as a porous polymer membrane for the production of more varied products such as those taught by Husson.
In either combination, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Zhang teaches a spacing of 0.5 mm for the substrate vs. the product surface [Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 3, Zhang teaches the use of a spacer between the surface and the substrate, which would render the use of one or more shims obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent clarification of the specific structural requirements [Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 5, Zhang teaches 2-bromoisobutyryl bromide [Results and Discussion], as does Husson [Husson claim 6].
With respect to claim 6, at least Husson teaches dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate [Husson claim 11].
With respect to claim 7, Zhang teaches PMDETA [Results and Discussion], and Husson teaches HMTETA [Husson claim 12].
With respect to claim 8, Zhang teaches DMSO as the solvent [Results and Discussion], and Husson teaches methanol and acetonitrile among options [Husson claim 7].
With respect to claims 9 and 10, as above Zhang teaches copper as the reactant in the form of a copper plate spaced apart from the product surface in a facing manner.
With respect to claim 11, Zhang teaches operation at room temperature [Results and Discussion].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 are allowed. Additionally, claims 4 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art regarding reaction conditions is taught by Zhang, discussed above. Zhang is silent to the use of a set of multiple shims positioned in such a manner that they do not interfere with any portion of the surface reaction; instead, Zhang teaches a spacer clamped between the substrate surfaces which requires contact with the product surface at least along an edge. There is no teaching or suggestion of a an arrangement in Zhang or in Husson that would satisfy the claim requirements. Further, Zhang teaches monitoring reaction progress in increments of 1 hour [Fig. 1] and, further, Zhang’s data suggests that brush growth is not complete until at least 2 hours have passed; as such, there is no teaching or suggestion of quenching the reaction after only 25-35 minutes, and if anything the data produced by Zhang would suggest that this would lead to incomplete growth.
The prior art as a whole, alone or in combination, does not remedy the deficiencies of Husson or Zhang and would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter of claims 4, 12, or 13. As such, claims 4, 12, and 13-16 are free from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights