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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-26, in the reply filed on May 7, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is firstly on the ground that there has not been a showing of “examples that recite material differences” among the groups of inventions. This argument is not found persuasive because allegations of different processes or products need not be documented. MPEP 806.05(f). The traversal is secondly on the ground that there would not be a significantly increased search burden. This argument is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed on Mar. 11, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 27 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on May 7, 2026.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3-6, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 3: The claim recites “the exit of the reactor”. Base claim 1 recites a tubular reactor, but not a generic reactor. The reference in claim 3 to a generic reactor (that is, not to the more specific tubular reactor recited in base claim 1) therefore lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 3 and is indefinite for the same reason.
As to claim 5: The claim recites a step of feeding “the pre-mixture”. Base claim 1 does not recite a pre-mixture, and therefore the reference in claim 5 to a pre-mixture lacks proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 6: The claim recites “the piston pump discharge point”. Base claim 1 does not recite a piston pump, and therefore the reference in claim 6 to “the piston pump” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 6 and is indefinite for the same reason.
As to claims 8 and 11: The claims recite limitations regarding “the pre-mixing”. Base claim 1 does not recite a step of pre-mixing, and therefore the references in claims 8 and 11 to “the pre-mixing” lack proper antecedent basis.
As to claim 12: The claim recites “alkyl/aryl phosphites”. The claim does not set forth with reasonable clarity whether the slash “/” indicates a combination of alkyl and aryl groups or else alkyl phosphites and aryl phosphites in the alternative.
As to claim 17: The claim recites “The process of any of claim 16”. This statement of dependency is ungrammatical because the phrase “any of” disagrees in number with the phrase “claim 16”. The claim does not set forth with reasonable clarity which other claim(s) it depends upon. Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 17 and is indefinite for the same reason.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 13-15, 20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,456,735 (herein “Engelmann”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0046328 A1 (herein “Westmijze”).
As to claims 1, 13-14, and 25: Engelmann describes processes for continuous suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride (see the abstract). Engelmann describes an example (see Example 5 in col. 16, and the supporting disclosures of Example 4 in col. 15 and of Example 1 in col. 14) comprising contacting (see col. 14, ll. 50-53) vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate, water, the emulsifier sorbitan monolaurate (SML, see the Table in col. 18) corresponding to the presently recited stabilizer agent, and the suspending agent (PVA, see the Table in col. 18) corresponding to the presently recited dispersing agent; and feeding them by pumps (see col. 14, l. 56) into a tubular reactor having a ratio of length to internal diameter of 26.15 (see col. 15, ll. 34-36).
Engelmann does not disclose demineralized water.
Westmijze discloses processes of continuous suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride (see the abstract and ¶ [0029]). Westmijze discloses an example (see ¶ [0031]) including demineralized water.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use demineralized water in Engelmann’s continuous suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride in order to reduce the amount of contaminants or impurities introduced into the reactor and the resulting polyvinyl chloride. In light of Westmijze’s disclosure of a continuous suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride in demineralized water, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use demineralized water in Engelmann’s continuous suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used demineralized water in Engelmann’s continuous suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride.
As to claim 15: The cited Example 5 includes about 55 wt% of vinyl chloride based on the amount of water (see the amounts in the Table in col. 16 and 18).
As to claim 20: The cited Example 5 is performed at 45 °C and 61 °C (see the Table in col. 18).
As to claim 24: The cited Example 5 includes a second zone of reactor (see col. 14, ll. 26-40).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Engelmann in view of Westmijze, as applied above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,460,754 (herein “Redinger”).
The discussion set forth above regarding Engelmann and Westmijze is incorporated here by reference. As set forth above, Engelmann and Westmijze suggest a process according to base claim 1. Engelmann does not disclose the presently recited stabilizer agents.
Redinger discloses processes for polymerization of vinyl chloride in the presence of heat stabilizers such as aminocrotonic acid esters (see the abstract).
In light of Redinger, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a heat stabilizer such as an aminocrotonic acid ester in Engelmann’s process to improve the resulting polymer’s heat stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a heat stabilizer such as an aminocrotonic acid ester in Engelmann’s process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9-10, 16, 19, 21-23, and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if written in independent form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM 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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights