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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartels (U.S. 4,971,699).
Bartels exemplifies making polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and polyacrylic acid (PAA) membranes by mixing aqueous solutions of each to provide specific weight ratios of PVOH and PAA. See Examples XV, XIX in the Table starting on Column 10. These are then cured at temperatures of 150 oC to 225 oC. (See column 5 lines 24-35).
For Example XV and XIX the amount of PAA is 20 wt% and the balance is PVOH. (See text above table). This is 100 wt% of both PAA and PVOH or 20 parts PAA to 80 parts PVOH. Scaling up to 100 parts of PVOH, this yield 20 / 80 = x / 100, solve for x = 25 parts of PAA per 100 parts of PVOH. This amount anticipates the range of Claim 1 and the components of Claim 1.
The exemplified PAA has a molecular weight of 250,000 (Column 9 lines 25-30) which anticipates the range of Claim 2.
Bartels exemplifies making 7 wt% solutions of PAA and PVOH and mixing them such that the weight percents listed are arrived at and then curing them at 150 oC to 225 oC (150 oC exemplified). See Column 5 lines 1-20 and lines 44-55, for instance. This preparation procedure along with the amounts of Example XV and XIX anticipates the method of Claim 3. Simply arriving at solutions with specific weight precents of PAA and PVOH also reasonably suggests the method steps of Claim 4 and this is enough to anticipate preparing PVOH or PAA solutions then mixing them.
Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishiura (U.S. 20060293448).
Nishura exemplifies mixing 5 wt% solutions of PVOH and PAA in different amounts to arrive at a composition which has 80 parts PVOH and 20 parts PAA that is then cured at 110 oC to produce a coating. See Example 6 Table 3.
20 parts PAA to 80 parts PVOH. Scaling up to 100 parts of PVOH, this yield 20 / 80 = x / 100, solve for x = 25 parts of PAA per 100 parts of PVOH. This amount anticipates the range of Claim 1 and the components of Claim 1.
Mixing of individual solutions (¶[0209-0213]) and heating the resulting coating to cure it at 110 oC ¶[0223] anticipates method of Claim 3 and Claim 4.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartels (U.S. 4,971,699).
Bartels is applied as above under §102.
Bartels exemplifies the heating (curing) step at 150 oC which is outside the range recited by Claim 5.
Bartels also teaches solutions are cured at temperatures of 150 oC to 225 oC in column 5 lines 24-35.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Bartels, in particular that of Examples XV and XIX, by adjusting the curing temperature to be between 150 oC to 225 oC because Bartels teaches this range of temperatures for curing may be used.
This overlaps the range of Claim 5 rendering it obvious.
Applicant’s as-filed specification does not contain any demonstration of some unexpected effect to curing in the recited temperature range of Claim 5. In fact, the as-filed specification discloses curing at 150 oC or higher can be done. ¶[0045]
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiura (U.S. 20060293448).
Nishiura is applied as above under §102.
Nishiura does not teach or suggest the exemplified molecular weight of the PAA. In ¶[0069] Nishiura teaches the molecular weight of this component may be 2,000 to 200,000.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Nishiura, in particular that of Example 6, such that the molecular weight of the PAA component was 2,000 to 200,000 because Nishiura teaches this as discussed above. This overlaps the range of Claim 2 rendering it obvious.
Nishiura exemplifies curing (heat / thermal treatment) of the coating at 110 oC which is outside the range of Claim 5.
Nishiura in ¶[0182] the thermal treatment of the coating composition can be done at 80 oC to 200 oC.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Nishiura, in particular that of Example 6, such that the heat treatment of the coating composition was done at 80 oC to 200 oC because Nishiura teaches this as discussed above. This overlaps the range of Claim 5 rendering it obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights