DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-16 are pending. Claims 11-16 are new, and Claims 2 and 7 have been canceled.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 09 April 2026, with respect to the grounds of rejection of Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The grounds of rejection have been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims in a manner that addresses and overcomes the issues of indefiniteness that required the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); therefore, upon further consideration, the grounds of rejection have been withdrawn. Please consult the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 09 April 2026 for more detail on why the grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09 April 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent Claims 1, 6, 9 and 10 to further recite the limitations of now canceled Claims 2 and 7, in particular wherein the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is methanol having a water concentration of 100 ppm or less. Applicant then argues that Shiotani fails to disclose this feature, in particular because the means for solving the problem are significantly different and have different functionalities (see pages 12-13). Applicant argues that Shiotani uses a core-shell resin in which no ion exchange groups are present in the interior, and therefore the reference has no need or limit the nonaqueous solvent for dehydration. Upon further consideration, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Shiotani discloses methanol as a non-aqueous solvent specifically for the type of dehydration treatment that the applicant argues Shiotani does not require (Paragraph [0017]). Shiotani further discloses water to be an impurity that must be prevented from contaminating the nonaqueous solvent, with values of water concentration well below 100 ppm (Table 1; Paragraph [0047]). Therefore, the methanol used as the nonaqueous solvent would have a water content below 100 ppm. Furthermore, the disclosure of Shiotani reads on the claims regardless of differences in their functionalities. For these reasons, the grounds of rejection are maintained in view of the arguments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiotani et al. (herein referred to as “Shiotani”, JP 2021001124A).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Shiotani discloses a method for purifying a nonaqueous liquid using an ion exchange resin (Abstract; treatment of nonaqueous liquid by passing said liquid through ion exchange resin after dehydration treatment), the method comprising:
bringing the ion exchange resin into contact with a nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment (Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is washed over granular resin, may include methanol, ethanol or isopropyl alcohol);
bringing the ion exchange resin after the pretreatment into contact with a nonaqueous liquid to be purified (Abstract; Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]; liquid to be purified then flows through the resin for treatment);
wherein the concentration of metals to be reduced in the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is 5 μg/L or less (Paragraph [0039]; see that range of desired metal impurities is well below 5 μg/L), and the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is methanol having a water concentration of 100 ppm or less (Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0039]; methanol, low levels of metal contaminant).
However, while the reference is silent on relative permittivities of the liquids undergoing the treatment, the reference does disclose a preferred temperature, as measured at 25⁰C (Paragraph [0035]) and the use of multiple nonaqueous liquids as both the pretreatment liquid and the liquid to be treated (Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment and the nonaqueous liquid to be purified to have relative permittivities above 20 as measured at 25⁰C (see methanol) and the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment to have a higher relative permittivity than the liquid to be purified (see methanol versus isopropyl alcohol, as an example) in order to optimize the resin pretreatment and the treatment of the liquid to one’s preferences (Abstract; Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani further discloses wherein the ion exchange resin comprises at least a cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0013]; Paragraph [0025]; see cation exchange groups).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani further discloses wherein the nonaqueous liquid to be purified is IPA (Paragraph [0017]; IPA being isopropyl alcohol).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Shiotani discloses an apparatus for purifying a nonaqueous liquid using an ion exchange resin (Abstract; apparatus for treatment of nonaqueous liquid by passing said liquid through ion exchange resin after dehydration treatment), the apparatus comprising:
a pretreatment device configured to bring the ion exchange resin into contact with a nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment (Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is washed over granular resin, may include methanol, ethanol or isopropyl alcohol);
a purification device configured to bring the ion exchange resin, which has been brought into contact with the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment, into contact with the nonaqueous liquid to be purified (Abstract; Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]; liquid to be purified then flows through the resin for treatment);
wherein the concentration of metals to be reduced in the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is 5 μg/L or less (Paragraph [0039]; see that range of desired metal impurities is well below 5 μg/L), and the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is methanol having a water concentration of 100 ppm or less (Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0039]; methanol, low levels of metal contaminant).
However, while the reference is silent on relative permittivities of the liquids undergoing the treatment, the reference does disclose a preferred temperature of 25⁰C (Paragraph [0035]) and the use of multiple nonaqueous liquids as both the pretreatment liquid and the liquid to be treated (Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment and the nonaqueous liquid to be purified to have relative permittivities above 20 as measured at 25⁰C (see methanol) and the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment to have a higher relative permittivity than the liquid to be purified (see methanol versus isopropyl alcohol, as an example) in order to optimize the resin pretreatment and the treatment of the liquid to one’s preferences (Abstract; Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 6, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani further discloses wherein the ion exchange resin comprises at least a cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0013]; Paragraph [0025]; see cation exchange groups).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Shiotani discloses a pretreatment device for an ion exchange resin used for purification of a nonaqueous liquid (Abstract; apparatus for treatment of nonaqueous liquid by passing said liquid through ion exchange resin after dehydration treatment), the device comprising:
at least a storage tank and a pump configured to bring a nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment into an ion exchange contact resin to contact the ion exchange resin (Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]; nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is washed over granular resin, may include methanol, ethanol or isopropyl alcohol; pump in pressurized flow, wherein said flow contacts ion exchange resin source of nonaqueous solvent would be storage tank);
wherein methanol having a water concentration of 100 ppm or less as the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is passed through the ion exchange resin at 1 BV or higher in the pretreatment means (Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0033]; Paragraph [0035]; Paragraph [0039]; volume of solvent/liquid is well over the packed bed volume; methanol, low levels of metal contaminant).
However, while the reference is silent on relative permittivities of the liquids undergoing the treatment, the reference does disclose a preferred temperature of 25⁰C (Paragraph [0035]) and the use of multiple nonaqueous liquids as both the pretreatment liquid and the liquid to be treated (Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment and the nonaqueous liquid to be purified to have relative permittivities above 20 as measured at 25⁰C (see methanol) and the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment to have a higher relative permittivity than the liquid to be purified (see methanol versus isopropyl alcohol, as an example) in order to optimize the resin pretreatment and the treatment of the liquid to one’s preferences (Abstract; Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Shiotani discloses a method for producing an ion exchange resin used for purification of a nonaqueous liquid to be purified (Abstract; treatment of nonaqueous liquid by passing said liquid through ion exchange resin after dehydration treatment), the method comprising:
bringing the ion exchange resin into contact with a nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment (Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is washed over granular resin, may include methanol, ethanol or isopropyl alcohol);
wherein the concentration of metals to be reduced in the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is 5 μg/L or less (Paragraph [0039]; see that range of desired metal impurities is well below 5 μg/L), and the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment is methanol having a water concentration of 100 ppm or less (Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0039]; methanol, low levels of metal contaminant).
However, while the reference is silent on relative permittivities of the liquids undergoing the treatment, the reference does disclose a preferred temperature of 25⁰C (Paragraph [0035]) and the use of multiple nonaqueous liquids as both the pretreatment liquid and the liquid to be treated (Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment and the nonaqueous liquid to be purified to have relative permittivities above 20 as measured at 25⁰C (see methanol) and the nonaqueous liquid for pretreatment to have a higher relative permittivity than the liquid to be purified (see methanol versus isopropyl alcohol, as an example) in order to optimize the resin pretreatment and the treatment of the liquid to one’s preferences (Abstract; Paragraph [0011]; Paragraph [0017]; Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 10, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani further discloses wherein the ion exchange resin comprises at least a cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0013]; Paragraph [0025]; see cation exchange groups).
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 11, upon which Claim 12 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani discloses wherein the cation exchange resin is a strongly acidic cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0025]; see strongly acidic cationic group/resin).
Regarding instant Claim 13, Claim 3, upon which Claim 13 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani discloses wherein the cation exchange resin is a strongly acidic cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0025]; see strongly acidic cationic group/resin).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 8, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani discloses wherein the cation exchange resin is a strongly acidic cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0025]; see strongly acidic cationic group/resin).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 9, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani further discloses wherein the ion exchange resin comprises at least a cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0013]; Paragraph [0025]; see cation exchange groups).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 15, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani discloses wherein the cation exchange resin is a strongly acidic cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0025]; see strongly acidic cationic group/resin).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiotani et al. (herein referred to as “Shiotani”, JP 2021001124A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gisch et al. (herein referred to as “Gisch”, US Pat Pub. 2018/0001313).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 3, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. Shiotani further discloses wherein the cation exchange resin is a gel-type strongly acidic cation exchange resin (Paragraph [0025]).
However, the reference is silent on said cation exchange resin having a degree of cross-linking of 16% to 24%.
Gisch discloses chromatographic separation of saccharides using strong acid exchange resin incorporating barium sulfate in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing gel-type strong acid cation exchange resins (Abstract). Gisch further discloses wherein the degree of cross-linking of the resin can yield faster diffusion kinetics at the expense of bead breakage and operating pressures (Paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the degree of cross-linking of the cation exchange resin of Shiotani to be of 16 to 24% because Gisch discloses the degree of cross-linking should be chosen in order to optimize diffusion kinetics against bead breakage and operating pressures (Gisch, Paragraph [0004]).
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 RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 05/13/2026
Prosecution Insights