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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN2023109341195, filed on 7/28/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention according to claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because none of the pictures of the surfaces of electrode plates prepared in Embodiments 1-6 and Comparative Examples 1-4 shown in the sole FIGURE are legible. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the term, (meth) acrylate monomer”, in line 10 should recite: --(methyl) acrylate monomer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, in line 6, “an initiator of the unsaturated branched polyether is any one of allyl alcohol, isobutylene alcohol and isopentenol.” It is unclear whether the role of this “initiator” is to ‘initiate’ formation of the unsaturated branched polyether, or to serve as a molecule for initiating polymerization of certain monomers to form the unsaturated branched polyether. The claim further recites, “a participating chain segment of the unsaturated branched polyether is a copolymer of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide.” While the latter recitation suggests that the unsaturated branched polyether at least comprises a copolymer of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide in its chain, it is unclear as to what role the copolymer is participating in, for example, whether the copolymer is ‘initiated’ by the “initiator” to form the polyether with another monomer/polymer, or whether the copolymer is to serve as a reaction site in the later part of the preparation method to form the semi-finished product in step 2 or the comb-shaped positive dispersing material in step 3. A review of the example embodiments from the instant specification reveals that, in step 1, the unsaturated branched polyether (e.g., allylalcohol polyoxyethylene (300) polyoxypropylene (200) ether of Embodiment 1) is added in its polyether form along with the solvent, unsaturated cyclic monomer, and (methyl) acrylate monomer. Thus, in light of the instant specification, for examination purposes, the recitations, (i) “an initiator of the unsaturated branched polyether is any one of allyl alcohol, isobutylene alcohol and isopentenol,” and “a participating chain segment of the unsaturated branched polyether is a copolymer of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide,” are considered to describe how the unsaturated branched polyether in the mixing step (1) was formed using a “starter material” as opposed to an initiator (this is scientifically more accurate since the starter material is part of the polyether/semi-finished product), and “precursors” including ethylene oxide and propylene oxide. Examiner then interprets the recitation: “an initiator of the unsaturated branched polyether is any one of allyl alcohol, isobutylene alcohol and isopentenol, a participating chain segment of the unsaturated branched polyether is a copolymer of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, a molecular weight of the unsaturated branched polyether ranges from 500 g/mol to 5,000 g/mol,” to have recited: --the unsaturated branched polyether starting material prepared by the alkoxylation of a hydroxyl-functional unsaturated starter selected from the group consisting of allyl alcohol, isobutylene alcohol, and isopentenol, the unsaturated branched polyether comprises a polyoxyalkylene chain segment formed by copolymerization of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide monomers onto the starter material, a molecular weight of the unsaturated branched polyether ranges from 500 g/mol to 5,000 g/mol.--.
Claim 1 further recites, in line 13, “heating the mixed solution to a reaction temperature, adding an initiating agent, and keeping the reaction temperature for reaction to obtain a semi-finished product.” The role of the initiating agent is ambiguous and, as whole, renders the claim unclear due to lack of clear distinction from the earlier mentioned “initiator”. However, for examination purposes, in light of the instant specification, the instant recitation is understood to have recited: --heating the mixed solution to a reaction temperature, adding an initiating agent to initiate a reaction, and keeping the reaction temperature for the reaction to obtain a semi-finished product--.
Claims 2-6 are similarly rejected for including subject matter of claim 1 above.
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.
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(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (CN103084119A – see IDS; machine translation of CN103084119B used due to unavailability of cited publication) in view of Michaud (US2021/0179576A1).
Claim 1 is a method for the preparation of comb type positive electrode dispersion materials. In this regard, Lu discloses a phosphate polymeric dispersant [pars. [0004- 0008] characterized by its comonomer composition and percentage amounts of substances being: phosphated polymeric monomers from 5.0%~ 100.0%, and other unsaturated comonomers from 0%~95.0%. The phosphated polymerized monomer is one or more phosphated products of hydroxyethyl acrylate, hydroxypropyl acrylate, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, allyl alcohol ethoxylate, methallyl alcohol ethoxylate. Phosphorylating agents commonly used include phosphorus pentoxide, polyphosphoric acid, and the like. The other unsaturated comonomers described are one or a combination of one or more of acrylic acid and its derivatives, methacrylic acid and its derivatives, styrene, cis anhydride, styrene sulfonic acid, allyl alcohol ethoxylate, methallyl alcohol ethoxylate, and the like.
The phosphoesterified polymeric polymeric dispersant is prepared by: (1) a small amount of a solvent such as ethanol, isopropanol, and the like is added to the reactor, washing with stirring, after being removed, it is heated to evaporate to dryness, carrying out moisture in the reactor, adding one or more monomers of hydroxyethyl acrylate, hydroxypropyl acrylate, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, allyl alcohol ethoxylate, methallyl alcohol ethoxylate to a reactor, increasing the temperature to 35° C and adding the phosphorylating agent in an amount of 1.2 times the monomer species in portions under vigorous stirring, with addition time controlled at 1.0 h~3.0 h, increasing the temperature to 45° C~70° C after complete addition and reacting for 1.0 h~5.0 h, obtaining the phosphorylated polymerized monomers, and finally adding the other polymerized monomers to the reactor and stirring well; (2) The reactor was additionally charged with water and molecular weight regulator (sodium bisulfite or thioglycolic acid or isopropanol, etc.), warmed to 75° C-100° C, to which the above monomer mixture and initiator solution were simultaneously added dropwise with drop time controlled at 0.5 h-4.0 h, continued reaction 2.0 h-4.0 h, initiator is a common persulfate initiator; (3) After the reaction is completed, the temperature is reduced to below 60° C and an inorganic base such as sodium hydroxide or an organic base such as triethanolamine is added to adjust the pH = 5.0 to 10.0; (4) The above solution is spray dried as a powder or used directly without spray drying. As can be seen, Lu discloses a dispersant obtainable by phosphatation from hydroxyl acrylates and, in turn, by polymerization with styrene, unsaturated polyether monomers, and having a comb structure as well. However, Lu is distinguished from the invention of claim 1 by the following features:
(1) Differences in both use of particularly phosphoric acid as phosphatation reagent and the step of phosphatation.
(2) Differences between the solvent used, the unsaturated polyether species.
Based on the above distinguishing technical features, the technical problem actually solved by the invention is to provide a method for preparing comb dispersed materials similar to the prior art. With regard to the distinguishing technical feature (1), Lu discloses the phosphatation of hydroxy acrylate monomers by phosphatating agents, while indicating that the introduction of phosphate into the dispersant improves ionization degree and hard water resistance of the dispersant, thereby improving the dispersing performance of the dispersant [par. 0003-6,0011]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have selected the appropriate kind of phosphoesterification agent and adaptation of the sequential order/steps of phosphoesterification, in order to improve ionization degree and hard water resistance of the dispersant, thereby improving the dispersing performance of the dispersant.
As to the distinguishing technical feature (2), for polyethers, Lu discloses (meth) ally alcohol ethoxylates, on the basis of which further routine adjustments to the relevant polyether molecular weights and participating segments can occur to those skilled in the art (i.e., propylene oxide and ethylene oxide). With regard to the solvents, Lu has disclosed organic solvents such as ethanol, isopropanol and the like, while for Nmethylpyrrolidone, N-ethylpyrrolidone are also common organic solvents in the field. For example, Michaud, from the same field of endeavors, discloses forming polymers using similar monomers in which the polymerization step can be carried out in at least one solvent chosen from protric solvent, such ethanol, isopropanol, and/or aprotic solvents, such as N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), N-ethylpyrrolidone [Michaud – pars. 0082-89,0140-141]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the solvent of Lu to have included N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and/or N-ethylpyrrolidone as suitable solvent for the polymerization reaction as a well-known substitute for ethanol or isopropanol in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, Lu fails to explicitly disclose wherein, in the step (1), a mass ratio of the unsaturated cyclic monomer to the unsaturated branched polyether and the (methyl) acrylate monomer is 2 to 4:4 to 7:1 to 2. However, Lu discloses the object of the invention is to overcome the shortcoming of the prior art to prepare a dispersant having improved dispersant resistance to hard water and its dispersing properties similar to that of the instantly claimed invention. Further, absent persuasive evidence that the broadly claimed mass ratio of the unsaturated cyclic monomer to the unsaturated branched polyether and the (methyl) acrylate monomer is significant, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have optimized the mass ratio of the unsaturated cyclic monomer to the unsaturated branched polyether and the (methyl) acrylate monomer to be within the claimed range in order to provide a dispersant having improved dispersant resistance to hard water and its dispersing properties, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 3, Lu fails to teach wherein , in the step (2), the initiating agent is any one or more of azodiisobutyronitrile, azodiisoheptylnitrile and dibenzoyl peroxide; and according to a mass percentage, an amount of the initiating agent accounts for 0.1% to 3% of a sum of amounts of the unsaturated cyclic monomer, the unsaturated branched polyether and the (methyl) acrylate monomer. However, Michaud teaches use of azo compounds such as or alternatively dibenzoyl peroxide as a polymerization initiator in an amount of from 0.1% to 3% by weight [Michaud – pars. 0150-158]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Michaud to have modified the method of Lu wherein, in step (2), the initiating agent is any one or more of azodiisobutyronitrile, azodiisoheptylnitrile and dibenzoyl peroxide as well-known polymerization initiators in the art, and according to a mass percentage, an amount of the initiating agent accounts for 0.1% to 3% by weight of a sum of amounts of the unsaturated cyclic monomer, the unsaturated branched polyether and the (methyl) acrylate monomer for the purpose of facilitating polymerization reaction without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 4, Lu discloses wherein, in the step (2), the reaction temperature is 85° C, which falls within the claimed range of 60° C. to 90° C., and the reaction lasts for about 6 hours, which falls within the claimed range of 2 hours to 10 hours [par. 0026]. Alternatively, examiner notes that since Lu discloses a similar method as claimed above using similar monomers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have optimized the reaction temperature and reaction time to be within the claimed ranges, respectively, in order to prepare a dispersant having dispersant resistance to hard water and its dispersing properties, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 5, Lu discloses wherein, in the step (3), the esterification is carried out at a temperature of 70° C., and the esterification lasts for 3 hours [par. 0034]. Alternatively, examiner notes that since Lu discloses a similar method as claimed above using similar monomers and esterification reagent, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have optimized the esterification temperature and esterification time to be within the claimed ranges, respectively, in order to prepare a dispersant having dispersant resistance to hard water and its dispersing properties, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 6, Lu fails to explicitly discloses wherein, in the step (3), a molecular weight of the comb-shaped positive electrode dispersing material ranges from 10,000 g/mol to 60,000 g/mol.
However, Lu discloses the object of the invention is to overcome the shortcoming of the prior art to prepare a dispersant having improved dispersant resistance to hard water and its dispersing properties similar to that of the instantly claimed invention. Further, absent persuasive evidence that the broadly claimed molar mass of the dispersing material is significant, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have optimized the molar mass of the finished product of Lu to be within the claimed range in order to provide a dispersant having improved dispersant resistance to hard water and its dispersing properties, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haddleton (US20080300348A1). Haddleton discloses a method of producing a comb polymer comprising the steps of:
(a) providing:
(i) a plurality of monomers which are linear, branched or star-shaped, substituted or non-substituted, and have an olefinically unsaturated moiety, the olefinically unsaturated moiety being capable of undergoing addition polymerisation;
(ii) an initiator compound; the initiator compound comprising a homolytically cleavable bond.
(iii) a catalyst capable of catalysing the polymerisation of the monomer; and (b) Causing the catalyst to catalyse, in combination with the initiator, the polymerisation of a plurality of the monomers to produce the comb polymer.
Catalysts and polymers obtainable by the process are also provided.
Preferably, the comb polymer is capable of binding proteins and may be produced from monomers which are alkoxy polyethers, such as poly(alkyleneglycol) or polytetrahydrofuran.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751