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 Objections
Claims 1-8, 11, and 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-8, 11, and 15-18 recite a plurality of elements and/or steps without each element and/or step being separated by a line indentation. It is noted that MPEP 608.01(m) established that where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See also 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Claim 2 recites “when the molecular weight reaching the target” in line 8 which grammatically incorrect or awkward. The examiner suggests amending the claim so as to recite “when the molecular weight reaches the target”.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an end-capping agent A having lower activity than bisphenol A” and “an end-capping agent B having higher activity than the bisphenol A” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the claimed lower and higher activity is towards. It is noted that essentially any given molecule may have activity (understood as being reactivity) towards potentially a multitude of other molecules. As such, given that the claims do not indicate what the recited activity is towards, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be fully apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Further, regarding the claimed lower and higher activity, it is noted that the activity of essentially any given reactant molecule may be greatly affected by reaction condition(s) such as temperature, pressure, concentration, solvent type and the presence and/or absence of catalyst(s). As such, given that the claim does not indicate under what reaction conditions the lower or higher activity is measured, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be fully apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claimed lower and higher activity as being the reactivity of the end-capping agent towards the terminal end group of the nascent polymer chain relative to the reactivity of bisphenol A towards the terminal end group of the nascent polymer chain under the polymerization conditions. Claims 2-20 are rejected as the inherit they indefiniteness of claim 1 from which they depend. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “within the range of 1.0-1.5%” and “within the range of 0.45-0.65%” and “within the range of 0.25-0.35%” which render the claims indefinite as it is unclear what the percentages is. Said another way, it is unclear if the claimed percentages is are weight percentages, or mole percentages, or volume percentages or some other kind of percentage. For the purpose of examination, the claimed percentages will be interpreted as being weight percentages.
Claims 6 and 17 recite “a water content of both 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyl sulfone and bisphenol A is less than 0.1%” which renders the claims indefinite for same reason as is described above for claims 5 and 16. For the purpose of examination, the claimed percentages will be interpreted as being weight percentages.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 recite “and a water content of the solvent is less than 0.1%” which renders the claims indefinite for same reason as is described above for claims 5 and 16. For the purpose of examination, the claimed percentages will be interpreted as being weight percentages.
Claims 13 and 14 each recite a use of a polysulfone without setting forth any, active steps delimited how the use is actually practice which renders these claim indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Appropriate action is required.
Closest Identified Prior Art
The following is a description of the closet identified prior art references.
a) CN 111253574A to Ge et al., (machine translation provided herewith) discloses a method of preparing a polysulfone resin comprising reacting a phenolic substance with 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyl sulfone in the presence of an aprotic solvent, an acid-binding agent, and a dehydrating agent [0001, 0012-0015, 0020-0029]. The method comprises a dehydration step in which a capping agent (i.e., an end-capping agent) is added to the reaction [0014]. The phenolic substance may be, inter alia, bisphenol A [0016]. The aprotic solvent may be, inter alia, N,N-dimethylformamide [0017]. The acid-binding agent may be, inter alia, potassium or sodium bicarbonate [0018]. The capping agent is disclosed as being a phenolic monomer including one or more of bisphenol S, phenol, p-cresol, p-ethylphenol, p-methoxyphenol, p-tert-butylphenol, or 2-isopropylphenol [0020].
Ge et al. do not teach or suggest that the disclosed method comprises a step in which a first end-capping agent A having a lower activity than BPA is added to the reaction and then when a target molecular weight is reached a second end-capping agent B having a higher activity than BPA is added to the reaction
B) US 2019/0256660 to Ito discloses a method of producing an aromatic polysulfone comprising a performing a polycondensation reaction between an aromatic dihalogenosulfone and an aromatic dihydroxy compound in the presence of at least one end-capping agent and an organic solvent [abstract, 0010-0012, 0072, 0076]. The aromatic dihalogenosulfone may be, inter alia, bis(4-chlorophenyl) sulfone (i.e., 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyl sulfone) [0049]. The organic solvent may be, inter alia, dimethylformamide [0073]. The polycondensation reaction may additionally comprise a base which may be, inter alia, sodium or potassium bicarbonate [0070-0071].
Ito does not teach or suggest using BPA as the aromatic dihydroxy compound. Ito also does not teach or suggest that the disclosed method comprises a step in which a first end-capping agent A having a lower activity than BPA is added to the reaction and then when a target molecular weight is reached a second end-capping agent B having a higher activity than BPA is added to the reaction.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE E SANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM to 7:00PM.
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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/LEE E SANDERSON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights