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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on March 4, 2024, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, the Abstract has been amended to correct minor typographical errors, and claims 1 and 3-8 have been amended to conform to U. S. Patent Application claim format.
No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-8 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on September 8, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese Application No. 2021-146298 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Foreign Priority Document has not yet been electronically retrieved. An attempt to retrieve the foreign priority document was made on October 1, 2024, but was unsuccessful.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because while Applicants have amended the Abstract in the aforementioned Preliminary Amendment, and the amended Abstract is on a separate sheet, there is no clean copy of the amended Abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 § 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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa et al. (JP 2006-192352; English translation provided and relied upon).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Furukawa et al. teach an ultrapure water production method and an apparatus therefor, wherein the apparatus comprises a container filed with (a) a palladium catalyst resin layer and (b) an ion exchange resin layer, wherein the palladium catalyst comprises palladium supported on an anion exchange resin (“first anion exchange resin that supports a catalytic metal”), the ion exchange resin may be an anion exchange resin layer, and the palladium catalyst is laminated on the upper surface of the anion exchange resin layer. Furukawa et al. additionally teach that the method comprises treating water via irradiation with ultraviolet light to oxidize it, followed by passing the treated water through the container to remove dissolved oxygen (“reducing the amount of…dissolved oxygen by causing water that contains…dissolved oxygen to come into contact with an ion exchange resin…”). See paragraphs [0022], [0023], [0025], [0029], [0034], [0035], [0046]-[0048], [0050]-[0054], and Figures 1(b) and 2 of Furukawa et al., where Figure 1(b) depicts a water production subsystem, and Figure 2 depicts the ion exchange container within the subsystem.
Regarding claim 2, Figure 2 of Furukawa et al. depicts a container in which the catalyst resin layer is positioned on top of the ion exchange resin layer.
Regarding claim 4, the Examples of Furukawa et al. depict embodiments in which the catalyst resin comprises an anion exchange resin supported with palladium, and in which the ion exchange resin comprises the same anion exchange resin.
Regarding claim 5, Furukawa et al. teach that, in the catalyst resin layer, the palladium catalyst “can by any catalyst that exhibits catalytic activity…in the decomposition of H2O2…”, wherein the amount of palladium supported usually ranged from about 0.1 to 10% by weight relative to the support. Additionally, Furukawa et al. teach that it is preferable to use a palladium catalyst in an amount of about 5 to 15% by volume relative to the amount of anion exchange resin in the ion exchange resin within the subsystem, and that the amount of palladium catalyst of a volume percentage of 15% relative to the amount of anion exchange resin is usually sufficient to obtain an adequate dissolved oxygen removal effect. See paragraphs [0041] and [0044] of Furukawa et al.; from these teachings, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimal amount of palladium supported on the anion exchange resin, such as the amount recited in claim 5, in an endeavor to optimize the removal of dissolved oxygen from the pure water.
Furukawa et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding a “resin production method”, wherein a first anion exchange resin supporting a catalytic metal and a second anion exchange resin not supporting a catalytic metal are filled in a single vessel and purified together, as recited in claim 1. However, it is considered that because Furukawa et al teach (i) an apparatus comprising a container filed with (a) a palladium catalyst layer and (b) an ion exchange resin layer, wherein the palladium catalyst comprises palladium supported on an anion exchange resin and the ion exchange resin comprises an anion exchange resin, and (ii) a method comprising filling said container with water to contact the catalyst resin and the anion exchange resin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the contact of water with the catalyst resin and the anion exchange resin, as disclosed in Furukawa et al., to result in purification of the catalyst resin and the anion exchange resin, thereby resulting in Applicants’ “resin production method”, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to, as neither Furukawa et al. nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the limitations of these claims, regarding (a) the anion exchange resin in either palladium catalyst resin layer or the ion exchange resin layer being of Cl type, as recited in claim 3, or regarding, during purification, the desorbing of the catalytic metal from the first anion exchange resin, and the re-supporting of the desorbed catalytic metal on the second anion exchange resin, as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
English translations of Fukui et al. (JP 2015-178107), Konuki et al. (JP 2005-087141), and Shin (JP 2011-011120), cited by Applicants, accompany this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights