www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`15/733,205
`
`06/10/2020
`
`Jerald K. Rasmussen
`
`79799US007
`
`3573
`
`3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
`PO BOX 33427
`ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
`
`GORDONII, BRADLEY R
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1773
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/18/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`LegalUSDocketing @ mmm.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`15/733,205
`Rasmussen et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`BRAD GORDON
`1773
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 24 June 2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-16 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 1-6 and 10-12 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`1) Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 7-9 and 14-16 is/are rejected.
`)
`Claim(s) 13 is/are objectedto.
`O Claim(s
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)L) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)C] accepted or b)C) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)LJ None of the:
`b)L) Some**
`a) All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2..) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.{%] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220813
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2018, is being examined under
`the first inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2, Allowable Subject Matter
`Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upona 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.! Claim 18 is considered allowable because
`the prior art does not appearto teach norfairly suggest the formulasof said claim.
`
`3.
`
`Status ofthe Claims
`
`Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-6 and 10-12 stand withdrawn. Thus, intotal,
`claims 7—9 and 13-16 are the subject of this Office Action.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`.
`4.1 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`
`(b) CONCLUSION .—Thespecification 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.
`
`indefinite
`4.2 Claims 7~9 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being
`for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
`inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
`
`4.2.1 Claim7is directed to an article comprising a reaction product. The reaction
`product correspondsto a reaction composition. The reaction composition is said to
`include: (A) a solid polymeric substrate having a plurality of thiocarbonylthio-
`containing groups directly and covalently bondedto the solid polymeric substrate;
`and (B) a radically polymerizable monomer composition comprising a first monomer.
`The claim then goes on to describe that the reaction product comprises grafted
`polymeric chainsdirectly and covalently attached to carbon in atomsin a polymeric
`backboneofthe solid polymeric substrate. With these claim elements in mind,it is
`
`!Thatis, assuming that any outstanding 112 issues are resolved.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 3
`
`respectfully submitted that, with regards to feature (A) supra(1.e., the
`thiocarbonylthio-containing groups on the substrate), itis unclear whether or not
`the claim is requiring that the final product(1.e., the reaction product) has such
`groups on the substrate. Put another way, is the claim requiring: (1) that the
`thiocarbonylthio-containing groups remainin their pristine form on the substrate; or
`(2) that said groups are transformed such that certain portions become part of the
`polymeric chainsattached directly and covalently attached to carbon atoms in the
`polymeric backbone? Forat least these reasons, claim 7 appearsto be indefinite,
`inter alia, since it is unclear what structural features are being required by the
`claim. In addition, the claims depending from claim 7 are also rejected under 35
`U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependence from anindefinite claim.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`5.
`5.1 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which formsthe basisfor all
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office Action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention maynot be obtained, notwithstanding that the
`claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this
`title, if the differences between the claimed invention andtheprior 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 havingordinaryskill in
`the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be
`negated by the mannerin which the invention was made.
`
`5.2 The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US 1 (1966),
`that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under
`35 U.S.C. 108 are summarized asfollows:
`
`BewnPe
`
`Determining the scope and contentsof the priorart.
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claimsatissue.
`Resolving thelevel of ordinary skill in the pertinentart.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`obviousnessor nonobviousness.
`
`5.38 This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability
`of the claims Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`commonly ownedasofthe 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 andeffective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`ownedasof the effective filing date of the later invention in order for Examiner to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 4
`
`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.
`
`5.4 Claims 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`over RASMUSSEN? in view of JANSSEN? and NUNEZ.4
`
`5.4.1 With respect to claim 7, the following analysis applies.
`
`(A) Overview of Rasmussen
`
`RASMUSSEN discloses an article comprising: (1) a porous substrate; and
`(2) a polymer borne on the porous substrate. (Rasmussen, Abstract.)
`
`(A)(1) Solid polymeric substrate (clm.7, l. 3)
`
`The porous substrate can be a porous polymeric membrane. (Jd. JJ 10, 98.)
`Additionally, Rasmussen’s disclosure suggests that its substrates are solid. For
`example, Rasmussen teaches that its porous substrate can comprise thermoplastic
`polymeric material—suchas polyolefins, poly(sulfones), poly(vinyl acetates), etc. Id.
`{| 94-100.) These thermoplastic polymeric materials are interpreted to be solids (as
`opposed to, say, liquids or gases).° As another example, Rasmussen teaches that the
`substrate can be a nylon membranesubstrate that is coated. This teaching
`reasonably suggests that substrate can bea solid. And, in view of the foregoing,
`Examineris interpreting Rasmussen’s porous substrate as a solid polymeric
`substrate.
`
`(A)(2) Grafted polymeric chains attached directly and covalently to carbon atoms in
`a polymeric backboneof the solid polymeric substrate (clm. 7, ll. 10-11)
`
`Backbone.Asit applies to the claimed “polymeric backboneofthe solid polymeric
`substrate” (id.), the substrate can be madeof polymeric materials. (Rasmussen
`{| 94-100) To this end, one or more of Rasmussen’s polymeric materials comprises a
`
`2 US 2016/0231208 A1, published August 11, 2016 (“Rasmussen”).
`3 US 4,968,532 A, issued November6, 1990 (“Janssen”).
`4 WO 2010/147864 A2, published December 238, 2010 (“Nunez’).
`5 See, e.g., What are amorphous thermoplastics, Simtec-Silicone.com,
`https://www.simtec-silicone.com/what-are-amorphous-thermoplastics/ (last visited
`March5, 2021) (“Thermoplastics are a broad class of materials which are solid and
`brittle at room temperature but, when heated, becomesoft andpliable.”).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 5
`
`polymeric backbone. For instance, { 94 of Rasmussen discloses that the polymeric
`material can be a polyolefin (a polymer having a carbon backbone).® In particular,
`the polyolefin can be, inter alia, polypropylene—a polymer consisting of a carbon
`backbone, each carbon atom being saturated with hydrogen atoms.’ (Id. { 96.)
`
`Grafted polymeric chains attacheddirectly and covalently. As it applies to the
`claimed “grafted polymeric chains attacheddirectly and covalently to carbon atoms’
`of the polymeric backbone, as pointed out above Rasmussen discloses a polymer
`borne on the porous substrate. (Rasmussen, Abstract.) This polymeris formed from
`interpolymerized units of at least one monomer comprising at least one monovalent
`ethylenically unsaturated group. (/d.) Rasmussen suggests that polymerization of
`these monomers can takeplace in the presence of the substrate and that the
`resulting polymer can be grafted (covalently bonded) to the surface of the substrate.
`(Id. § 107.) Thus, when considering this teaching in lightof the fact that Rasmussen
`teaches polyolefins (id. {| 94, 96)—someof whichconsist entirely of a pure carbon
`backbone and attached hydrogen atoms(e.g., polypropylene)—theonly wayfor the
`polymerto be grafted to the surface of the substrate would be for: (1) a first
`monomerto attach directly and covalently to a carbon atom in the backbone;
`(2) subsequently or simultaneously, additional monomers would haveto bind to
`other carbon atomsin the backbone; and(8) these attached monomers would then
`polymerize to form multiple polymeric chains—eachattached to the substrate. Ergo,
`in view of these findings, Examinerrespectfully submits that “polymeric chains
`attached directly and covalently to carbon atoms in a polymeric backboneofthe solid
`polymeric substrate’ (clm.7, ll. 3—4) is within the teaching of the Rasmussen.
`
`(A)(8) First monomer(clm.7, ll. 5-9)
`
`According to Rasmussen, the polymer borne on the substrate comprises
`interpolymerized units of at least one monomerconsisting of: (1) at least one
`monovalent ethylenically unsaturated group; (2) at least one monovalent ligand
`functional groupselected from acidic groups, basic groups other than guanidine, and
`salts thereof; and (8) a multivalent spacer group thatis directly bonded to the
`monovalent groups so asto link at least one ethylenically unsaturated group and at
`
`8 See, e.g., Polyolefin, Brittanica.com, https://www.britannica.com/science/polyolefin
`(last visited March 5, 2021) (showing the chemicalstructureof a polyolefin).
`7 See, e.g., Polyethylene, Britannica.com, https://www.britannica.com/science/
`polyethylene (last visited March 5, 2021) (showing the chemicalstructureof
`polyethylene).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 6
`
`least one ligand functional group by a chain ofat least six catenated atoms.
`(Rasmussen, Abstract; { 10.)
`
`(B) Claim elements not expressly taught or suggested by Rasmussen
`
`Rasmussen does not appearto specify: (1) that its solid polymeric substrate has a
`plurality of thiocarbonylthio-containing groups directly and covalently bonded to
`said substrate; and (2) that at least some ofits grafted polymeric chains are
`terminated by a thiol or a thiocarbonylthio-containing group.
`
`(B)(1) Thiocarbonylthio-containing groups directly and covalently bonded to the
`substrate (clm. 7, ll. 8-4)
`
`JANSSEN teaches modifying a substrate with functional groups prior to graft
`polymerizing monomersonto the surface of the substrate. (Janssen col. 2, ll. 14-61.)
`Janssen further teaches that this approach wasuseful for providing graft
`polymerization of monomers.(Jd. col. 2, ll. 54-61.)
`
`NUNEZ suggests that including a thiocarbonylthio-containing groupon the end ofa
`polymer during polymerization provides: slowing polymerization andhigher residual
`monomerat the end of polymerization. (Nunez 67.) Nunez further suggests that
`polymers having a thiocarbonylthio-containing group on an end were suitable as
`RAFTagents. (/d. 12.)
`
`Previously the courts have held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
`according to known methodsislikely to be obvious whenit does no more thanyield
`predictable results.” KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007).
`Furthermore, the courts have held that the selection of a known material based on
`its suitability for its intended use can support a prima facie obviousness
`determination. See MPEP § 2144.07 (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 200 (CCPA
`1960) (“Mere selection of knownplastics to make a container-dispenser of a type
`madeofplastics prior to the invention,the selection of the plastics being on the basis
`of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious....”); Sinclair & Carroll
`Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 335 (1945) (“Readinga list and selecting a
`known compound to meet known requirementsis no more ingenious thanselecting
`the last piece to put into the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. It is not invention.”);
`Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (A claimed
`agricultural bagging machine wasfoundto differ from a prior art machineonly in
`that brake meansof the claimed machine were hydraulically operated whereasthe
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 7
`
`prior art machine’s brakes were mechanically operated. The claimed machine was
`held to be obvious overthe prior art machinein view of references which disclosed
`hydraulic brakesfor performing the same function, albeit in a different
`environment.)).
`
`With these holdings in mind,it is respectfully submitted that, at the time
`Applicant's invention waseffectively filed, it would have been obvious to oneskilled
`in the art to combinethe teachings of Janssen with the teachings of Rasmussen, viz.,
`such that Rasmussen’s solid polymeric substrate hasa plurality of functional groups
`directly and covalently bonded to said substrate, in order to yield the predictable
`result of facilitating graft polymerization of monomers. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-16. In
`addition, it is further submitted that it would have also been obvious to one skilled
`in the art at the time Applicant’s invention waseffectively filed to select a
`thiocarbonylthio group as the functional group of the instant combination, in order
`to: (A) yield the predictable results of slowing polymerization and higherresidual
`monomerat the end of polymerization; and (B) provide a suitable RAFT agentfor
`forming polymeric chainson the surfaceof the substrate. Id. see also Leshin, 277
`F.2d at 200; Sinclair, 325 U.S. at 835; Ryco, 857 F.2d at 1425.
`
`(B)(2) Thiol-terminated polymerchains (clm.7, ll. 12-18)
`
`As conveyed above, Nunez suggests that includinga thiocarbonylthio-containing
`group on the endof a polymer during polymerization provides: slowing
`polymerization and higherresidual monomer at the end of polymerization. (Nunez
`67.) Nunez further suggests that polymers having a thiocarbonylthio-containing
`group on the endofa polymer were suitable as RAFT agents. (/d. 12.) In view of
`these findings, it is respectfully submitted that, at the time Applicant’s invention
`waseffectively filed, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify
`the monomerof the instant combination such thatit has a thiocarbonylthio-
`containing group on oneofits ends, in order to: (A) yield the predictable results of
`slowing polymerization and higher residual monomer at the endof polymerization;
`and(B) provide a suitable RAFT agent for forming a polymer. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415—-
`16; Leshin, 277 F.2d at 200; Sinclair, 325 U.S. at 335; Ryco, 857 F.2d at 1425.
`
`5.4.2 With respect to claim 8, the instant combination does not appearto specify
`the thiocarbonylthio-containing group of the instant claim. Nunez suggests that
`thiocarbonylthio-containing groups having the general structure shown on page 6
`can be used in its invention. Nunez’s structure includes the formula —S—C(=S)—R!.
`(/d.) In this same vein, as conveyed above, Nunez suggests that including a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 8
`
`thiocarbonylthio-containing group on the end of a polymer during polymerization
`provides: slowing polymerization and higherresidual monomerat the end of
`polymerization. (/d. at 67.) Itis respectfully submitted that at the time Applicant’s
`invention was made, Nunez’s disclosure would have reasonably suggested to those
`skilled in the art that it thiocarbonylthio-containing groups weresuitable for slowing
`polymerization and providing higherresidual monomeratthe endof polymerization.
`As such,it is further submitted that, at the time Applicant's invention was
`effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use Nunez’s
`thiocarbonylthio-containing group in the invention of the instant combination, in
`order to: (A) yield the predictable results of slowing polymerization and higher
`residual monomer at the end of polymerization; and (B) provide a suitable RAFT
`agent for forming a polymer. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-16; Leshin, 277 F.2d at 200;
`Sinclair, 325 U.S. at 335; Ryco, 857 F.2d at 1425.
`
`5.4.3 With respect to claim 9, the instantclaim is directed to a first monomer
`represented by the claimed “Formula (IV)” (hereinafter “formula ([V)”). With this in
`mind, Examiner finds that Rasmussen discloses monomers having the following
`formula (hereinafter “formula (1)”):
`
`“ay
`CHaRtsoooCispSRR] od
`
`$s"ars
`
`(Rasmussen {[ 65.) As shown in Rasmussen’s formula (I) supra, the monomer
`includes severalvariables: R!, X, R?, Z, n, and L. Regarding these variables,
`Rasmussen suggests that:
`
`(1) R'canbea hydrogen,alkyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, and combinations thereof
`(Rasmussen {] 66);
`
`(2)
`
`R* cana heterohydrocarbylene (id. { 67);
`
`(8) Xcanbe Oor NR?,
`
`(4) Risa hydrogen or hydrocarbyl (id. { 68);
`
`(5) Zcanbe heterohydrocarbylene comprising at least one hydrogen bond donor,at
`least one hydrogen bond acceptor, or a combination thereof(id. {] 69);
`
`(6) mis an integerof0or 1 (id. § 70); and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 9
`
`(7) Lis aheteroatom-containing group comprising at least one monovalentligand
`functional groupselected from acidic groups, basic groups other than
`guanidino, andsalts thereof(id. 4 71).
`
`When comparing the abovevariables with the variable presented in the claimed
`formula (IV), Examinerfinds that Rasmussen’s variables read on the claimed
`variables. That is, Rasmussen’s R!, R?, X, R?, Z, n, and L read—respectively—onthe
`claimed R?!, R?*, X!, R28, Z, n, and L. Additionally, the general structurefor
`Rasmussen’s formula (I) and the claimed formula (IV) appear to be the same. For
`instance, both formulas begin with a CH2 double-bonded to a CR followed by a
`carbonyl moiety, end with an L,etc. In view of these findings, Rasmussen’s
`formula (I) reads on the claimed formula (IV)—viz., because both formulas have the
`same structural features.
`
`5.4.4 With respect to claim 14, Rasmussen suggests that its solid polymeric
`substrate can be porous. (Rasmussen, Abstract (reciting “porous substrate’).)
`
`5.4.5 With respect to claim 15, Rasmussen suggests thatits solid polymeric
`substrate can be a membrane. (Rasmussen {{ 10, 98.) Rasmussen also suggests that
`its solid polymeric substrate can be a nonwovensubstrate. Ud. J 104-105.)
`
`5.4.6 With respect to claim 16, this claim is directed to processlimitations.
`Previously it has been held that “even though product-by-process claimsare limited
`by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product
`itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its methodof production. If
`the product in the product-by-process claim is the same asor obvious from a product
`of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even thoughtheprior product was made
`by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations
`omitted); see also MPEP § 2118. Thus, in accordance with Thorpe and MPEP § 2118,
`it is respectfully submitted that the instant claim cannot be given patentable weight:
`since determination of patentability is based on the product itself—as opposedto its
`method of production.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 10
`
`Response to Remarks®
`6.
`Applicant's remarksare respectfully acknowledged but are mootin view of the new
`groundsof rejection supra.
`
`7. Other References Considered
`
`The prior art madeof record and not relied uponis considered pertinent to
`Applicant's disclosure. BARNER® discloses a substrate containing polymerchains
`terminated with a thiol and teaches howto functionalize them with monomers.
`
`8.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communicationor earlier communications from the
`examiner should be directed to BRAD GORDON whose telephone number is 571-
`272-9764. The examiner can normally be reached on M—R, 9am—5pm.
`
`Examinerinterviews 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 examinerby telephoneare unsuccessful, the examiner's
`supervisor, MAGALI SLAWSKIcan be reached on 571-270-3960. The fax phone
`numberfor the organization where this application or proceeding is assignedis
`571-273-8300.
`
`Information regardingthe 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 applicationsis 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
`
`8 Remarksfiled June 24, 2022.
`9 Barneret al., Reversible Addition-Fragmeniation Chain-Transfer Graft
`Polymerization of Styrene: Solid Phases for Organic and Peptide Synthesis, 40 J.
`PoLyM.Sci. Al, 4180, 4180-4192 (2002).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/733,205
`Art Unit: 1778
`
`Page 11
`
`automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or
`571-272-1000.
`
`/BRAD GORDON/
`Examiner, Art Unit 1778
`
`