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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed on 9/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 have been amended. Claims 2, 7, and 9 are canceled. Thus, claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to JP ‘833 applied reference, “There is no description at all regarding the degree of cross-linking or the exchange capacity of the cation exchange resin.” See Remarks, page 5, last paragraph. The examiner agrees. However, as stated in the previous Office Action (mailed 7/3/2025), instant specification discloses AmberliteTM 200C is an H-form cation exchange resin having a degree of cross-linking from 16-24% (see [0027]). JP ‘833 discloses employing an H-type strong acid cation exchange AmberliteTM 200C. It is the same type as broadly claimed cation exchange resin and, moreover, specifically disclosed AmberliteTM 200C in Applicant’s instant specification. Thus, the AmberliteTM 200C employed in the JP ‘833 is expected to have the claimed 16-24% cross-linking and 2.4 eq/L-R or more ion exchange capacity.
Applicant argues AmberliteTM 200C (H+ form) has an exchange capacity of 1.75 eq/L-R or less which is significantly lower than the claimed 2.4 eq/L-R or more. See Remarks, pages 6-10. To support their position, two foreign language documents, as Evidentiary Documents, were submitted. The said documents are not provided with an English language translation or equivalent beyond the excerpts. The excerpts are not an official translation/verified translation and is out of context making the correlation to the Remarks and the Office Action unclear. Furthermore, it is noted these two Evidentiary Documents are not cited on IDS and are not incorporated into the Specification. See MPEP 609 and 901 regarding foreign language references and translations. Additionally, there is no English language citation to the foreign language Evidentiary Documents with publication date, source, author, title, etc. As such, the examiner is unable to fully consider the contents thereof and is unable to independently verify the contents thereof or any potential nexus to the claimed invention and cited references.
Applicant argues “the invention of JP ‘833 is characterized in that the TAA ion concentration of the TAA ion-containing solution first passed through the resin is 0.15 mass% or less” and therefore teaches away from claimed concentration of 2.4 to 25 mass%. See Remarks, page 11, last paragraph. The argument is not persuasive because as stated in the previous Office Action, Comparative Example 4A in JP ‘833 discloses passing TMAH solution with a concentration of 2.3 wt.% which is about the same as the claimed minimum 2.4 mass%. Moreover, JP ‘833 generally discloses passing a liquid having TAA ion concentration exceeding 0.15 wt.% through a cation exchange resin initially to convert the cation exchange resin in the H+ form into a cation exchange of a TAA ion form [0010]. Therefore, the disclosure of “exceeding 0.15wt%” would encompass the claimed 2.4 to 25 mass%.
In view of the amendments, claims rejected under 35 USC 102 is withdrawn. However, said claims are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007181833 (hereinafter JP ‘833) in view of US 2007/0142586 to Rasmussen et al. (hereinafter “Rasmussen”).
With respect to claims 1, 4-6, and 10, JP ‘833 discloses an apparatus and a method for treating a tetraalkylammonium (TAA) ion-containing solution using at least one resin selected from a strongly acidic cation exchange resin such as AmberliteTM 200C. See Abstract. Specifically, Comparative Example 4A in JP ‘833 discloses passing TMAH solution (tetramethylammonium hydroxide) with a concentration of 2.3 wt.% through a column packed with H-type strong acid cation exchange resin “Amberlite 200C to convert the cation exchange resin into the TMA type in advance in order to remove metal ions. Next, the same TMAH concentrated solution is passed through said column (TMA type cation exchange resin) to remove metal ions, after which the remaining concentrate is pushed out of the column with ultrapure water, washed and then regenerated with 1 mol/L hydrochloric acid (instant claim 4). The TMAH concentrated solution is obtained from developer wastewater discharged from an LCD manufacturing factory (this reads on claim 5). See [0042] and [0043].
It is noted on page 7, paragraph [0027] of instant specification AmberliteTM 200C is an H-form cation exchange resin having a degree of cross-linking from 16-24%.
JP ‘833 fails to disclose claimed ion exchange capacity of the cation exchange is 2.4 eq/L-R or more and concentration of TAA ions is from 2.4 mass% to 25 mass%.
With respect to claimed ion exchange capacity, JP ‘833 discloses utilizing the same AmberliteTM 200C and, therefore, it is expected that AmberliteTM 200C would have similarly claimed ion exchange capacity. One skilled in the art recognizes there is an inverse relationship between cross-linking and ion exchange capacity.
With respect to claimed concentration of TAA ions, JP ‘833 discloses (see Example 4A) passing TMAH solution with a concentration of 2.3 wt.% through AmberliteTM 200C. This exemplification of 2.3 wt.% is not significantly different from claimed minimum of 2.4 mass%. Additionally, JP ‘833 generally discloses passing a liquid having TAA ion concentration exceeding 0.15 wt.% through a cation exchange resin initially to convert the cation exchange resin in the H+ form into a cation exchange of a TAA ion form [0010]. Therefore, the disclosure of “exceeding 0.15wt%” would encompass the claimed 2.4 to 25 mass%.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007181833 (hereinafter JP ‘833) in view of US 2007/0142586 to Rasmussen et al. (hereinafter “Rasmussen”).
The discussion of JP ‘833 is as above. Additionally, it is noted JP ‘833 discloses using AmberliteTM 200C manufactured by Rohm and Haas Co. The particle size of said cation exchange resin is from 600 µm to 800 µm (according to Rohm and Haas Product Data Sheet). JP ‘833 does not mention changing the particle size of said cation exchange resin prior to its use.
JP ‘833 fails to disclose claimed particle diameter of the cation exchange resin is from 500 µm to 560 µm in the hydrogen ion form.
Rasmussen discloses making macroporous cation exchange resin [0001] & [0017]; AmberliteTM 200C is a macroporous cation exchange resin. Rasmussen further discloses the macroporous cation resin particles can have a wide range of sizes; for example, at least 60 µm and no greater than 1000 µm [0095]. The average particle size is dependent on applications for which the macroporous cation exchange resin is utilized [0096].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant application to have modified JP ‘833 by determining effective and optimum particle size of the cation exchange resin through routine experimentation because Rasmussen disclosed that the particle size of a cation exchange resin is dependent on its applications.
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 IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights