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 .
Claim Rejections - 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 11, 14-15, and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0240783 to Bartholomew (hereinafter referred to as “BARTHOLOMEW”) in view of JP 2003292506 A to Numao (hereinafter referred to as “NUMAO”).
As to claim 1, BARTHOLOMEW teaches to an apparatus for polymerizing or devolatilizing a composition (see BARTHOLOMEW at Fig. 13 for teaching an apparatus for polymerizing or crosslinking adhesives by exposure to actinic radiation using one or more light emitting probes), the apparatus comprising:
a first reaction vessel defining a first interior chamber (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶155 and Fig. 13 for teaching an apparatus 300 comprising the vessel 320; see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶10 for teaching that the apparatus comprises a reaction vessel defining an interior chamber), the first reaction vessel comprising:
at least one first collar providing access to the interior chamber (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶155 and Fig. 13 for teaching the collar 330A, 330B, and 330C; see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶10 for teaching at least one collar providing access to the interior chamber); and
at least one first probe assembly supported by the first collar (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶10 for teaching that the apparatus comprises at least one probe assembly supported by the collar; see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶155 and Fig. 13 for teaching a probe assembly 310A, 310B);
wherein the first probe assembly comprises
an emitter for emitting light that polymerizes, crosslinks, or polymerizes and crosslinks the composition (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶155 and Fig. 13 for teaching that the probe assembly 310A includes an emitter 312A; see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶10 for teaching an emitter for emitting light that polymerizes and/or crosslinks the composition);
at least one circulation loop external to the first reaction vessel and defining a passage channel (see BARTHOLOMEW at Fig. 5 and ¶132 to ¶133 for teaching line 32, line 34, line 36, and a moving web 42 as a passage channel for further irradiation by another UV emitter in a second stage 50 configured to perform additional crosslinking and/or polymerization), comprising: an emitter for emitting light that polymerizes, crosslinks, or polymerizes and crosslinks the composition (see BARTHOLOMEW at Fig. 5 and ¶132 to ¶133 for teaching a second stage 50 that directs UV rays 51).
While BARTHOLOMEW teaches the apparatus as set forth above, BARTHOLOMEW fails to explicitly teach the apparatus comprising 1) at least one second collar providing access to the passage channel, 2) a pump, and 3) a second probe assembly supported by the second collar as claimed. However, NUMAO teaches a mixing device (see NUMAO at ¶13), in which the mixing device is configured to efficiently mix a photopolymerizable composition filled in a tank with a gas using 1) a lid 8 supporting the other end 16 providing access to a circulation channel 6 (see NUMAO at Fig. 1, ¶13 and ¶14 for teaching a circulation channel 6), 2) a pump (see NUMAO at Fig. 1, ¶13 and ¶14 for teaching circulation device 17 such as hydraulic pump), and 3) a second probe assembly supported by the second collar (see NUMAO at ¶24 for teaching the light irradiation unit 5 supported by the lid 8 that is configured to seal the inside of the tank 3). Accordingly, NUMAO teaches that it was well known in the photopolymerization art to have used the mixing device comprising the 1), 2), and 3) elements as set forth above. The apparatus for polymerization can comprise of the elements 1), 2), and 3) set forth above. Because NUMAO teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the apparatus of BARTHOLOMEW comprising the elements 1), 2), and 3) of NUMAO with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
As to claim 2, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus, wherein the circulation loop further comprises a mixer (see NUMAO at Fig. 1 and ¶28 for teaching that the static mixer 7 is located in the middle of the circulation channel 6 and mixes the ultraviolet-curable adhesive 2 circulating within the circulation channel 6 with nitrogen gas).
As to claim 3, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus, wherein the circulation loop further comprises: an injector (see NUMAO at Fig. 1 and ¶26 for teaching a nitrogen gas supply device 18 in the middle of the circulation channel 6 via pipe 19) for at least one entraining agent (see NUMAO at Fig. 1 and ¶27 for teaching that nitrogen gas is supplied to the ultraviolet-curable adhesive 2 flowing in the circulation channel 6 via pipe 19).
As to claim 4, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus, wherein the entraining agent is a material selected from steam, condensed water, nitrogen, argon, or carbon dioxide or a mixture thereof (see NUMAO at Fig. 1 and ¶27 for teaching that nitrogen gas is supplied to the ultraviolet-curable adhesive 2 flowing in the circulation channel 6 via pipe 19).
As to claim 8, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus, wherein the first probe assembly further comprises:
a light tube extending from the emitter and at least partially disposed within the interior chamber of the reaction vessel (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶155 and Fig. 13 for teaching a light tube 314A extending into the interior chamber 322);
adjustable position provisions for governing position of the light tube within the interior chamber of the first reaction vessel (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶155 and Fig. 13 for teaching adjustable position provisions 316A to govern and/or maintain a desired position of the light tube 314 within the chamber 322); and
a cover disposed at a distal end of the light tube, wherein the cover is transparent or substantially transparent to passage of light emitted from the emitter (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶155 and Fig. 13 for teaching the distal end 315 of the light tube 314 opposite the emitter 312; at ¶158, the light tubes have one or more transparent covers 317 at or proximate the distal end 315 of the light tube 314).
As to claim 9, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus, wherein the second probe assembly further comprises: a light tube extending from the emitter toward the passage channel (see BARTHOLOMEW at Fig. 14 and ¶161for teaching each probe assembly 310D and 310E engaged with the vessel 320 by a corresponding collar 330D and 330E, wherein the distal ends 315D and 315E are flush with an interior surface of the vessel wall).
As to claim 11, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus, wherein the first reaction vessel further comprises: at least one stirrer (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶163 for teaching stirring or mixing provisions 340 that typically include one or more blades or mixing elements extending from the shaft).
As to claim 14, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus, wherein the light is actinic radiation (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶131 and Fig. 5 for teaching UV emitters 28, 30 that emit UV light).
As to claim 15, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus, further comprising: at least one feed line for components of the composition; wherein the at least one feed line is connected to the first interior chamber (see BARTHOLOMEW at Fig. 5 and ¶130 for teaching line 24 is connected to a reactor 26 for feeding components of the composition).
As to claim 17, BARTHOLOMEW teaches to a method (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶6 for teaching the method of forming a melt processable adhesive), comprising:
-forming a photopolymerizable reaction mixture in a reaction vessel (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶7 for teaching that the method also comprises at least partially polymerizing the composition by exposing the composition to radiation having wavelengths corresponding to the activation wavelength of the first initiator);
-wherein the photopolymerizable reaction mixture comprises:
- monomers (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶7 for teaching a composition including at least one monomer);
- a first photoinitiator (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶7 for teaching a composition including a first actinic radiation initiator);
- a second photoinitiator that is substantially non-photoreactive at the activation wavelengths of the first photoinitiator (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶7 for teaching a composition including a second actinic radiation initiator, wherein the second initiator is substantially non-photoreactive at activation wavelength of the first initiator; the substantially non-photoreactive is supported in at least ¶48 to ¶54, specifically at ¶51, of BARTHOLOMEW);
-irradiating the photopolymerizable reaction mixture with actinic radiation at at least one of the activation wavelengths of the first photoinitiator to at least partially polymerize the monomers to form a melt composition in the reaction vessel (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶7 for teaching that the method also comprises at least partially polymerizing the composition by exposing the composition to radiation having wavelengths corresponding to the activation wavelength of the first initiator);
- wherein the melt composition comprise a polymer melt and any unreacted monomer (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶6 for teaching that the method also comprises at least partially polymerizing the composition; the partial polymerization naturally comprises any unreacted monomer in the melt processable pre-adhesives and/or adhesives).
While BARTHOLOMEW teaches the methods for preparing actinic radiation polymerizable and crosslinkable melt processable adhesives as set forth above, BARTHOLOMEW fails to explicitly teach circulating at least a portion of the melt composition outside of the reaction vessel as claimed. However, NUMAO teaches a mixing method and a polymerization method that can efficiently mix a photopolymerizable composition filled in a tank with a gas (see NUMAO at ¶13), in which the method is characterized by circulating a photopolymerizable composition filled in a tank through a circulation channel, supplying a gas insoluble to the photopolymerizable composition circulating through the circulation channel, and then mixing the photopolymerizable composition and the gas using a static mixer installed in the middle of the circulation channel (see NUMAO at ¶16). Accordingly, NUMAO teaches that it was well known in the polymerization art to have used circulation channel outside the reaction vessel. The polymerization method can comprise of circulating the polymer melt composition outside of the reaction vessel. Because NUMAO teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used method of BARTHOLOMEW with the circulation method NUMAO with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
As to claim 18, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the method, further comprising: mixing the melt composition with an entraining agent to form a diverted mixture comprising the polymer melt (see NUMAO at Fig. 1 and ¶26 for teaching the nitrogen gas supply device 18 for introducing nitrogen gas an entraining agent; see NUMAO at ¶4 for teaching that the nitrogen gas is added for removing oxygen to avoid curing reaction in the UV-curing adhesives).
As to claim 19, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the method, further comprising: irradiating the melt composition with actinic radiation at at least one of the activation wavelengths of the first photoinitiator to polymerize the unreacted monomers to form an irradiated diverted mixture (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶138 for teaching adhesive or pre-adhesive can be exposed to a UV radiation source that activates the first UV photoinitiator; see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶48 for teaching that the activation via UV irradiation results in polymerization).
As to claim 20, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the method, further comprising:
mixing the melt composition with an entraining agent to form a diverted mixture comprising the polymer melt, the unreacted monomers, and the entraining agent (see NUMAO at Fig. 1 and ¶26 for teaching the nitrogen gas supply device 18 for introducing nitrogen gas an entraining agent; see NUMAO at ¶4 for teaching that the nitrogen gas is added for removing oxygen to avoid curing reaction in the UV-curing adhesives; see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶7 for teaching that the method also comprises at least partially polymerizing the composition; partial polymerization comprise unreacted monomers); and
irradiating the diverted mixture with actinic radiation at least one of the activation wavelengths of the first photoinitiator to polymerize the unreacted monomers to form an irradiated diverted mixture (see NUMAO at ¶16 and Fig. 1 for teaching that the method is characterized by circulating a photopolymerizable composition filled in a tank through a circulation channel, supplying a gas insoluble to the photopolymerizable composition circulating through the circulation channel, and then mixing the photopolymerizable composition and the gas using a static mixer installed in the middle of the circulation channel; the circulation of NUMAO teaches to irradiating the diverted mixture, as ¶50 of NUMAO teaches that only a portion of the UV-curable adhesive 2 can be reliably polymerized at the pre-polymerization treatment; it follows that more is polymerized with the repeated circulation; see NUMAO at ¶49 for teaching the repeated circulation).
As to claim 21, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the method, further comprising: removing heat from the polymer melt (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶155 for an optional heating and/or cooling jacket 370 that is configured to remove heat from the polymer melt).
As to claim 22, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the method, further comprising: testing the polymer melt (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶108 for teaching rheological measurements such as Dynamic Mechanical Analysis or Differential Scanning Calorimetry and the microstructure determined from microscopy; see NUMAO at ¶51 for teaching measuring viscosity of the UV-curable adhesive 2).
As to claim 23, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the method, wherein the testing is a technique selected from the group consisting of Fourier Transform infrared spectroscopy, rheology, and refractometry (see BARTHOLOMEW at ¶108 for teaching rheological measurements such as Dynamic Mechanical Analysis or Differential Scanning Calorimetry and the microstructure determined from microscopy; see NUMAO at ¶51 for teaching measuring viscosity of the UV-curable adhesive 2).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 209155838 U to Ren (hereinafter referred to as “REN”).
As to claim 5, while BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus as set forth above, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO fails to explicitly teach the apparatus, wherein the circulation loop further comprises a heat exchanger as claimed. However, REN teaches an apparatus for preparing polymers (see REN at ¶2), in which the external circulation system connected to the reactor comprises a circulation pump and a heat exchanger (see REN at ¶17 for teaching the heat exchanger of the external circulation system configured to reduce the temperature of the material in the external circulation system, thereby achieving a cooling effect and controlling the reaction temperature in the reactor). Accordingly, REN teaches that it was well known in the polymerization art to have used a heat exchanger in the external circulation system. The apparatus for polymerization can comprise of a heat exchanger in the external circulation system. Because REN teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the apparatus of BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO with the heat exchanger in the external circulation system with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
As to claim 6, while BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus as set forth above, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO fails to explicitly teach the apparatus, wherein the circulation loop further comprises an analyzer as claimed. However, REN teaches an apparatus for preparing polymers (see REN at ¶2), in which the external circulation system connected to the reactor comprises a circulation pump and a viscometer 16 (see REN at ¶17 ¶12, ¶21, ¶32 and Fig. 1 for teaching a viscometer 16, wherein the viscometer is disposed between the circulation pump and the first regulating valve). Accordingly, REN teaches that it was well known in the polymerization art to have used an analyzer in the external circulation system. The apparatus for polymerization can comprise of an analyzer in the form of a viscometer in the external circulation system. Because REN teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the apparatus of BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO with the analyzer in the external circulation system with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
As to claim 7, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO and REN teaches the apparatus, wherein the analyzer is at least one device selected from the group consisting of Fourier Transform Infrared spectrometer, viscometer, and refractometer (see REN at ¶12, ¶21, ¶32 and Fig. 1 for teaching a viscometer 16, wherein the viscometer is disposed between the circulation pump and the first regulating valve).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102005043222 A1 to Koenig et. al (hereinafter referred to as “KOENIG”).
As to claim 10, while BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus comprising a circulation device 17 such as a hydraulic pump (see NUMAO at ¶26) as set forth above, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO fails to explicitly teach a gear pump that is positioned below the first reaction vessel as claimed. However, KOENIG teaches a polymerization reactor for the continuous irradiation of a liquid with electromagnetic rays or electron beams (see KOENIG at ¶14), in which a circulating pump 53 in Fig. 3 and ¶40 may be a gear pump (see KOENIG at ¶28). Accordingly, KOENIG teaches that it was well known in the polymerization art to have used a gear pump positioned below the first reaction vessel. The polymerization reactor can comprise of a gear pump positioned below the reactor vessel. Because KOENIG teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the hydraulic pump of BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO as the gear pump of KOENIG with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 5,980,790 to Kuwahara (hereinafter referred to as “KUWAHARA”).
As to claim 12, while BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus as set forth above, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO fails to explicitly teach the apparatus further comprising at least one condenser and a return line to the first reaction vessel as claimed. However, KUWAHARA teaches a polymerization reactor including at least one complete-mixing type reaction tank (see KUWAHARA at Abstract), in which the reactor comprises a condenser (see KUWAHARA at Fig. 1 and col. 12, ln. 55 for teaching a condenser 11 for returning the condensate back to the tank reactor 6 through the refluxing line 12). Accordingly, KUWAHARA teaches that it was well known in the polymerization art to have used a condenser and a return line to the reactor. The polymerization reactor can comprise of a condenser and a return line to the reactor. Because KUWAHARA teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the apparatus of BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO with the condenser and the return line of KUWAHARA with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
As to claim 13, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO and KUWAHARA teaches the apparatus, further comprising: at least one condensate storage tank between the condenser and the return line (see KUWAHARA at col. 13, ln. 52, for teaching that the recovered liquid trapped into the receiving tank 37 was recycled to the step of mixing of raw materials through a line 38, a pump 39, and a line 40; the receiving tank 37 is between the condenser 35 and the return line 40 to reactor tank 6).
Claim(s) 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 5,772,851 to Barwich et. al (hereinafter referred to as “BARWICH”).
As to claim 16, while BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the apparatus as set forth above, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO fails to explicitly teach the apparatus comprising a second reaction vessel and at least one passage between the second and the first reaction vessels as claimed. However, BARWICH teaches an apparatus for polymerization (see BARWICH at Fig. 3) in which the apparatus comprises a second reaction vessel such that the second reaction vessel is connected to the first reaction vessel (see BARWICH at col. 6, ln. 5 to 14, and Fig. 3 for teaching that second kettle 6 is used as a second reaction vessel in addition to first reaction kettle 1 as a first reaction vessel). Accordingly, BARWICH teaches that it was well known in the polymerization art to have used a second reaction vessel in which the melt from the first reaction vessel is fed into the second reaction vessel. The apparatus can comprise of a second reaction vessel and at least one passageway between the second and the first reaction vessels. Because BARWICH teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used apparatus of BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO with the second reaction vessel and the connecting passageway with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
As to claim 24, while BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO teaches the method as set forth above, BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO fails to explicitly teach distilling the unreacted monomer and entraining agent in a separate vessel as claimed. However, BARWICH teaches to a process for eliminating volatile residues from polyacrylate melts (see BARWICH at Abstract) in which distillation is performed for distilling the volatile residues comprising unreacted monomer (see BARWICH at Example 1 for teaching volatile residues comprising acrylic acid for polyacrylate melts, less than 0.02%; see BARWICH at col. 2, ln. 66, for teaching a condenser 2 for distilling the volatile components to form a distillate 5; see BARWICH at Fig. 1 for distillate 5 in a separate vessel; see BARWICH at Example 2 or 3 for teaching the distillate 5 comprising steam as the entrain agent). Accordingly, BARWICH teaches that it was well known in the polymerization art to have distilled the unreacted monomer and entraining agent in a separate vessel. The method can comprise of distilling the unreacted monomer and entraining agent in a separate vessel. Because BARWICH teaches that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used method of BARTHOLOMEW in view of NUMAO with the added distillation of BARWICH with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
