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 .
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruggeri et al (US 2,711,383) in view of Meyer (Elemental Sulfur, Chemistry Department, University of Washington, 1975).
Ruggeri teaches a method for preparing a mixture composed essentially of diresorcinol monosulfide by reacting resorcinol and elemental sulfur in 1:1 gram -to -gram-atom ratio at a temperature of 220 0C to 2350C for approximately two hours in the presence of a hydroquinone antioxidant.
The present claims 1 and 8-13 differ from this teaching by explicitly specifying the use of the octasulfur molecule (S8), introducing an alkali or acidic catalyst instead of an antioxidant, and dividing the reaction into a distinct two-stage thermal profile consisting of an initial low-temperature coupling phase at 1500C to 2000C followed by a secondary high-temperature curing phase at 2050C to 2500C. See col. 11, lines 42-58 and col. 7, lines 49-64.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention possessing the Ruggeri reference would arrive at the present claim through optimization and the application of standard chemical principles. Because ordinary commercial elemental sulfur inherently exist in the cyclooctasulfur (S8) allotropic form, specifying S8 adds no patentable novelty over Ruggeri generic sulfur reactant. Furthermore, a PHOSITA scaling Ruggeri’s process would naturally observe that the reaction mixture must transition through the 1500 C to 2000C range during initial heat-up; isolating this window into a formal stage 1 represents a routine engineering choice to cleanly initiate ring-opening and prevent the formation of the heavy polysulfide resins explicitly warned about by Ruggeri. Elevating the temperature to the claim 2050 C to 250 0C second stage directly encompasses Ruggeri’s taught 220 to 235 0C window, making the thermal profile a matter of prima facie obvious range optimization (In re Peterson). Finally, substituting Ruggeri’s antioxidant with a conventional acid or base catalyst (see Meyer conclusion and the references incorporated by Meyer) is a standard, predictable method in the art to accelerate electrophilic aromatic substitutions, completing the logical path to the claimed method.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected over Ruggeri, as the reference atomic sulfur ratio directly converts to an S8 to resorcinol molar ratio of 0.125:1 (1 mole of S atoms /8 atoms per ring =0.125 mole of S8) See col. 11, lines 42-58 and col. 7, lines 49-64.
That falls within the claimed 0.045:1 to 0.45:1 range. This overlap, combined with Ruggeri’s teachings on varying sulfur amounts to alter resinous properties, makes the claimed range an obvious result of routine experimentation, to overcome this, applicants must prove the claimed range yields critical, unexpected results, or show that Ruggeri teaches away from the invention by focusing on producing heavier polysulfides, not the monosulfide intended in the claim.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 7 and 14 while Ruggeri discloses the thermal synthesis of diresorcinol sulfide using sulfur, Meyer teaches that such reactions are highly sensitive to acids and bases(see conclusion and related references incorporated by Meyer), making the addition of standard catalysts like sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, or para toluenesulfonic acid an obvious optimization to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Ruggeri teaches baseline reaction of resorcinol and sulfur within a high-temperature threshold (220-2350C), while Meyer establishes that sulfur-organic reactions are highly sensitive to catalyst traces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would naturally recognize that transitioning a batch process through the initial 150-2000C window dictates a finite residence time, and optimizing that dwell time to ensure a specific percentage of reactant consumption (such as 80% of the sulfur) before boosting the thermal energy is a standard, conventional chemical engineering technique to maximize yields and suppress the formation of Ruggeri’s warned polysulfides resins See col. 11, lines 42-58 and col. 7, lines 49-64.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights