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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on July 25, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negi et al. (US Pub 2001/0025072) in view of Seno et al. (US Pub 2019/0322817).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6, Negi discloses a purging agent comprising porous particles ([0019], [0032], Example 1) comprising an (A) ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) and (B) an alkali metal (claims 1 and 5). The alkali metal is present in an amount within the presently claimed range (claim 5). Negi does not disclose (1) the median pore diameter of the porous particles being between 0.01-3 microns or (2) the average particle diameter being between 2.5-8 mm.
With respect to (1), Negi discloses that the EVOH composition is foamed ([0019], [0032]) and uses a method which appears to be substantially similar as the disclosed method. That is, both methods use the same composition and extrudes the composition using twin-screw extruder heated at approximately the same temperature, i.e., 180ᵒC (Example 1 of Negi) vs. 190ᵒC (Example 1 of present disclosure). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the resulting particles would exhibit the same porosity properties as claimed in claims 1 and 2. See MPEP 2112. Alternatively, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have discovered workable ranges for the porosity properties set forth in both claim 1 and claim 2 through routine experimentation.
With respect to (2), Negi is silent as the porous particle diameter. Seno discloses that it conventional in the art to prepare EVOH particles having a diameter of 1 to 10 mm [0132] and specifically discloses a particle diameter of 3.8 mm in Example 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have prepared the porous EVOH particles of Negi having a conventional diameter within the presently claimed range, motivated by the desire to obtain particles that can be easily handled, as taught by Seno.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Negi discloses that the purging agent can contain water in an amount of 0.1 -20 wt% [0016].
Regarding claim 5, Negi discloses that the ethylene content in the EVOH copolymer is 15-70 mol% [0028].
Regarding claim 7, Negi discloses that the purging agent can further comprise (C) a polyolefin resin in an amount that overlaps with the presently claimed range [0029].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights