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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 12/30/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 20-21, 27, 29, 31-32, 34, 36, and 38-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Thomas et al. (US 6,101,818 hereinafter `818) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2001/0014707).
Regarding claim 20, `818 teaches a method for removing water from a gas or solvent, the method comprising contacting the gas/solvent with a desiccant comprising an anhydrous network/mixture in fiber form of at least one positively charged polyelectrolyte polymer (polyethyleneimine) and at least one negatively charged polyelectrolyte polymer (polyacrylic acid), and regenerating the desiccant (C1/L56-C3/L22). `818 further teaches that the polymers can be used alone or in combination with optional components, such as molecular sieves thereby providing a basis for no molecular sieve being included (C3/L40-50).
It is noted that `818 teaches that the desiccant/polymers are regenerated and reused by removing water but does not explicitly state that the water during the regeneration step is done via heating. However, `818 teaches that water is removed from the polymer to be anhydrous via heating. As such, one skilled in the art would have found `818 either broadly teaches heating to removing water during the regeneration step as such a means is taught, or it would have been obvious to apply the heating to remove water during the regeneration step as `818 teaches such a means in a different step and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
`818 fails to teach that the mixture polymer fibers are formed into an interpenetrating network. Thomas teaches a similar method for removing water from a gas or solvent, the method comprising contacting the gas/solvent with a desiccant comprising an anhydrous (dried) polyelectrolyte complex comprising an interpenetrating network of at least one positively charged polyelectrolyte polymer (polyethyleneimine) and at least one negatively charged polyelectrolyte polymer (polyacrylic acid), and regenerating the desiccant via heating ([0009]-[0018] and (0029]-[0036]). Both `818 and Thomas teach the same polymers being used in the same form (fibers) in overlapping molecular weights. Thomas teaches that the mixture of polymers can be crosslinked in order to obtain the desired moisture absorbing properties ([0013]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the same polymers of both `818 and Thomas in an interpenetrating network as claimed as doing so will impart the desired moisture absorbing properties.
It is noted that `818 teaches the two polymers can be a mixture of the two types cited above but does not positively teach the combination claimed as one of the options. It would have been obvious to provide the mixture as claimed given the teachings of `818 as there are only so many combinations.
Regarding claims 21 and 27, `818 teaches that polyethyleneimine is used as one of the polyelectrolytes (C2/L30-54).
Regarding claims 29, `818 teaches that polyacrylic acid can be used.
Regarding claims 31-32, `818 teaches that other additives, such as clays, are present (C3/L40-50).
Regarding claims 34 and 36, `818s teaches the article formed from the same/similar components and one skilled in the art would expect similar properties as claimed even if not explicitly stated in Thomas as the same/similar composition cannot have different properties ( "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). Therefore, one skilled in the art would expect the anhydrous polyelectrolyte complex in Zheng to have a similar glass transition temperature and heat (enthalpy) of hydration due to the article being the same/similar as claimed.
Regarding claim 38, `818 teaches that the desiccant is formed and made anhydrous by heating the polymer up to 250C (C2/L58-67).
Regarding claim 39, Thomas teaches that the two polymers are crosslinked one with another ([0013]).
Regarding claim 40, `818 does not explicitly teach the use of a filler as being necessary and therefore reads on the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 41, `818 teaches that the drying agent portion forming the complex can consist of the two polymers listed.
Regarding claim 42, `818 teaches that the fluid treated can be a solvent (C1/L64-C2/L13).
Regarding claim 43, `818 teaches that the desiccant can be in the form of fibers.
Regarding claim 44, `818 does not teach the relative concentrations of the positive to negative polymers present. However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). As such, it would have been obvious to optimize the concentrations as claimed.
Regarding claim 45, `818 teaches that drying temperatures to remove water range from 50-250 C overlapping the claimed range (C2/L58-67).
Regarding claim 46, `818 teaches that the desiccant can be in the form of fibers and thus not a coating.
Claim(s) 22, 33, 35, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 6,101,818 hereinafter `818) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2001/0014707) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Schlenoff et al. (US 2015/0104484).
Regarding claim 22, `818 fails to teach the article comprises a quaternary ammonium group having a nitrogen-bearing heteroaryl group, wherein nitrogen is alkylated. Schlenoff teaches a similar article capable of absorbing water (hydrating the polyelectrolyte) wherein one of the components of the article can be either polyethyleneimine or a polyelectrolyte comprising a pyridinium group such as poly(N-methylvinylpyridinium) (PMVP), including poly(N-methyl-2-vinylpyridinium) (PM2VP) ([0044]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a different known quaternary compound than taught in `818 capable of forming an article that absorbs water to be used in a similar manner as taught in `818 with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as it is merely choosing a different known positive electrolyte that is known to be used in a similar manner.
Regarding claims 33 and 35, as discussed above, one skilled in the art would expect similar properties for the same/similar articles. However, `818 fails to teach the specific stored strain factor and pore volume for the article as claimed. Schlenoff teaches that desired, known stored strain factors and pore volumes for similar articles of `818 would be within the ranges claimed ([0036] and [0088]). As such, one skilled in the art would expect a similar stored strain factor and pore volume in `818 as claimed, or would have optimized various factors during the production to provide said properties as such properties are known to be desired for similar article compositions.
Regarding claim 37, `818 merely teaches that the article is formed but fails to teach the article is formed via molding or extrusion. Schlenoff teaches that articles having similar compositions can be formed into the desired shapes via molding or extrusion ([0013] and [0075). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to form the article into a desired shape via molding or extrusion as such means are known to form similar articles into desired shapes.
Claim(s) 23-26, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 6,101,818 hereinafter `818) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2001/0014707) in view of Zheng et al. (WO 2019/195380).
Regarding claims 23-26, modified `818 teaches the use of specific polymers as part of the crosslinked/interpenetrating network but fails to teach the specific polymer of (poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDADMA). Zheng teaches a similar article used for a similar purpose of dehydrating/drying a fluid wherein the polymer is (poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDADMA) (Pages 2-3 and 13-15). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use (poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (PDADMA) instead of or in combination with polyethyleneimine as it is known polymer used for a similar purpose and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claims 28 and 30, modified `818 teaches the use of specific polymers as part of the crosslinked/interpenetrating network but fails to teach the specific polymer of (poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PSS)). Zheng teaches a similar article used for a similar purpose of dehydrating/drying a fluid wherein the polymer is (poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PSS)) (Pages 2-3 and 13-15). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use ((poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PSS))instead of or in combination with polyacrylic acid as it is known polymer used for a similar purpose and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. More specifically, `818 details a desiccant that comprising a mix of polymers that does not include a molecular sieve.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777