DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a National Phase Application of International Application Serial No. PCT/CN2023/089802, filed April 21, 2023, which claims the priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210927570.X filed August 3, 2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 are under examination on the merits.
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 and 8-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 is drawn to a method for preparing mesoporous iron phosphate by induction of block copolymers. However, the block copolymers are not recited in the steps of preparing the mesoporous iron phosphate in claim 1. Such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. To overcome the rejection, the step “then evenly mixing a structure directing agent solution with a phosphorus source solution” may be replaced with the step “then evenly mixing a structure directing agent solution comprising block copolymers with a phosphorus source solution”, or as any amendment as being appropriate by Applicant. Claims 2-6 and 8-10 depending on rejected claim 1 are rejected, accordingly.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109052358 A (“the `358 publication”) to Wang et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,595,416 B2 (“the`416 patent”) to Pirrung et al. and Pramanik et al., ChemComm., (2015), v.51, p.13806-13809.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a method for preparing mesoporous iron phosphate by induction of block copolymers, comprising the steps of: preparing a ferric salt solution having a certain concentration and evenly dispersing it into a dispersant, then evenly mixing a structure directing agent solution with a phosphorus source solution, next adding the mixed solution to the ferric salt solution while dropwise adding an oxidant and stirring to react, after the reaction, washing, drying and calcinating a reaction product to obtain mesoporous iron phosphate.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `358 publication (claim 1) discloses a method for preparing mesoporous-macroporous iron phosphate comprising: S1. dissolve a structure directing agent P123 (i.e., block copolymers) as a template agent in an acidic solution and stir until the solution is clear; S2. prepare a ferrous salt solution (i.e., a ferric salt solution) by mixing the ferrous salt solution with phosphoric acid in a certain proportion to obtain an iron salt base solution weigh the phosphate according to the molar ratio of total iron to total phosphorus, dissolve the weighed phosphate and add excess hydrogen peroxide (i.e., oxidant) to obtain a phosphate salt solution; S3. add the phosphate salt solution to the iron salt base solution, and slowly add the P123 solution treated in step S1, keep stirring at a constant speed during the addition process. After the addition is completed, start heating to 85-100 °C, after the heating is completed reduce the stirring speed and keep the reaction at a constant speed for 3-5 hours; S4. the product obtained after the reaction in step S3 is filtered, washed, and then calcined to remove the template to obtain anhydrous ferric phosphate. In addition, the `358 publication [0030-0041] discloses the specific Examples 1-2 of preparing anhydrous ferric phosphate.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between the instantly claimed method and the method of the `358 publication is that the prior art does not teach the exact mixing order/sequence. In addition, the `358 publication is silent on using a dispersant for preparing a ferric salt solution. Instead, the `358 publication (claim 1) teaches S2 step: prepare a ferrous salt solution (i.e., a ferric salt solution) by mixing the ferrous salt solution with phosphoric acid in a certain proportion to obtain an iron salt base solution weigh the phosphate according to the molar ratio of total iron to total phosphorus.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the instantly claimed method would have been obvious over the method disclosed by the `358 publication because the difference of mixing sequence of the reactants for preparing anhydrous ferric phosphate is not inventive, but a routine optimization because the prior art teaches using the same reactants for preparing the same product. Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, see MPEP§2144.04(IV)(C), “Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients”. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
In terms of the `358 publication is silent on using a dispersant for preparing a ferric salt solution, the `358 publication (claim 1) teaches S2 step: prepare a ferrous salt solution (i.e., a ferric salt solution) by mixing the ferrous salt solution with phosphoric acid, and the`416 patent teaches phosphoric acid ester and salts thereof can be used as dispersing agent. Therefore, the `358 publication in view of the`416 patent would have taught and/or suggested using a dispersant for preparing a ferric salt solution. Accordingly, the `358 publication in view of the`416 patent would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claim 6, wherein the dispersant used is selected from the group consisting of ethanol, tetrahydrofuran, chloroform, isopropanol and cyclohexane, Pramanik et al. (Abstract and Scheme 1 and p.13807) teaches a method for synthesis of mesoporous iron phosphate materials in the presence of amphilic block copolymer (F127) using either ethanol, propanol, or THF (tetrahydrofuran) as a dispersant.
In terms of claim 7, wherein a preparation method of the structure directing agent solution comprises the steps of adding an inorganic acid and a carboxylic acid derivative to a solvent to carry out carboxylation reaction, then adding a block copolymer, finally obtaining a product after stirring and fully dissolving; the solvent is ethanol, tetrahydrofuran, chloroform, isopropanol or cyclohexane; the inorganic acid is a hydrochloric acid, a nitric acid or a. sulfuric acid; the carboxylic acid derivative is a trimesic acid and/or a terephthalic acid; the block copolymer is F127or P123; a mass concentration of the inorganic acid is 15%-36%, and the acid is added as 0.05-0.12 times of a mass of the solvent; the carboxylic acid derivative is added as 0.1%-0.3% times of the mass of the solvent; the block copolymer is added as 0.02-0.04 times of the mass of the solvent, the `358 publication in view of Pramanik et al. teach and/or suggest the method of claim 7, and would have rendered claim 7 obvious.
In terms of claim 8, wherein the phosphorus source is disodium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate, phosphoric acid, diammoniumhydrogen phosphate or ammonium dihydrogen phosphate; the oxidant is at least one of hydrogen peroxide, potassium peroxide and sodium peroxide, and a molar ratio of its added quantity to a molar quantity of ferric salt is 1.16 - 1.3, the `358 publication [0037-0041] discloses the specific Example 2 of preparing anhydrous ferric phosphate using ammonium dihydrogen phosphate as the phosphorus source, and hydrogen peroxide as the oxidant with the molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to a molar quantity of ferric salt is 1.2.
In terms of claim 10, wherein a process of calcinating is executed at a low-temperature of 200 - 300°C for 1 - 3 h and then at 480 - 560 °C for 1 - 3 h to obtain a mesoporous iron phosphate powder, the `358 publication (claim 9) discloses a method for preparing mesoporous-macroporous iron phosphate under the calcination temperature in step S4 is 450-600℃ and the time is 4-6h; preferably, the calcination temperature is 500℃ and the time is 5h. In terms of calcinating is executed at a low-temperature of 200 - 300°C for 1 - 3 h, it is a routine optimization in view of the `358 publication disclosure of the same final calcinating temperature of 500℃ and the time is 5h, which reads on the claimed method having the final calcinating temperature at 480 - 560 °C for 1 - 3 h.
Conclusions
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights