Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Indefiniteness Rejection
2. 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.
3. 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.
With respect to claim 1, there is no clear nexus between the sulfuric acid groups referenced in b) and the allylamine (co)polymer.
Prior Art Rejection
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1024151 A1 in view of WO 2004/084962 A1.
EP 1024151 A1 discloses a process for the production of poly(allylamine) polymers by polymerization of allylamine and further purification through distillation at elevated temperatures, including those of claims 4 through 6, and electrodialysis (see abstract, paragraphs [0038] and [0040], and Example 1). The polymers are prepared using a persulfate as initiator (see Example 1). Paragraph [0040] discloses that the electrodialysis serves to improve coloring and remove impurities derived from the polymerization initiator and the salt formed by neutralization.
6. The primary reference fails to specifically refer to the decomposition of sulfuric acid groups and the claimed amounts of sulfuric acid groups of claims 2 and 3. However, WO 2004/084962 A1, concerned with manufacturing color stable polymers including poly(allylamine) polymers (see claim 9), discloses that the presence of persulfate may cause degradation of the color (see page 19, lines 35-39). Given these teachings within each reference, the position is taken that one would have been motivated to control/reduce the impurities resulting from the use of the persulfate initiator and further would have been motivated to reduce the content of such impurities as low as possible, including to levels corresponding to those claimed, so as to reduce discoloring of the polymer. Furthermore, though the primary reference is silent regarding the claimed time of claims 4 through 6, the position is taken that determining the treatment time necessary to control/reduce the impurity content to the desired level would have been obvious. It is not seen that anything unexpected has been established with respect to claimed time.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rabon A Sergent whose telephone number is (571)272-1079. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1831. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RABON A SERGENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights