DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-17 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the parenthesis around the text are not necessary and should be deleted.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and thus are also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asami et al. (EP0334673 A2; cited in IDS dated 04/29/2025).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Asami teaches an anion exchange resin comprising the formula:where R1, R2 and R3 are the same or are different and each is a hydrogen atom or a lower alkyl or a benzyl group (Abstract; Claim 1; Pg. 2, lines 35-60). Asami teaches the nitrogen atom of the ammonium ion is connected to a CH2 group that serves to link the monomer to the polymer chain (Pg. 2, lines 35-60, Formula II; Claim 1). Asami teaches a lower alkyl is a carbon chain having 1-4 carbon atoms, such as a methyl, ethyl, or propyl group (Pg. 3, lines 3-4). Asami teaches an example where the ammonium cation is dimethylbenzylammonium, i.e. it is substituted with 2 methyl groups and 1 benzyl group (Pg. 3-4, Preparative Examples 1-3), which anticipates the instant claims where R1 = benzyl without substitution and R2, R3 = methyl (i.e. 1 carbon atom). An annotated version of Formula II taught by Asami is reproduced below to aid the reader.
PNG
media_image2.png
600
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Reproduced Formula II of Asami highlighting the linker (circled) and the polymer chain (rectangle).
Regarding claim 2, Asami anticipates the ion exchanger of claim 1 and Asami further teaches the linker connecting the ammonium group to the copolymer is a CH2 group (Pg. 2, lines 35-60, Formula II), which is an equivalent term to “methylene”. The linker is depicted in Formula II of Asami (see the “circled CH2” in figure above in Claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Asami anticipates the ion exchanger of claim 1 and Asami further teaches an anion exchange resin, where the exchange resin is comprised of a styrene and divinylbenzene copolymer (Pg. 3, line 58-Pg. 4, line 23; Claim 2)
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 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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asami et al. (EP0334673 A2; cited in IDS dated 04/29/2025) in view of Takada et al. (JP2014015420A English; cited in IDS dated 01/11/2024). Note, the English translation of Takada et al. (JP2014015420A) provided by Applicant on 01/11/2024 only includes an English Abstract. Citations below are from a full English translation provided by Examiner.
Regarding claim 4, Asami anticipates the ion exchanger of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the ion exchanger is a non-particulate organic porous ion exchanger composed of a continuous skeleton phase and a continuous pore phase, wherein a thickness of the continuous skeleton is within a range from 1 to 100 pm, an average diameter of the continuous pores is within a range from 1 to 1,000 pm, a total pore volume is within a range from 0.5 to 50 mL/g, an ion exchange capacity per unit weight in a dry state is within a range from 1 to 9 mg equivalent/g, and ion exchange groups are distributed throughout the organic porous ion exchanger,” to which Asami is silent.
Takada teaches a non-particulate organic porous ion exchanger where the ion exchanger comprises a continuous skeleton phase and a continuous pore phase, the thickness of the continuous skeleton is 1 to 100 μm, the average diameter of the continuous pores is 1 to 1000 μm, the total pore volume is 0.5 to 50mL/ g, the ion exchange capacity per weight in the dry state is 1 to 6 mg equivalent / g, and the ion exchange groups are uniformly distributed in the organic porous ion exchanger (Abstract; Pg. 3, par. 2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Takada (t thickness of the continuous skeleton is 1 to 100 μm; average diameter of the continuous pores is 1 to 1000 μm; total pore volume is 0.5 to 50mL/ g; ion exchange capacity per weight in the dry state is 1 to 6 mg equivalent / g) overlaps with the claimed ranges (a thickness of the continuous skeleton is within a range from 1 to 100 pm; average diameter of the continuous pores is within a range from 1 to 1,000 pm; total pore volume is within a range from 0.5 to 50 mL/g; ion exchange capacity per unit weight in a dry state is within a range from 1 to 9 mg equivalent/g). Therefore, the range in Takada renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, when the ion exchanger displays the properties taught by Takada, the ion exchanger displays increased ion exchange capacity, improved mechanical strength, and less pressure loss during liquid passage increases (Pg. 3, par. 6-10; Pg. 18, par. 4).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an ion exchanger with a continuous skeleton phase and a continuous pore phase where the thickness of the continuous skeleton is 1 to 100 μm, the average diameter of the continuous pores is 1 to 1000 μm, the total pore volume is 0.5 to 50mL/ g, the ion exchange capacity per weight in the dry state is 1 to 6 mg equivalent / g, and the ion exchange groups are uniformly distributed in the organic porous ion exchanger in the ion exchanger of Asami in order to provide improved ion exchange capacities and mechanical strength while reducing pressure loss during liquid passage increases, as taught by Takada.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McTaggart et al. (US5462730): McTaggart teaches a crosslinked quaternary ammonium polymer (Abstract; Claim 1). .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights