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 .
Claims 19-25 are currently pending. Claims 19 and 20 are independent.
Priority
The instant application claims priority as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
40
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Election/Restriction
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a process of claims 19 and 21, in the reply filed on December 5, 2025 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 20 and 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 travers in the reply filed on December 5, 2025.
Claims 19 and 21 are the subject of this First 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.
Claims 19 and 21 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.
Claim 19 is ambiguous for several reasons:
At a) i) it recites “said distillation column has a feed inlet for said aqueous solution of lactic acid”, however, it does not provide an active step delimiting that an aqueous solution of lactic acid is fed to said distillation column (through an inlet located at a point between the upper end and lower end of said column). The first active step found in the process is at a) iv). The limitations before step a) iv) are unclear.
At a) iv) the claim recites “the liquid taken from the bottom of said pot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is the first time the claim mentions a liquid at the bottom of a pot, in addition to that the claim never recited that a liquid is taken.
At a) iv) the claim recites the phrase “the reaction solution is recirculated”. This is ambiguous because the claim never stated that the reaction solution was circulated a first time. To recirculate is to circulate again.
At a) iv) the claim recites the limitation "the subsequent depolymerization process". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At a) vi) the claim recites the limitation "said liquid from said column". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At a) vi) the claim recites the limitation "the high-boiling fraction …liquefying within said column". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Replacing “the” with “a” will overcome this rejection.
At a) vi) the claim recites the limitation "the high-boiling fraction… are allowed to flow back”. Replacing “are” with “is” will overcome this rejection.
The claim lacks a transition between part a) and part b) which makes it unclear. If both parts a) and b) are necessary limitations of claim 19, then part b) should be preceded by an “and”.
In a) ii) and b) i) the claim recites “said evaporator”, and the claim also recites “most preferably a falling film evaporator” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
At b) ii) the claim recites “the liquid taken …combined with said small portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Maybe applicant means that a large portion of liquid is taken from the bottom of said pot of step a) vii), is combined with said small portion from iv) of a), and is fed to the top of said falling film evaporator.
Part b) ii) recites “of said pot”, but it is unclear if it refers to the pot in part a) vii) or part b). Based on what’s on part a) vii), the examiner believes that the pot in a) vii) is the one that has the appropriate liquid. Then, parts b) iii), iv) and v) recite “said pot”, which appears to be different from “said pot” of b) ii). Please correct with what is appropriate.
At b) iii) the claim recites “the vapor-liquid two-phase stream”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At a) vi) the claim recites the limitation "said liquid from said column". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At b) vi) the claim recites the limitation "said liquid from said column". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is rejected for containing the same issues.
Conclusion
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected.
The closest prior art appear to be US 8,053,584, US 10,058,795 and US 2010/0249364. The prior art disclosed distillation/rectification columns for lactic acid and lactide, as well as a falling film evaporator in the process. It appears that the parts of the process of the prior art are not position in a similar manner as in the process in this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm. 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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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.
/VALERIE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621