DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/7/26 has been entered.
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 18 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 18 depends upon canceled claim 5, therefore the scope of the claim cannot be determined. Further, it is difficult to determine which claim it depends upon, since the limitation of claim 5 is already present in the only independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 40-024395 (herein Takiguchi) in view of US 2016/0289360 (herein Fernandez).
In setting forth the instant rejection, the machine translation (labeled with its application number 37-57766, supplied with the JP document and IDS on 4/7/26 is relied upon.
As to claims 1, 3, 6-9, 18 and 20, Takiguchi discloses a process for the production of a vinyl chloride acrylate copolymer by reacting vinyl chloride monomer A and alkyl acrylate monomer B. See pages 1-3. The process comprising a first step of providing a first mixture of vinyl chloride monomer A and alkyl acrylate monomer B, wherein 100% of monomer B is utilized and at least about 40% of the vinyl chloride monomer (exemplified at 69% in examples 1 and 2 and 42 wt% in example 3) is polymerized in an aqueous medium in a reactor. See pages 2-4 and examples. The weight ratio of A:B is taught as the amount of B being 10 to 55 wt% and a A being 90 to 45 wt% (page 2), which is exemplified in example 1 at about 75 wt%. The mixture is heated to about 50 oC, and initiator is added polymerize the reaction. See pages 3-4 and examples.
The reaction is polymerized to at least 20% (pages 3-4), exemplifying in example 3 to a conversion rate of 55 wt% of the monomers of the first step.
A second step is performed wherein the rest of the vinyl chloride is polymerized. See pages 2-4 and examples. The polymerization temperature of the second step is generally the same as the first step of about 50 oC. The final polymer is taught as having 8 to 30 wt% alkyl methacrylate and 70 to 92 wt% vinyl chloride, which overlaps the claimed range at 30 wt% alkyl acrylate and 70 wt% vinyl chloride. See pages 2-3 and examples.
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Also see MPEP 2144.05 stating that when there is overlap with the claimed ranges and the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select any amount within the disclosed ranges, including amounts within the scope of the instant claims.
Takiguchi shows in the examples, a polymerization temperature of 50 and 52 oC, however doesn’t teach the claimed range of at least 55 oC.
Fernandez teaches similar process of polymerizing vinyl chloride in multiple steps. Se abstract and examples. Fernandez teaches that the temperature of the reactor should be between 30 and 100 oC (paragraph 6), preferably at an “appropriate temperature” in order to polymerize the monomers, which is adjusted in different steps according to the reactivity and the amount of the initiator (paragraph 50). Generally teaching that the first step is 30 to 100 oC and the second step is 30 to 75 oC. See paragraphs 46-51.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the process of Takiguchi with the appropriate reactor temperature for the polymerization in the first and second step as suggested by Fernandez because one would want to modify the polymerization temperatures depending on the amount of initiator and routine experimentation to optimize the conditions for polymerization. See paragraph 46-51 of Fernandez.
As to claims 6 and 19, Takiguchi teaches that the comonomer is alkyl acrylate, however is silent on the claimed species.
Fernandez teaches that butyl acrylate is a suitable alternative to 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, etc. in similar polymerizations. See paragraph 81.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the process of Takiguchi with replacing ethylhexyl acrylate with butyl acrylate as suggested by Fernandez because Fernandez teaches that the monomers are interchangeable. See paragraph 81 of Fernandez.
As to claim 10, vinyl chloride acrylate copolymers produced from the process are taught. See pages 2-3 and examples.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 40-024395 (herein Takiguchi) in view of US 2016/0289360 (herein Fernandez), US 6,730,741 (herein Honda) and US 2009/0137744 (herein Ferguson).
The discussion with respect to Takiguchi set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to claim 2, Takiguchi is silent on chain transfer agents.
Honda teaches similar methods of producing polyvinyl chloride copolymers. See abstract and examples. Honda teaches that chain transfer agents may be utilized to control the molecular weight. See col. 6, lines 8-12 and col. 7, lines 60-63. Ferguson teaches similar polyvinyl chloride copolymers and methods of producing them. See abstract and examples. Ferguson teaches that chain transfer agents may be utilized in the polymerization to further control the molecular weight of the polymer. See paragraph 22.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have modified the process of Takiguchi with the addition of chain transfer agents as taught by Honda and Ferguson because one would want to control the molecular weight of the polyvinyl chloride polymers, which ultimately controls some of the physical properties. See paragraph 22 of Ferguson, col. 6, lines 8-12 and col. 7, lines 60-63 of Honda.
Response to Arguments
The following rejections were in response to the IDS applicant filed and the amendments made 4/7/26 after a notice of allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights