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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 7, in the reply filed on August 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 – 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 19, 2025.
Claims 1 – 7 are under Examination.
Status of Claims
Clams 1 – 15 are pending.
Claims 8 – 15 are withdraw.
Clams 1 – 7 are rejected.
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 (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 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) 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saihata et al. (US 2006/0247462) in view of Kondo Hideyuki (JP 2018096943)(Hideyuki) (see English translation).
The rejected claims cover, a method comprised of reacting ethylene, oxygen, and acetic acid in the presence of a catalyst and optionally a catalyst promotor like sodium acetate and/or potassium acetate to yield a crude vinyl acetate stream; and measuring a concentration of a metal ion of the crude vinyl acetate stream and/or a stream downstream thereof with an ion chromatograph, wherein the metal ion is selected from the group consisting of Group I metal ions, Group II metal ions, transition metal ions, and any combination thereof.
Dependent claims 2 – 6 further limit the method. Dependent claim 7 further limits the metal ion.
However, Saihata discloses a process for producing lower aliphatic carboxylic acid alkenyl, comprising reacting a lower olefin, a lower aliphatic carboxylic acid and oxygen in a gas phase in the presence of a catalyst. (abstract, [0010]). According to Saihata vinyl acetate is produced by the process described in step [10]. Wherein step 10 discloses that the lower aliphatic carboxylic acid is acetic acid, the lower olefin is ethylene, and the obtained lower aliphatic carboxylic acid alkenyl is vinyl acetate. ([0023]. [0024]). Further, it is disclosed that in the production process of allyl acetate, potassium acetate is used as a co-catalyst, and is appropriately added to the reactor during the reaction. ([0065]). Also, the alkali metal element and/or alkaline earth metal in the gas at the reactor outlet may be detected by any method. Examples thereof include a method of detecting the element as a condensate at the time of separating and purifying the reactor outlet gas and a method of adsorbing the element by contacting the reaction mixture with an ion exchange resin or the like. Determination of the potassium concentration in the obtained condensate by analysis method such as induction coupled plasma emission spectroscopic analysis (ICP). ([0067]). In carrying out the process of Saihata the catalyst s not particularly limited and examples thereof include compounds containing at least one of the elements belonging to Groups 1 and 2 of the Periodic Table according to IUPAC Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, Rules 1989. This compound is preferably a compound containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of lithium, sodium, potassium, cesium, magnesium, calcium and barium, more preferably a salt of a lower aliphatic carboxylic acid, still more preferably at least one member selected from lithium, sodium, potassium, cesium, magnesium, calcium and barium salts of a formic acid, an acetic acid, a propionic acid, an acrylic acid or a methacrylic acid, particularly preferably an acetate, and most preferably a potassium acetate. ([0033]). In Saihata the reactor outlet gas is analyzed, including the acetic acid stream and the vinyl acetate stream. ([0110], [0118]). Finally, there is an analysis of potassium detected after reactor outlet. ([0160] – [0162]).
The difference between the instantly claimed invention and Saihata is as follows: measuring a concentration of a metal ion with an ion chromatograph; and measuring intervals.
However, with regard to measuring a concentration of a metal ion with an ion chromatograph the Examiner turns to the teaching of Hideyuki. The prior art of Hideyuki disclose the use of ion chromatography as an efficient, highly accurate and highly sensitive means for the analysis of inorganic cations, in an acidic medium, such as lithium ions, sodium ions, ammonium ions, potassium ions, magnesium ions, and calcium ions, in a short period of time. Also, it is capable of reducing consumption of mobile phases (abstract, [0002], abstract, [008], [009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant clamed invention to substitute the ion chromatography of Hideyuki for the ICP or atomic absorption method of Saihata to detect the level of metal ion in the outflow of the reactor. Using the known technique of ion chromatography for detecting metal ion in an acetic medium would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the claims would have been obvious because the technique for detecting inorganic cations in an acidic medium was part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teachings Hideyuki in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention.
With regard to the measuring intervals the Examiner turns to the teaching of Hideyuki. The prior art of Hideyuki discloses that detection of the metal ion with ion chromatography can be conducted in a short period of time and is capable of reducing consumption of mobile phases. As such, the use of measuring intervals would be a matter of routine. Where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saihata et al. (US2006/0167307)(Saihata 2) in view of Kondo Hideyuki (JP 2018096943)(Hideyuki) (see English translation).
The rejected claims are discussed in paragraph 13 and 14 above.
However, Saihata 2 discloses a process for producing a lower aliphatic carboxylic acid alkenyl, comprising reacting a lower olefin, a lower aliphatic carboxylic acid and oxygen in a gas phase in the presence of a catalyst comprising a support having supported thereon a catalyst component containing a compound containing alkali metal and/or alkaline earth metal, an element belonging to Group 11 of the Periodic Table or a compound containing at least one of these elements, and palladium. (abstract, [0010]). According to Saihata 2 vinyl acetate is produced by the process described in step [10]. Wherein step 10 discloses that the lower aliphatic carboxylic acid is acetic acid, the lower olefin is ethylene, and the obtained lower aliphatic carboxylic acid alkenyl is vinyl acetate. ([0024]. [0025]). Further, it is disclosed that in the production process of allyl acetate, potassium acetate is used as a co-catalyst, and is appropriately added to the reactor during the reaction. ([0066]). Also, the alkali metal element and/or alkaline earth metal in the gas at the reactor outlet may be detected by any method. Examples thereof include a method of detecting the element as a condensate at the time of separating and purifying the reactor outlet gas and a method of adsorbing the element by contacting the reaction mixture with an ion exchange resin or the like. Determination of the potassium concentration in the obtained condensate by analysis method such as induction coupled plasma emission spectroscopic analysis (ICP) or atomic absorption method. ([0068]). In carrying out the process of Saihata2 the catalyst s not particularly limited and examples thereof include compounds containing at least one of the elements belonging to Groups 1 and 2 of the Periodic Table according to IUPAC Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, Rules 1989. This compound is preferably a compound containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of lithium, sodium, potassium, cesium, magnesium, calcium and barium, more preferably a salt of a lower aliphatic carboxylic acid, still more preferably at least one member selected from lithium, sodium, potassium, cesium, magnesium, calcium and barium salts of a formic acid, an acetic acid, a propionic acid, an acrylic acid or a methacrylic acid, particularly preferably an acetate, and most preferably a potassium acetate. ([0035]). The reactor outlet gas is analyzed, including the acetic acid stream and the vinyl acetate stream. ([0095], [0108]). Finally, there is an analysis of potassium detected after reactor outlet. ([0123] – [0125]).
The difference between the instantly claimed invention and Saihata 2 is as follows: measuring a concentration of a metal ion with an ion chromatograph; and measuring intervals.
However, with regard to measuring a concentration of a metal ion with an ion chromatograph the Examiner turns to the teaching of Hideyuki. The prior art of Hideyuki disclose the use of ion chromatography as an efficient, highly accurate and highly sensitive means for the analysis of inorganic cations, in an acidic medium, such as lithium ions, sodium ions, ammonium ions, potassium ions, magnesium ions, and calcium ions, in a short period of time. Also, it is capable of reducing consumption of mobile phases (abstract, [0002], abstract, [008], [009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant clamed invention to substitute the ion chromatography of Hideyuki for the ICP or atomic absorption method of Saihata 2 to detect the level of metal ion in the outflow of the reactor. Using the known technique of ion chromatography for detecting metal ion in an acetic medium would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the claims would have been obvious because the technique for detecting inorganic cations in an acidic medium was part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teachings Hideyuki in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention.
With regard to the measuring intervals the Examiner turns to the teaching of Hideyuki. The prior art of Hideyuki discloses that detection of the metal ion with ion chromatography can be conducted in a short period of time and is capable of reducing consumption of mobile phases. As such, the use of measuring intervals would be a matter of routine. Where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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 Y. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692