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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claim 1 and canceled claim 6. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are pending.
The amendments to the claims have obviated the claim interpretations under 112(f).
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. However, following further consideration, the amendments have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(d) rejections of record.
The claims are rejected under 103 over newly cited Aruga et al. (US 4,483,747). See 102/103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/10/2026, with respect to the claim interpretations under 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have obviated the claim interpretations under 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/10/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
However, following further consideration, the amendments have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/10/2026, with respect to the 112(d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(d) rejections of record. Therefore, the 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/10/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections over Kurazono have been fully considered, but they are moot, as they do not apply to the new prior art rejections set forth below over newly cited Aruga et al. (US 4,483,747) or to any other rejection in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the supply part" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the plurality of supply parts" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Aruga et al. (US 4,483,747), hereafter referred to as Aruga.
With regard to claim 1: Aruga teaches an apparatus for removing residual monomers (abstract, Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35; emphasis on Column 5 Lines 17-20 and Column 6 Lines 24-28), the apparatus comprising:
A main body (Column shell) 3 capable of supplying a gas (steam) to a distillation material (slurry of vinyl chloride resin) accommodated therein (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 5 Line 45).
A distillation material supply pipe (feed port) 5 which is provided at an upper part of the main body and through which the distillation material is injected (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 5 Line 45).
A gas inflow pipe (inlet) 8 which is provided at a lower part of the main body and through which the gas is injected (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 5 Line 45).
A discharge pipe (outlet) 6’ which is provided at the upper part of the main body and discharges volatile materials separated by the gas from the distillation material (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 5 Line 45).
A recovery pipe (withdrawal outlet) 7’ which is provided at the lower part of the main body and recovers the distillation material from which the volatile materials have been removed (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 5 Line 45).
A plurality of trays 1 which are provided inside the main body, each of which has through-holes and 10 a channel (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35).
A plurality of downcomers which are provided between the trays, and which are a passage through which the distillation material moves downward from the upper part of the main body (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35; emphasis on Figures 2(A) and 2(B), Column 5 Lines 17-25, and Column 6 Lines 24-28).
Wherein the plurality of trays include a disk-shaped body which is located in a direction dividing the inside of the main body into upper and lower parts, and a baffle (plate) 2 which is located on an upper surface of the body (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35; emphasis on Figures 2(A) and 2(B), Column 5 Lines 17-25, and Column 6 Lines 24-28).
In an embodiment, i.e. that illustrated in Figures 2(A) and 2(b), the channel on each tray is a spiral (“volute”) channel; the baffle 2 is a spiral baffle which is located on an upper surface of the body, and rotates and extends from a central portion to an edge of the disk-shaped body to form a spiral channel; and at least one of the plurality of downcomers is located at a center of the tray (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35; emphasis on Figures 2(A) and 2(B), Column 5 Lines 17-25, and Column 6 Lines 24-28).
It is acknowledged that the column of Aruga is illustrated in Figure 3 as comprising trays corresponding those of Figures 1(A) and 1(B). However, Aruga states that “In place of the tray of FIG. 1(A) and 1(B), it is also possible to use trays having the structure shown in FIG. 2(A) and (B) in their cross-section,” (Column 5 Lines 17-20). Thus, Aruga discloses a column like that of Figure 3, but with the spiral channel trays of Figures 2(A) and 2(B) rather than the hairpin channel trays of Figures 1(A) and 1(B). Accordingly, Aruga anticipates the apparatus of claim 1.
In the alternative, by teaching that “In place of the tray of FIG. 1(A) and 1(B), it is also possible to use trays having the structure shown in FIG. 2(A) and (B) in their cross-section,” (Column 5 Lines 17-20), Aruga at least suggests a column like that of Figure 3, but with the spiral channel trays of Figures 2(A) and 2(B) rather than the hairpin channel trays of Figures 1(A) and 1(B). Thus, even if it were ruled that Aruga does not anticipate the apparatus of claim 1, Aruga at least suggests said apparatus, thereby rendering claim 1 obvious.
With regard to claim 3: The downcomers alternate between positions at an edge of a respective tray and positions at a center of a respective tray along a height direction of the main body (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35; emphasis on Figure 2(B) and Column 5 Lines 17-25).
With regard to claim 7: The plurality of trays are spaced at equal intervals along the height direction of the main body (Figures 2(B) and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35).
With regard to claim 8: Aruga teaches a method of removing residual monomers using the apparatus, the method comprising:
Injecting the distillation material (slurry of vinyl chloride resin) into the main body (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35).
Supplying a gas (steam) to the distillation material to generate a distillation material from which a gaseous phase containing volatile material and the volatile materials have been removed (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35).
Removing, from the main body, the distillation material from which the gaseous phase and the volatile material have been removed (Figures 2(A), 2(B), and 3, Column 4 Line 24-Column 7 Line 35).
With regard to claim 9: The distillation material includes a polymerization product of suspension polymerization (Column 3 Line 48-Column 4 Line 5, claim 1).
With regard to claim 10: The distillation material includes a distillable vinyl chloride monomer (Column 3 Line 48-Column 4 Line 5, Column 5 Line 30-Column 7 Line 35).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aruga.
With regard to claim 4: Aruga anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
Aruga does not explicitly teach that the width of the spiral channel is constant.
However, Aruga teaches that “As illustrative dimension of trays shown in FIGS. 1(A) and 1(B) and FIGS. 2(A) and 2(B), a diameter of bottom plate 1 of 120 cm, a width of flow path of 17 cm,”. This teaching at least suggests a spiral channel (flow path) of constant width, e.g. a constant width of 17 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Aruga by configuring the spiral channels to have a constant width, in order to obtain a predictably functional distillation device that is consistent with the suggestions of Aruga.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aruga in view of Lee et al. (US 9,895,624), hereafter referred to as Lee.
With regard to claim 5: Aruga anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102/103 rejections above.
Aruga is silent to the supply pipe being a plurality of supply pipes configured to disperse and inject the distillation material, wherein the supply pipes spaced apart from each other at equal intervals along an inner circumference of the main body.
However, it is known in the art to provide a system with a plurality of supply pipes configured to disperse and inject distillation material, wherein said multiple supply pipes are spaced at equal intervals along an inner circumference of a main body. For example, Lee teaches a distillation apparatus having a plurality of supply pipes spaced at equal intervals along an inner circumference of a main body (Figures 3-8, Columns 5-8). The purpose of spacing the supply pipes at equal intervals along an inner circumference of the main body is to avoid channeling (Column 1 Line 55-Column 2 Line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kurazono in view of Lee by forming including a plurality of supply pipes for dispersing and injecting distillation material, wherein said plurality of supply pipes are spaced at equal intervals along an inner circumference of the main body, in order to avoid channeling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights