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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, 6, and 16-19 in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida (U.S. Pat. No. 4,983,720).
In column 1 lines 10-13 Tsuchida discloses a process for preparing a polyarylene thioether. From column 1 line 51 through column 2 line 22, Tsuchida discloses that the process involves polymerizing a thiophenol or a diphenyldisulfide in the presence of an oxidizing agent and Lewis acid as catalyst. The thiophenol (I) and diphenyldisulfide (II) in columns 1-2 of Tsuchida meet the limitations of the thiol and disulfide compound of claim 1, and have structures meeting the limitations of the thiol and disulfide of claim 16. In column 5 lines 43-46 Tsuchida discloses that the Lewis acid can be a metal halide, and in column 6 lines 31-32 Tsuchida discloses that various iron compounds, meeting the limitations of the iron-containing catalyst of claim 1, are suitable metal halides.
In column 5 lines 1-2 Tsuchida discloses that the oxidizing agent can be oxygen gas, meeting the limitations of claim 2.
In column 2 lines 18-22 and column 7 lines 53-56 Tsuchida discloses that the polymerization can be carried out in the presence of a proton acid in addition to the Lewis acid. In column 7 lines 19-50 Tsuchida discloses various specific proton acids, meeting the limitations of the acid of claim 3.
In column 6 lines 31-32 Tsuchida discloses that suitable iron halides include FeCl3, FeBr3, or FeI3, all of which contain iron having an oxidation state of 3, meeting the limitations of claim 4.
In column 9 lines 10-24 Tsuchida discloses purifying the polymer, meeting the limitations of claim 19.
Tsuchida does not specifically disclose a mole ratio of iron-containing catalyst to thiophenol or diphenyldisulfide monomer within the range recited in claim 1. However, in column 8 lines 17-24 Tsuchida discloses that the ratio of Lewis acid (catalyst) to thiophenol or diphenyldisulfide rages from 0.05 to 30, or 5 to 3000 mol% per 100 mol% of monomer, encompassing the range recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In light of the above, claims 1-4, 16, and 19 are rendered obvious by Tsuchida.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchida in view of Fleischer (U.S. Pat. No. 5,496,917).
The discussion of Tsuchida in paragraph 7 is incorporated here by reference. Tsuchida discloses a method meeting the limitations of claim and producing a polyarylene thioether which can be polyphenylene sulfide (formula III at the top of column 11 when the R groups are hydrogen) but does not disclose the production of a sulfur-containing polymer having all the structural units recited in claim 17, and does not disclose a composition comprising the sulfur-containing polymer and a different component, as recited in claim 6.
Fleischer, in column 1 lines 45-63, discloses an oxidation process for the production of polyarylene thioethers comprising all the structural units recited in claim 17. In column 3 lines 6-18 Fleischer discloses that the preferred polyarylene starting material is polyphenylene sulfide, as produced by Tsuchida. In column 4 lines 34-49 Fleischer teaches that the products of the mixture can be combined with additional components in molding compositions, meeting the limitations of claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further subject the polyphenylene sulfide of Tsuchida to the process of Fleischer, in order to obtain oxidized products having higher glass transition temperatures, as disclosed in column 1 lines 10-17 of Fleischer, and because the products are useful for the applications disclosed in column 4 lines 34-50 of Fleischer. It would have been obvious to include the additional components taught in column 4 lines 41-46 of Fleischer in order to improve the mechanical properties or stability of parts made from the oxidized polyarylene sulfides.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not disclose or render obvious reacting the sulfur-containing polymer of claim 1 with a sulfonating agent and a reducing substance, whether the sulfur-containing polymer is the polyphenylene sulfide of Tsuchida or the oxidized polyarylene thioether of Fleischer. Taylor (GB 1365486), discloses oxidizing polyarylene sulfide to polyarylene sulfone in the presence of sulfuric acid, but does not provide any motivation to include a reducing substance, which would be counter to the goal of oxidation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights