DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-10a re currently pending. This office action is the first office action on the merits of the claims.
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.
3. Claims 1-10 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.
Concerning claim 1 the claim recites “introducing the second mixture of a second solvent and the second solvent derived acetate into a second distillation column “ “to separate the second solvent derived acetate” and that this involves recovering ”a third mixture of the second solvent and the second solvent-derived acetate from the second distillation column” which renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the indication “to separate the second solvent derived acetate” means that additional separation of the second solvent derived acetate (more than indicated by the step using the first distillation column) must take place in the second distillation column or if the indication of “to separate the second solvent-derived acetate” is just a restatement of the previously indicated “the separating of the second solvent-derived acetate” mentioned earlier in the claim which the introducing the second mixture into a second distillation column is a part of.
Concerning claim 3 the claim recites “wherein the first solvent and the second solvent each comprise a c1 to C6 alcohol” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1 from which requires that the first solvent and the second solvent must be different from one another however the claim 3 indicates that the solvents are selected from the same group which would allow for the solvents to be the same.
Claims 2, 4-10 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 recites “wherein a content ratio of the second solvent and the second solvent derived acetate forming the second mixture is different from a content ratio of the second solvent and the second solvent-derived acetate forming the third mixture” which does not further limit claim 1 from which it depends as claim 1 indicates that the introducing the second mixture into a second distillation column is “to separate the second solvent derived acetate” and that recovering a third mixture of the second solvent and the second solvent-derived acetate is from the second distillation column. If the second solvent acetate is separated from the second mixture than the second mixture and the third mixture can not have the same ratio of second solvent and second solvent-derived. These mixtures having the same content ratio would result in no separation of the second solvent-derived acetate. As such the claim does not further limit the claim 1 from which it depends as the separation of second solvent-derived acetate would require that the second mixture and the third mixture would have different content ratios. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the closest prior art of Yanai (US 5,240, 997).
Yanai teaches a method of making an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer which comprises adding a radical initiator to a mixed solution containing a vinyl ester , dialkyl sulfoxide under pressure by ethylene to form a copolymer of the vinyl ester and the ethylene (column 6 liens 60-68). Dimethyl sulfoxide is indicated to be the preferred dialkyl sulfoxide and to be used as the polymerization solvent (column 6 lines 49-55column 7 lines 45-55), and the vinyl ester is indicated to be preferably vinyl acetate (column 7 liens 18-22). The unreacted ethylene and unreacted vinyl ester monomer are indicated to be recovered (column 8 lines 45-68). The ethylene vinyl ester copolymer is indicated to be able to be3 converted by saponification in methanol solvent using an alkaline catalyst to ethylene vinyl alcohol (column 9 lines 15-25) and indicates that when a mixed solvent of a dialkyl sulfoxide and a lower alcohol is used that the rate of saponification of the ethylene vinyl ester is higher than that with a single solvent of lower alcohol (column 9 lines 40-50). The reaction zone of the saponification rection forms a lower alcohol ester of aliphatic acid because of the reaction (column 10 lines 10-15) indicating that the reaction is a transesterification. It is indicated to be desired to distill off this ester which can be done using a column system of conducting saponification while introducing the ethylene vinyl ester copolymer dissolved in dialkyl sulfoxide though the middle stage of a reaction column and blowing alcohol vapor through the bottom stage and at the same time distilling off lower alcohol and the alcohol ester from the top stage (column 10 liens 15-30). Yanai gives an example wher dimethyl sulfoxide vinyl acetate and azobis isobutyl nitrile and ethylene where placed in an autoclave and polymerized (column 16 lines 25-45) The unreacted monomers were removed and polymer precipitated (column 16 lines 40-45). A separate example gives that an ethylene vinyl acetate polymer was dissolved in methanol and dimethyl sulfoxide to which is added a sodium hydroxide solution in methanol and the saponification reaction was stared (column 23 lines 1-26). A reduced pressure distillation apparatus was connected to the reactor and further saponification was conducted while byproduced methyl acetate and methanol were distilled off at a ratio of 9/1 which is indicated to be an excess of the azeotropic composition (column 23 lines 15-30). This would be a separation of a mixture comprising the first solvent of dimethyl sulfoxide and a second mixture of the methanol and methyl acetate.
Yanai does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed method which includes steps of removing an azeotropic mixture of the second solvent derived acetate produced form the transesterification, the first solvent and the second solvent, or the step of introducing the second mixture into a second distillation column having an operating pressure different from that of the first distillation column to separate the second solvent derived acetate.
Conclusion
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected over 112. Claims 1-10 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/DAVID L MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763