DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 II (Claims 4, 5, 7, and 10) in the reply filed on 6/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuwa et al (JP 2021127455, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 4:
Fuwa teaches the adsorbent comprising a polyarylene sulfide resin having a zeta potential measured at a pH of 7.8 to 8.2 through a streaming potential method of -50 mV or more (zeta potential po -30 mV or more) (see pg. 10, 4th paragraph) and water (zeta potential of dispersion with water) (see pg. 10, 4th paragraph, pg. 14 3rd paragraph), wherein an amount of water mixed is within a range of 10 to 150 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the polyarylene sulfide resin (537 g PAS to 500 g water is 93 parts water to 100 parts polyarylene sulfide) (see pg. 16, 5th paragraph: Example 1).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuwa et al (JP 2021127455, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kumagai et al (WO 2021200332, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 5:
Fuwa teaches the adsorbent according to claim 4.
Fuwa is silent as to the specific surface area.
Kumagai teaches a specific surface area of polyarylene sulfide resin is within a range of 10 to 300 m2/g (preferably 10m2/g or more and 50m2/g or less) (see pg. 14, 1st paragraph).
Fuwa and Kumagai are analogous inventions in the art of polyarylene sulfide resins. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a specific surface area of 10 to 50 m2/g, as disclosed by Kumagai for the polyarylene resin of Fuwa because it is within a range that makes removing contaminants from the resin easier (see Kumagai pg. 14, is paragraph). Further, through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to select a specific surface area from a known workable range and between 10 and 300 m3/g is known to be a surface area for polyarylene sulfide resins. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuwa et al (JP 2021127455, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Reeve et al (KR 20210005026, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 7:
Fuwa teaches the adsorbent according to claim 4.
Fuwa does not teach a column filed with the adsorbent.
Reeve teaches a column filled with a resin adsorbent (see pg. 5, last paragraph, pg. 6 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the adsorbent of Fuwa into a column, as disclosed by Reeve because it is known in the art to place resins in columns in order to separate materials (see Reeve pg. 5 last paragraph, pg. 6 1st paragraph). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuwa et al (JP 2021127455, English machine translation provided) and Kumagai et al (WO 2021200332, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Reeve et al (KR 20210005026, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 10:
Fuwa teaches the adsorbent according to claim 5.
Fuwa does not teach a column filed with the adsorbent.
Reeve teaches a column filled with a resin adsorbent (see pg. 5, last paragraph, pg. 6 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the adsorbent of Fuwa into a column, as disclosed by Reeve because it is known in the art to place resins in columns in order to separate materials (see Reeve pg. 5 last paragraph, pg. 6 1st paragraph). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al, the article “An efficient and health-friendly adsorbent N-[4-morpholinecarboximidamidoyl]carboximidamidoylmethylated polyphenylene sulfide for removing heavy metal ions from water” (cited in IDS) which teaches that sulfide resins are known to be used as adsorbents for heavy metal separation from water.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights