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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al (CN 107383293).
Hou discloses a method of manufacturing of a polyether-ether-ketone, using the following procedure:
Heating molten diphenyl sulphone (DPS) under argon gas protection at 180-190 C, then adding hydroquinone, 4,4- difluoro benzophenones, then heating the reaction mixture to 210-220 C, stirring it at constant temperature for 25-30 min and then adding potassium carbonate.
Hou further teaches that the reaction condition includes the following temperature profile:
230-235 C for 25-30 min, 250-260 C for 50-60min, 300-320 C for 25-30min.
After than the impurities were extracted, reaction mixture cooled and solid polymer isolated (see Example 1).
Note that Hou does not explicitly teach hydroquinone -argon complex formation. However, since bisphenol contacted with argon at the same temperature of 180C in both Hou’s and Applicant’s methods (see Example 1 of printed publication at 0064), the formation of such complex is expected.
Regarding claims 2-3, Hou fails to teach particular flow rate of argon gas and stirring rate.
However, in both Applicant’s and How’s synthesis, argon is the only gas presented in the reaction mixture in excessive amount relative to hydroquinone.
In the instant case substitution of equivalent methods requires no express motivation, as long as the prior art recognizes equivalency, In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. V. Linde Air products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the same results (i.e. manufacturing of the same polyaryletherketones) from Applicant’s and Hou’s methods, because they use the same ingredients at the same or analogous conditions, unless unexpected results caused by a different flow rates of argon in the reactor.
Hou does not teach the claimed order of adding ingredients into the reaction mixture.
According to MPEP 2144.04 (IV, C) changes in sequence of adding Ingredients is unpatentable without showing unexpected results. See In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.), Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959), also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the same manufacturing of polyaryletherketones from Applicant’s and Hou’s methods, unless unexpected results caused by a different order of adding the ingredients are shown.
Claims 2-4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 10-11 and 14-15 above, and further in view of Louis et al (US 20110224399).
Hou fails to teach purity of argon, claimed ratio between the reagents, color and physical properties of the final polymer.
Louis discloses as method of manufacturing the polyaryletherketone, using the following procedure:
In a reaction flask fitted with a stirrer 127.82 g of diphenyl sulfone, 28.60 g of hydroquinone and 57.52 g of 4,4'-difluorobenzophenone were introduced. The flask content was evacuated under vacuum and then filled with high purity nitrogen (containing less than 10 ppm oxygen). The reaction mixture was then placed under a constant nitrogen purge (60 ml/min).
The reaction mixture was heated slowly to 150° C and a mixture of 28.4259 g of NaCO3, and 0.1800 g of K2CO3 was added. At the end of the addition, the reaction mixture was heated to 320°C at 1°C/minute.
Note that the molar ratio between 4,4'-difluorobenzophenone, alkali carbonate and hydroquinone is 0.26/0.28/0.27. In Examiner’s opinion, Applicant’s and Louis reagent ratios are within the experimental error (see Example 1 at 0143).
Louis teaches that nitrogen can be equivalently replaced by argon or helium. In particular, the reference discloses that the reactor should be evacuated under vacuum and filled with an inert gas containing less than 10 ppm oxygen, 20 ppm water and 20 ppm carbon dioxide 20 ppm. Then, the reactor should be put under a constant purge of the inert gas (see 0100).
Note that the Hou’s polymerization performed at a very high temperature, thus increasing risk of side reactions and oxidation.
Thus, highest purity inert gas is desirable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use argon of highest purity in Hou’s reaction in order to minimize possibility of oxidation and side reactions at high temperature.
In reference to claim 3, Hou and Louis do not teach the claimed stirring rate.
The position is taken that stirring effectiveness depends on fluid density, average fluid velocity, hydraulic diameter and viscosity, which is quantitatively defined by Reynolds number. Thus, such parameter strictly depend on the process conditions and design. It is clear that in order to achieve desirable mixing, a specific stirring rate needed for a particular reactor design, which is determined using routine experimental procedures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use stirring rate suitable for particular reactor design, determined by routine experimental procedures, in order to achieve effective reagent mixing.
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Louis teaches a chromatic value L* of 87.15 (see Table 1 , Example 3 at 0210), but the reference do not teach tensile strength of the final polymer.
The position is taken that Hou modified with Louis and Applicant produce the same polymer using equivalent method.
The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art, does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect the same polyaryletherketones from Hou modified with Louis and Applicant’s synthesis, since they use the same ingredients at the same or analogous conditions.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou as applied to claims 1, 10-11 and 15 above, and further in view of Grant et al (US 20090131582)
Hou fails to teach monomer purities.
Grant teaches a method of making polyaryletherketones with broad melt flow values (see Abstract and Figure 1).
Grant teaches a polymerization of 4,4'-difluorobenzophenone, hydroquinone and sodium carbonate in diphenylsulphone (see Example 4a at 0137).
Grant discloses that the monomers purities are within the range of 99.7-99.9% (see claims 13-15).
The reference teaches that high purity monomers needed in order to achieve high molecular weight, which provides good physical properties ( i.e., toughness, see 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use high purity monomers inn Hou’s synthesis in order to achieve good mechanical properties of the final polymer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (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 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights