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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
No amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained and repeated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17, 20, and 23-25 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maletzco et al. (US 20190077919) in view of Troxler et al. (US 20080144431/WO2006066421, listed on IDS and ISR).
As to claims 17, 20, and 23-25, Maletzco (abs., claims, examples) discloses a manufacturing process (148-150) of producing a sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone (141-142) that meets the formulae of claims 17 and 23-25:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
via at least one sulfonating agent, such as sulfuric acid (16, 124). Maletzco (27-41) discloses the polyarylene(ether) sulfone may contain sulfonic cation (Li, Na, etc.) during the sulfonation process. Maletzco (50) teaches dispersing the sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone including unconverted polyarylene(ether) sulfone and sulfonation residuals with further precipitation (61-67, 164) into precipitates for separation and purification via water and stirring devices with temperature control (159-160). The sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone is applied for producing membrane (164).
Maletzco is silent on the claimed tooth rim dispersion machine for dispersion of claim 17.
Solving the same problem of dispersing solid/liquid phases (2), Troxler (abs., claims, examples, figures) discloses a dispersion device (claims 13-14) that distributes liquid and fine powder homogeneously in a simplified and improved manner (2, 7, 39, 44-45). The device is the same tooth rim dispersion machine, as acknowledged by instant pgpub [0031] (referred to WO2006066421). The device includes recirculation (36, figures 1-7) mode and pumping (27, figures 1-7).
Therefore, as to claims 17, 20, and 23-25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Maletzco and utilized the tooth rim dispersion machine for dispersing/precipitating the resultant sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone in view of Troxler, because the resultant dispersing/precipitating process would be simplified and improved due to homogeneous dispersion at manufacturing scale.
Claim(s) 18-19 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maletzco et al. (US 20190077919) in view of Troxler et al. (US 20080144431, listed on IDS and ISR) and further in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 20070264551).
Disclosure of Maletzco and Troxler is adequately set forth in ¶1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
Maletzco and Troxler are silent on nitric acid and the temperature range of the liquid of claims 18-19.
In the same area of endeavor of producing membrane for fuel cell using sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone (abs., claims, examples), Matsunaga (161-162) discloses using nitric acid to treat sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone at room temperature (falling within the claimed range of 10-25 °C) to further increase the proton conductivity.
Therefore, as to claims 18-19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Maletzco and Troxler and further added nitric acid to water for dispersion and precipitation in view of Matsunaga, because the resultant dispersing/precipitating process would yield a sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone with improved proton conductivity.
Claim(s) 21-22 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maletzco et al. (US 20190077919) in view of Troxler et al. (US 20080144431, listed on IDS and ISR) and further in view of Tecklenborg et al. (US 20090306279).
Disclosure of Maletzco and Troxler is adequately set forth in ¶1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
Maletzco and Troxler are silent on the claimed gear pump and viscosity range for transporting.
Solving the same problem of producing aqueous powder dispersions (abs., claims, examples), Tecklenborg (8-12, 118) discloses using gear pump as a suitable device to circulate powder/liquid (slurry) to obtain desirable particle size. The viscosity range of slurry for circulation is 150 to 8,000 mPas at a shear rate of 10 s-1 (implied measured at room temperature). One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize the range would be lower than 150 to 8,000 mPas at a shear rate of 10 s-1 if the viscosity is measured at the claimed 65°C, overlapping with the claimed range of at least 200 mPas. It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, as to claims 21-22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Maletzco and Troxler and further replaced Troxler’s pump with Tecklenborg’s gear pump, because the resultant dispersing/precipitating process would yield a sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone with desirable particle size by using the suitable circulation gear pump for circulation.
Response to Arguments
The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive.
Applicant's argument (6-7) of unexpected results is unpersuasive and insufficient. Evidence of unexpected results must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit of declaration. See MPEP § 716.01(c). Unexpected results must, in actuality, be unexpected. Unexpected results must be compared with the closest art, in this particular case, Maletzco. Applicant merely show results of instant examples and comparative examples. Unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. The applicant must show unexpected results over the entire claimed range to support unexpected results for the entire range and generic structures. Therefore, Applicant should compare several compositions containing claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points over the claimed range to several compositions containing the same claimed components of A, B, and C in amounts at several data points outside of the claimed range, including data points close to and far from the claimed range.
Applicants’ argument (8:1) that Troxler hasn’t shown a reasonable expectation of success of the suggested motivation. Troxler made a suggestion to modify, to establish reasonable expectation of making a modification, because Troxler (abs., claims, examples, figures) solves the same problem of dispersing solid/liquid phases (2) and discloses a dispersion device (claims 13-14) that distributes liquid and fine powder homogeneously in a simplified and improved manner (2, 7, 39, 44-45). The device is the same tooth rim dispersion machine, as acknowledged by instant pgpub [0031] (referred to WO2006066421). The attorney should aware that reasonable expectation of success is rarely, if ever, actually expounded by the references, but merely proposed in light of the facts of the case, in this case being that the 2 references deal with the same/similar dispersion systems. Hence, one skilled in the art would in fact have a reasonable expectation of success of simply controlling parameters of dispersion equipment. Such a process is considered widely routine and with an expected result. Rarely does this simple manipulation leads to or is the foundation of novelty. Applicants' have failed to suggest/argue WHY/HOW there is no reasonable expectation of success. The proposal is unsupported merely argumentative since they have failed to state when such a change is done what the end results of Bond would be.
In response to applicant's argument (8:1) that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, as to claims 17, 20, and 23-25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Maletzco and utilized the tooth rim dispersion machine for dispersing/precipitating the resultant sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone in view of Troxler, because the resultant dispersing/precipitating process would be simplified and improved due to homogeneous dispersion at manufacturing scale.
Regarding applicant’s argument (8-9), the examiner asserts Maletzco and Troxler are not deficient and can be combined with Matsunaga and Tecklenborg to meet the claims.
Therefore, as to claims 18-19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Maletzco and Troxler and further added nitric acid to water for dispersion and precipitation in view of Matsunaga, because the resultant dispersing/precipitating process would yield a sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone with improved proton conductivity.
Therefore, as to claims 21-22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Maletzco and Troxler and further replaced Troxler’s pump with Tecklenborg’s gear pump, because the resultant dispersing/precipitating process would yield a sulfonated polyarylene(ether) sulfone with desirable particle size by using the suitable circulation gear pump for circulation.
Therefore, the previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained and repeated.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. The 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 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 applications is 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 automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights