DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action follows a reply filed on 12/22/2025. Per the reply, claims 1, 3-4, 8 and 10-11 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending and under examination herein.
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 .
Withdrawn Rejection(s)
Applicant has amended to address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set out in the previous Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111303360 A (hereinafter, 'CN '360') (citing infra to corresponding machine-generated translation, of record).
The basis of the rejection is adequately set forth in the previous Office action (see pages 6-8) and that explanation is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
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.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN '360 (citing infra to corresponding machine-generated translation, of record) in view of Yan et al (US 2019/0036143 A1) (hereinafter, 'Yan').
The basis of the rejection is adequately set forth in the previous Office action (see pages 7-12) and that explanation is incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 with respect to CN ‘360 and Yan have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Based on the arguments presented (see Reply, pp. 15-16), Applicant’s position appears to be that CN ‘360 does not disclose the polymer comprising Ar2 selected from the group consisting of the structures listed in claim 1 without 1A as disclosed by CN ‘360 and that Yan does not disclose the use of the Ar2 selected from the group consisting of the structures as listed in the claimed application without 1A.
Issue is taken with this position because, even as amended, claim 1 still recites that “Ar2 is selected from the group consisting of …
PNG
media_image1.png
94
141
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…”; and claim 8 still recites that “Ar2 is selected from the group consisting of: …
PNG
media_image2.png
81
109
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…” (see claim 1, lines 9-10 and claim 8, lines 8-9). Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not reflective of the full scope of the rejected claims, which continue to read on an anion exchange polymer having the structure described in CN ‘360 (see ¶¶ [0127]-[0131]; Fig. 7). Accordingly, it is not necessary to the viability of the continued rejection that Yan disclose the use of the Ar2 selected from the structures as listed in present claim 1. Indeed, the rejection relies on Yan only for its teaching of equivalence between the piperidone monomer of CN ‘360 and the 3-oxo-6-azoniaspiro[5.5]undecane salt monomer (corresponding to the mixture components of X1' in claim
14) and corresponding structural units of Formula 1A or 2A of the reaction product of Yan (corresponding to the mixture components of X1 in claim 7 (see Yan: ¶ [0055])), and the Applicant does not argue that Yan fails to teach such equivalence.
Accordingly, the continued rejection of claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, and 15-20 is still deemed tenable and therefore must be maintained.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
The closest prior art to CN ‘360 and Yan et al, discussed above, does not describe the inventions of instant claims 3-4 and 10-11, especially the polymer comprising Ar2 selected from the group consisting of the structures listed in each of instant claims 3-4 and 10-11, or provide proper rationale to modify either of their respective inventions into the invention of instant claim 3, 4, 10 or 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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 automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/01-06-26