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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 16-30 are pending. Claims 16-29 are under examination. Claims 16-29 are rejected. No claims allowed.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered. NO request for suspension of action was filed.
Filing Receipt
PNG
media_image1.png
144
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
46
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
82
974
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
46
972
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
70
972
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 04/07/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below in original or modified form is herein withdrawn.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 16-29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 16-29 has been withdrawn.
Upon further review of the prior art, the limitation of “the remaining residue R being discharged comprising: observing a rise in viscosity of the residue R in the bottom space of the separating column K, stopping the feed of the liquid F…, and emptying the bottom space of the separating column K.”, is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art. See below section of Allowable Subject Matter for the teachings of the prior art.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 16-29 concerning the place of preparation of the redissociation (splitting) products in the final mailed 02/10/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim 16 recites “Michael adducts present in the liquid F are split”. Consequently, the splitting occurs in liquid F. Liquid F resides in the claimed evaporator V and pump P at times.
In claim 16, the word “unwanted” was deleted overcoming the rejection. The phrase "a splitting apparatus" was deleted from claims 26-27 and has overcome the rejection.
Newly Applied Objections/Rejections
The following newly applied specification objection and 112 rejections were
necessitated by amendment.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification fails to define or even possess the phrase “splitting space” in line 5 of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
The phrase “a splitting space” in line 5 of claim 16 and the phrase “and in response to the rise in viscosity” in textual line 12 of claim 16 is new matter. The current specification page 4 as recited by applicant in the remarks, contemplates a “splitting apparatus” but does not reference “a splitting space”.
The specification goes on to detail the “a stripping gas is guided into the splitting apparatus above the bottoms liquid and below the lowermost separating internals of the separating column K”. Herein, the stripping gas is entering column K which does not include “a splitting space”. Nowhere in the original disclosure is “a splitting space” contemplated.
Concerning the newly added limitation of the “response to the rise in viscosity”, the specification contemplates top of page 4, “in the event of an unwanted rise in the viscosity of the residue R in the bottom space of the separating column K, stopping the feed of the liquid F”. Nowhere in the original disclosure is there a phrase “in response to the rise in viscosity”.
Applicant is invited to point to clear support or specific examples of the claimed limitation in the specification as-filed or remove such amendatory language in response to this action.
Claims 26-27 utilize the phrase “splitting space” in relation to the stripping gas. The original specification contemplates page 4 line 23 stopping the stripping gas into the splitting apparatus. Nowhere in the original disclosure is the phrase “splitting space” found nor associated with the claimed stripping gas.
Applicant is invited to point to clear support or specific examples of the claimed limitation in the specification as filed or remove such amendatory language in response to this action.
Claims 16-29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “a splitting space” in line 5 of claim 16 is indefinite. The splitting space may be referring to the originally claimed “separating space”. Separating may or may not be the current splitting.
Per the objection to the specification and the new matter rejection, the phrase “splitting space” lacks antecedent basis and therefore a definition in the specification. Due to a lack of a definition and confusion as to the identity of the “splitting space”, the claims are indefinite. This argument is being applied to claims 26 and 27 which recite the phrase “splitting space”.
Claim 27 is directed to the indefinite phrase “in the event of a rise in viscosity”. This phrase is interpreted as optional. However, claim 16 from where claim 27 depends requires a rise in viscosity. This contradiction between claims 27 and 16 creates ambiguity.
Suggested claim amendments to overcome the objection and 112 rejections
The examiner suggests the following amendments to overcome the objection and the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
In claim 16, line 5 delete the phrase “a splitting space” and add the phrase - - a separating space - - in the place of the deleted phrase. Additionally, In claim 16, textual line 12 delete the phrase “and in response to the rise in viscosity”.
In claim 26, lines 2-3 delete the phrase “the splitting space above the bottoms liquid and below the lowermost separating internals of the separating column K” and add the phrase - - the separating column K above a bottoms liquid and below the lowermost separating internals - - in the place of the deleted phrase.
In claim 27, lines 1-3 delete the phrase “wherein, in the event of a rise in the viscosity of the residue R in the bottom space of the separating column K, the feed of stripping gas into the splitting space is stopped” and add the phrase - - wherein, observing a rise in the viscosity of the residue R in the bottom space of the separating column K, the feed of stripping gas is stopped - - in the place of the deleted phrase.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-29 would be allowed, upon overcoming the current objection to the specification, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections and cancellation of the withdrawn claim 30.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to the invention is Schliephake et al. (USPGPub 2012/0258019, Published 10-2012).
Schliephake et al. teach the following.
PNG
media_image6.png
190
499
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
84
622
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Concerning the claimed evaporator V, this is the “indirect circulation heat
exchanger” taught by Schliephake et al. in the above paragraph 174. The reason being the stream exiting the “indirect circulation heat exchanger” in paragraph 174 below boils.
PNG
media_image8.png
140
620
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
136
620
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The boiling is the claimed gas phase.
The above process of redissociation in paragraph 174 of Schliephake et al. is the claimed splitting of the Michael adducts in current claim 16.
Concerning the solvent 1, dilution and emptying the bottom space of the separating column K, the closest teaching by Schliephake et al. is in paragraph 166.
PNG
media_image10.png
190
624
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Concerning the cooling during the dilution, this is known to occur when adding solvents as evidence by Yada et al. paragraph 5.
However, Schliephake et al. does not teach the remaining residue R being discharged comprising: a rise in viscosity of the residue R in the bottom space of the separating column K, stopping the feed of the liquid F into the redissociation apparatus…, and emptying the bottom space of the separating column K”.
It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the
current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Sakai et al. (US2018/0022680, Published 01-2028, as cited in the written opinion for PCT/EP2021/060803 as EP3255030) teach the relationship of the forward progress of the distillation of acrylic acid to the increase in viscosity of a bottom liquid (par. 12). However, to remedy this, solvent is placed in the distillation apparatus prior to any mention of an increase in viscosity (par. 20). Moreover, Sakai et al. is silent to stopping the feed into the distillation when adding the solvent when there is a rise in viscosity and emptying the bottom space of the separating column.
It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the
current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Sakamoto et al. (US Patent 6,414,183, Patent date 07-2002, as cited in the written opinion for PCT/EP2021/060803) does teach adding a solvent to a distillation of acrylic acid (column 2 lines 55-60 and column 6, lines 19-25). However, Sakamoto et al. does not teach a rise in the viscosity of the residue R in the bottom space of the
separating column K, stopping the feed and then adding a solvent and emptying the bottom space of the separating column.
It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the
current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE G DOLETSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/B.G.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights