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 Status
The Amendment filed on 10 November 2025 has been entered; claims 1, 4-7, 12, 14-16, and 18-24 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 7-8 of the Remarks, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, 21, and 23 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive; however, these rejections have been modified to a 103 rejection over Zhang, as necessitated by amendment. Briefly, Zhang teaches 6% by mass water loss from the disclosed polyphenylene sulfide resin particles, which leaves 94% by mass of polyphenylene sulfide resin in the adsorbent. In view of the interpretation made in the 112(b) rejections set forth below, the Examiner submits that Zhang renders obvious the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as well as dependent claims 4, 5, 12, 14-16, and 18-23.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding Claims 10 and 11, Applicant states in the Remarks that these claims remain pending; however, they do not appear in the 02 March 2026 claim set at all. Since they are not present in the claim set, the Examiner has removed the rejections of claims 10 and 11 and has considered them to be canceled claims; these rejections would still be applicable should Applicant add these claims into the pending claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 12, 14-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 7, the limitations “wherein the content of the polyarylene sulfide resin in the polyarylene sulfide resin particles, excluding unavoidable contaminants, is in a range of 95% by mass or more” and “wherein the adsorbent is a hydrated material having, prior to the contacting, a moisture content of 10 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of polyarylene sulfide resin” appear to be incompatible with one another, as at most up to 5% mass of water could be included in the polyarylene sulfide resin adsorbent according to the first quoted limitations.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will take the interpretation that the adsorbent has a moisture content of “1 part by mass to 5 parts by mass”, which is a range of moisture content which is supported within Paragraph [0058] of the Specification and is consistent with the limitations “wherein the content of the polyarylene sulfide resin in the polyarylene sulfide resin particles, excluding unavoidable contaminants, is in a range of 95% by mass or more”.
Regarding claims 4-6, 12, 14-16, and 18-23, they are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14-16, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Journal of Molecular Liquids, 2019, 296, 111860), hereinafter “Zhang”.
With respect to claims 1, 21, and 23, Zhang teaches a method for adsorbing (“separating”) heavy metals (“a separation object substance”) from water (“a liquid”) using an absorbent from aqueous solutions comprising heavy metals (Title; Abstract), the method comprising the step of contacting the aqueous solutions comprising heavy metals (“liquid containing a separation object substance”) and an adsorbent with each other to permit the adsorbent to selectively adsorb and remove the heavy metals (“separation object substance”) contained in the aqueous solution/water (“liquid”), wherein the adsorbent is N-[4-morpholinecarboximidamidoyl]carboximidamidoylmethylated polyphenylene sulfide “MCMPPS” (“a polyarylene sulfide resin”) (see Sections 2.2.1., 2.2.2.; Scheme 1), and the liquid contains water (see Sections 2.3, 3.3; Fig. 5). Zhang is silent with respect to a surfactant.
With respect to the limitations “wherein the content of the polyarylene sulfide resin in the polyarylene sulfide resin particles, excluding unavoidable contaminants, is in a range of 95% by mass or more”, Zhang teaches that all three monomers making up the polyphenylene sulfide resin in Scheme 1 are polyphenylene sulfide-based monomers (“repeat units”), wherein monomer x is polyphenylene sulfide itself which meets the limitations of claim 21 when R1 = R2 = H, as well as the limitations of claim 23, monomer m is polyphenylene sulfide bearing a methylene chloride functionality, and monomer n is polyphenylene sulfide bearing the moroxydine functional group, wherein moroxydine comprises an amino group, meeting the limitations of claim 21 when R1 = H and R2 = moroxydine (a functional group containing one or more amino groups). Thus, the polyphenylene sulfide resin particles of Zhang comprise 100% of arylene sulfide monomers, absent “unavoidable components”.
With respect to the limitations “wherein the adsorbent is a hydrated material having, prior to the contacting, a moisture content of 10 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of polyarylene sulfide resin”, Zhang teaches that after synthesis (so, “before contacting”) the MCMPPS loses about 6% mass as it is heated from room temperature to 100°C, which is attributed to adsorbed water via dehydration on TG analysis (see Section 3.2); therefore, it is submitted that the MCMPPS adsorbent material is hydrated and contains 6% by mass of water and 94% by mass polyarylene sulfide, which is substantially close to that of the instant claims (see interpretation made in corresponding 112(b) rejection set forth above wherein the moisture content is interpreted to be “1% by mass to 5% by mass”). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary skill 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.
With respect to claims 4, 5, and 15, Zhang teaches that the separation object substance is Pb(II), Cd(II), Cr(III), Cu(II), and Ni(II) (“a transition metal” which “contains a metal atom which is not a metal atom by-product”) (Abstract; Sections 2.3, 3.3; Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 7, Zhang teaches a method for adsorbing (“separating”) heavy metals (“a separation object substance”) from water (“a liquid”) to “produce a liquid” using an absorbent from aqueous solutions comprising heavy metals (Title; Abstract), the method comprising the step of contacting the aqueous solutions comprising heavy metals (“liquid containing a separation object substance”) and an adsorbent with each other to permit the adsorbent to selectively adsorb and remove the heavy metals (“separation object substance”) contained in the aqueous solution/water (“liquid”), wherein the adsorbent is N-[4-morpholinecarboximidamidoyl]carboximidamidoylmethylated polyphenylene sulfide (“polyarylene sulfide resin”) (see Sections 2.2.1., 2.2.2.; Scheme 1), and the liquid contains water (see Sections 2.3, 3.3; Fig. 5). Zhang is silent with respect to a surfactant.
With respect to the limitations “wherein the adsorbent is a hydrated material having, prior to the contacting, a moisture content of 10 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of polyarylene sulfide resin”, Zhang teaches that after synthesis (so, “before contacting”) the MCMPPS loses about 6% mass as it is heated from room temperature to 100°C, which is attributed to adsorbed water via dehydration on TG analysis (see Section 3.2); therefore, it is submitted that the MCMPPS adsorbent material is hydrated and contains 6% by mass of water and 94% by mass polyarylene sulfide, which is substantially close to that of the instant claims (see interpretation made in corresponding 112(b) rejection set forth above wherein the moisture content is interpreted to be “1% by mass to 5% by mass”). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary skill 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.
With respect to claim 12, 14, and 16, Zhang teaches that the separation object substance is a transition metal which contains a metal atom which is not a metal atom by-product (Abstract; Sections 2.3, 3.3; Fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 18-20, 22, and 24 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, as none of the prior art teaches or suggests employing a polyarylene sulfide resin to adsorb protic organic solvents from water, or that the polyarylene sulfide resin further includes a plurality of trifunctional repeat units as recited in claim 22.
Regarding claim 22 and 24, the Examiner acknowledges CN 101981091 B (U.S. Patent # 8563681 in same family) and KR 101410407 B1 (U.S. Patent # 8785571 in same family), in which are disclosed polyarylene sulfide resins comprising trifunctional repeat units according to claim 22 (see first structure in Paragraph [0029] of CN 101981091 B, and structure N within Paragraph [0031] of KR 10-2013-0102035); however, neither reference discloses a method of removing a substance from a liquid comprising water as required by the claims, and neither reference discloses motivation to modify the polyarylene resin of Zhang to include the trifunctional repeat units absent hindsight reasoning.
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 CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 23 March 2026