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
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 has been maintained and repeated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 21-26 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20150218313).
As to claims 21-26, Wang (claims, abs., figures, examples 70-73) discloses a polymer of:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ar can specifically be
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. The polymer meets the claimed polymer, because of the sodium perfluorooctane sulfonate side group (meets those sulfonate groups in instant pgpub [0182]), biphenylene sulfone (meets the conjugation-modifying repeat unit of instant Fig. 1), and substituted phenylene of instant claim 26.
The polymer would inherently exhibit the claimed properties “deep UV excitation spectrum”, “water solvated”, and “conjugation length”, because in view of the substantially identical composition (in this case, the disclosed polymer structure), it appears that the adduct would have inherently possessed the claimed properties. See MPEP § 2112.
Wang is silent on the intended use of "dye” of claim 1. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). In this particular case, no structural difference between the claimed and disclosed polymer, and the disclosed polymer would inherently be capable of performed the claimed intended use.
Response to Arguments
The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive.
Applicant’s attack (pg.1-9) on Wang appears irrelevant to the previous rejection, because the argument cited Wang’s structure that has not been applied for the rejection:
PNG
media_image4.png
582
1021
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for the previous rejection, Wang (claims, abs., figures, examples 70-73) discloses a polymer (substituted phenalene-diphenylene sulfone) of:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ar can specifically be
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. The polymer meets the claimed polymer, because of the sodium perfluorooctane sulfonate side group (meets those sulfonate groups in instant pgpub [0182]), biphenylene sulfone (meets the conjugation-modifying repeat unit of instant Fig. 1), and substituted phenylene of instant claim 26.
Therefore, the previous restriction and 102 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