DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF THE APPLICATION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ Amendments and Remarks, filed 24 July 2023, in the matter of Application No. 18/273,790. Said documents have been entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 19-36 are pending.
No claims have been cancelled.
Thus, claims 19-36 represent all claims currently under consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European Patent Office on 25 January 2021. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP21153162.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Domestic Priority data as claimed by Applicant:
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/051516 (01/24/2022)
Foreign Applications:
EUROPEAN PATENT 21153162.9 (01/25/2021)
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements submitted on 2 August 2023 and 5 September 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Example 1 of the written description (Specification; page 13, lines 39-40), the calculated values for the dimensionless pitch b and the dimensionless ratio of curvature a appear to be erroneously switched. That is, in line 39, “Dimensionless pitch: b = 0.028” should read “Dimensionless pitch: b = 0.16” and in line 40, “Dimensionless ratio of curvature: a = 0.16” should read “Dimensionless ratio of curvature: a = 0.028”.
On page 15, lines 7 and 11, “example 2” should read “comparative example 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5, “…depressurizing the mixture is by a pressure-maintenance device…” should read “…depressurizing the mixture by a pressure-maintenance device…”
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “…the helical-tube evaporator (4) is returned…” should read “…the helical-tube evaporator is returned …”
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 3-4, “…a reduction – split between the two evaporators – in the 2-EHA…” should read “…a reduction split between the two evaporators in the 2-EHA…”
In line 4, “…the two evaporators…” should read “…the two or more helical-tube evaporators…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “high boiler” as recited in instant claim 19 will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the written description (Specification; page 2, lines 39-42) as comprising polymers, 2-ethylhexyl 3-(2-ethylhexoxy)-propionate, and 2-ethylhexyl 2-diacrylate.
The term “low boiler” as recited in instant claim 19 will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the written description (Specification; page 3, lines 4-8) as comprising water, acrylic acid, 2-ethylhexanol, and 2-ethylhexene isomers.
The term “dimensionless ratio of curvature a” as recited in instant claim 36 will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the written description (Specification; page 11, lines 33-35; Fig. 1) as the ratio between the internal diameter di and the diameter of curvature D and is represented by the formula: a = di / D.
The term “dimensionless pitch b” as recited in instant claim 36 will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the written description (Specification; page 11, lines 36-38; Fig. 1) as the ratio between the pitch of the helical tube h and the diameter of curvature D and is represented by the formula: b = h / D.
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.
Claims 19-27 and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestler et al. (DE 10246869 A1; IDS of 08-02-2023; English language machine translation; hereinafter “Nestler”), in view of Rumpf et al. (US 20080217158 A1; IDS of 08-02-2023; hereinafter “Rumpf”).
Regarding claim 19, Nestler teaches the production of (meth)acrylic acid esters, including 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (Nestler; Title; claims 1 and 8; paragraphs [0029]-[0031]; English language machine translation). Purified 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA) is obtained from an esterification reaction mixture comprising 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexanol, acrylic acid, octenes, 2-ethylhexyl acetate and propionate, inhibitors, catalyst and high-boiling substances (oxyesters) (Nestler; paragraph [0049]; English language machine translation). The catalyst is at least one strongly acidic catalyst (e.g., 65% aqueous p-toluenesulfonic acid), and the esterification is carried out in a homogenous liquid phase at a temperature of 70-150 ºC, preferably 80 to 130 ºC, and a pressure of 100 mbar to normal pressure, preferably 200-800 mbar (Nestler; claim 1; paragraphs [0031]-[0032] and [0122]; English language machine translation). Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that the 2-EHA reaction mixture of Nestler is liquid under an absolute pressure in the range of from 0.5 to 100 bar and has a temperature in the range from 0 to 300 ºC, and further comprises at least one high boiler, at least one homogeneous catalyst, and at least one low boiler, in a manner consistent with the instant claim.
The process of Nestler further comprises purification of 2-EHA in a distillation unit, wherein the 2-EHA is initially separated from the low-boiling components in a distillation unit at 148 ºC and 100 mbar, wherein the condensate contains approx. 82% 2-EHA and the reflux is partially returned to the column, partially used to spray the condenser, and the remainder is freed from acrylic acid in a further distillation step (Nestler; paragraph [0124]; English language machine translation). The pressure of 100 mbar corresponds to 0.1 bar, and therefore the distillation pressure and temperature of the process of Nestler resides within the pressure and temperature ranges recited in the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The skilled artisan would recognize that the distillation method of Nestler comprises partial evaporation and enrichment of 2-EHA in the gas phase of a two-phase gas/liquid mixture relative to the liquid phase as indicated by the high 2-EHA content of the condensate, in a manner consistent with the instant claim.
Nestler fails to explicitly teach that the purification process of 2-EHA is a continuous process. However, a continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the cited prior art, as described in MPEP § 2144.04(V)(E).
Nestler also fails to teach that the 2-EHA mixture is continuously supplied to a helical-tube evaporator, as recited in instant claim 1.
However, Nestler does teach that (meth)acrylic compounds generally tend to undergo unwanted polymerization, especially under the influence of heat, and great efforts are made to avoid the formation of polymer during esterification and isolation of the target ester (Nestler; paragraph [0015]; English language machine translation). Nestler further teaches that this polymerization usually leads to fouling of reactor walls, heat exchanger surfaces and column bottoms, as well as clogging of pipes, pumps, valves, etc. (Nestler; paragraph [0016]; English language machine translation). Finally, Nestler teaches that the residue from the residue distillation and, if applicable, the bottoms product from the catalyst separation or a part thereof are thermally treated (Nestler; paragraph [0106]; English language machine translation). The resulting cracking products from this thermal treatment, mainly target esters, ethylhexanol, acrylic acid and octene, are continuously separated, condensed, and fed to the esterification process while the cracking residue is disposed of by incineration (Nestler; paragraphs [0106]-[0107]; English language machine translation). Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that the process of Nestler comprises the undesirable generation of cracking products that requires further purification and/or disposal of unusable waste.
These deficiencies adequately addressed by Rumpf, who teaches a process for recovering cyclododecatriene (CDT) from a solution comprising CDT and high boilers, which comprises feeding the solution into a preheater, depressurizing the mixture through a downstream pressure maintenance device (Rumpf; Abstract; claim 1). The process further comprises feeding the resulting two-phase mixture into a helical tube evaporator and reducing the CDT content of the liquid phase by partial evaporation and discharging a gaseous product stream having an increased content of CDT (Rumpf; Abstract; claim 1). Rumpf further teaches that the process is generally carried out continuously (Rumpf; paragraph [0023]).
Of particular note, Rumpf teaches that it was unexpectedly found that a helical tube evaporator can effectively remove high boilers without external mixing of the liquid film while avoiding formation of deposits on the heated walls (Rumpf; paragraph [0009]). In addition, Rumpf further teaches that the residence time can be set by means of flow velocity or geometry of the helical tube evaporator (diameter and length) to reduce further polymerization and thermal decomposition of the desired product (Rumpf; paragraph [0022]). Furthermore, Rumpf teaches that owing to the low residence time of the solution at elevated temperatures, the formation of polymers as a result of excessively high thermal stress is prevented effectively and polymerization in the evaporator system remain at less than 1%, contrary to experience with conventional evaporator concepts (Rumpf; paragraph [0028]). The process of Rumpf teaches a new solution for the recovery of CDT which is simple in process engineering terms and gives long periods of operation and has low operating costs together with a small outlay in terms of apparatus (Rumpf; paragraph [0028]).
The prior art as taught by Nestler and Rumpf reside in the overlapping technical area of the purification of polymerizable compounds that are sensitive to thermal stress, and as such these references are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. In addition, since the helical tube evaporator of Rumpf aims to mitigate product decomposition through the technical improvement of the evaporator system, this reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, specifically the desire to reduce the formation of cleavage residues and polymers and to prevent the buildup of caked deposits on the heated walls (Specification; page 5, lines 28-29 and page 11, line 25). Therefore, this prior art is deemed analogous art, as described in MPEP § 2141.01(a). As such, the skilled artisan would be sufficiently motivated to incorporate the helical tube evaporator of Rumpf into the process of Nestler to pursue an improved process that minimizes undesired polymerization of the target ester and fouling of the purification equipment with a reasonable expectation of success. Such an endeavor would result in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(A), and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Nestler to incorporate the teachings of Rumpf to implement a helical tube evaporator in a continuous process to arrive at the claimed invention. The motivation to do so would permit the skilled artisan to pursue, with a reasonable expectation of success, an improved process that minimizes undesired polymerization of the target ester and reduces equipment fouling by avoiding formation of deposits on the heated walls, as described above.
Regarding claim 20 depending from claim 19, Nestler teaches that the 2-EHA mixture is initially separated from the low-boiling components in a distillation unit at 148 ºC, and arrives at the distillation unit as effluent from the second esterification reactor that has a temperature of 120 ºC (Nestler; paragraphs [0123]-[0124]; English language machine translation). In addition, Rumpf teaches that a preheater (2) is operated upstream of pressure maintenance valve (4) and the helical tube evaporator (5), wherein the preheating is from 80 ºC to 250 ºC (Rumpf; paragraph [0012]; Figure 1). The preheater temperature range of Nestler resides within the range recited in the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, as with claim 19, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine Nestler and Rumpf to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21 depending from claim 19, Rumpf teaches a process example comprising a helical tube evaporator plant wherein the pressure in the vapor space was set to 200 mbar (Rumpf; Example 2, paragraph [0030]; Figure 1). Rumpf further teaches that the pressure in the vapor space is set to from 1 to 104 mbar, preferably from 1 to 103 mbar, particularly preferably from 1 to 200 mbar (Rumpf; paragraph [0021]). These pressures reside within or overlap with the range recited in the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claims 22-23 depending from claim 19, Rumpf teaches wherein the proportion of CDT in the liquid phase is reduced to a content of less than 0.5% by weight of CDT in a single pass through the helical tube evaporator (Rumpf; claims 1 and 3). This range overlaps with the ranges recited in the instant claims. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Thus, when considering Nestler in view of Rumpf, the skilled artisan would expect to achieve the same evaporation efficiency as taught by Rumpf with 2-EHA in a manner consistent with the instant claims and with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, as with claim 19, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine Nestler and Rumpf to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24 depending from claim 19, although Nestler teaches that the esterification mixture (reactor discharge) comprises octenes formed from starting alcohol dehydration, for example 2-ethylhex-1-ene and other isomers from 2-ethylhexyl alcohol (Nestler; Title; paragraphs [0043] and [0049]; English language machine translation), Nestler is silent regarding the formation of 2-ethylhexene isomers formed in the process of obtaining 2-EHA from the mixture. In other words, Nestler teaches that the 2-ethylhexene isomers are already present prior to the process of obtaining 2-EHA from the mixture. Thus, Nestler does not explicitly teach wherein the formation of 2-ethylhexene isomers in the process is less than 2% by weight based on the mixture, as recited in the instant claim.
In addition, Rumpf teaches that the product temperature in the helical tube evaporator is, depending on the pressure, usually in the range from 100 ºC to 270 ºC, and that the pressure in the vapor space is set to from 1 to 104 mbar, preferably from 1 to 103 mbar, particularly preferably from 1 to 200 mbar (Rumpf; paragraphs [0013] and [0021]).
When considering the combined teachings of Nestler in view of Rumpf, the skilled artisan could reasonably arrive at an absolute pressure of 500 mbar (0.5 bar) and a temperature of 120 ºC within the helical evaporator, in a manner consistent with Example 1 of the present application that meets the limitation of the instant claim, through means of routine experimentation that is non-inventive in nature. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” As such, the skilled artisan could arrive at the limitation of claim 24 with a reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of Nestler in view of Rumpf and through means of routine experimentation. Therefore, as with claim 19, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine Nestler and Rumpf to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 25 depending from claim 19, Rumpf teaches wherein part of the liquid stream taken off from the helical tube evaporator is fed back into the helical tube evaporator for further evaporation (Rumpf; claims 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 26 depending from claim 19, Nestler teaches that the separation of the low-boiling substances can be achieved by passing through a gas stream that is essentially inert under the reaction conditions (stripping), such as nitrogen, an oxygen-containing gas, air, or a mixture of air and nitrogen (lean air) (Nestler; paragraph [0108]; English language machine translation).
In addition, Rumpf teaches wherein a stripping gas is introduced downstream of the depressurization device (Rumpf; claim 6). Rump further teaches that addition of other vapor or inert gas via line (7) enables the partial pressure of the vaporizable component to be reduced, the gas velocity to be increased, and to remove residual low boilers from the solution by stripping (Rumpf; paragraphs [0017]-[0018]; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 27 depending from claim 19, Rumpf teaches that the process can be run through a plurality of helical tube evaporators in series to form an evaporator cascade and to evaporate the inflowing product stream in a plurality of stages (Rumpf; claim 12; paragraph [0024]). The skilled artisan would recognize when considering Nestler in view of Rumpf that the additional evaporator stages of Rumpf would comprise a gradual reduction in the 2-EHA content of its liquid phase through partial evaporation of the liquid phase, in a manner consistent with the instant claim.
Regarding claim 29 depending fom claim 27, Rumpf teaches that the evaporator cascade is operated at different pressures and the pressure in the vapor space is set to from 1 to 104 mbar, preferably from 1 to 103 mbar, particularly preferably from 1 to 200 mbar (Rumpf; claim 13; paragraph [0021]). These pressures reside within or overlap with the range recited in the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 30 depending from claim 29, Rumpf teaches wherein the evaporator cascade is operated with thermal integration, and if appropriate, the evaporator stage can also be operated with partial thermal integration (Rumpf; claim 14; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claims 31-32 depending from claim 19, Rumpf teaches wherein the two-phase stream discharged from the helical tube evaporator is introduced into a downstream vapor separator and the vapor separator is operated at a pressure of from 1 to 400 mbar or from 1 to 200 mbar, respectively (Rumpf; claims 9-10).
Regarding claim 33 depending from claim 31, Rumpf teaches wherein the two-phase stream discharged from the helical tube evaporator (5) is introduced into a downstream vapor separator (6) (Rumpf; claims 9-10; Figure 1). The skilled artisan would recognize from the schematic representation of Rumpf that the downstream separator is gravity separator, in a manner consistent with the instant claim, because it collects liquid bottoms on the bottom of the apparatus and its exit through the outlet valve would be facilitated by gravity (Rumpf; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 34 depending from claim 31, Rumpf teaches that the formation of polymers as a result of excessively high thermal stress is prevented effectively in the process of the invention, so that the losses of CDT due to polymerization in the evaporator system remain at less than 1% by weight (Rumpf; paragraph [0028]). This range overlaps with the ranges recited in the instant claims. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Thus, when considering Nestler in view of Rumpf, the skilled artisan would expect to achieve a similarly low formation of polymers as taught by Rumpf with 2-EHA in a manner consistent with the instant claim and with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, as with claim 31, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine Nestler and Rumpf to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 35 depending from claim 31, Rumpf teaches that in a vapor separator (6) located downstream from the helical tube evaporator (5), the liquid and gas are separated from one another (Rumpf; paragraph [0019]). Rumpf further teaches that the vapor stream can be condensed in conventional condensers, and the condensates obtained can be worked up in conventional distillation apparatuses or can be directly used further (Rumpf; paragraph [0019]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestler et al. (DE 10246869 A1; IDS of 08-02-2023; English language machine translation; hereinafter “Nestler”), in view of Rumpf et al. (US 20080217158 A1; IDS of 08-02-2023; hereinafter “Rumpf”) as applied to claims 19-27 and 29-35 above, and further evidenced by J. Schroder et al. (US 2006/0151309 A1; hereinafter “Schroder”).
Regarding claim 28, claim 19 is rendered obvious over Nestler in view of Rumpf, as detailed above.
Rumpf teaches that the process can be run through a plurality of helical tube evaporators in series to form an evaporator cascade and to evaporate the inflowing product stream in a plurality of stages (Rumpf; claim 12; paragraph [0024]). The skilled artisan would recognize when considering Nestler in view of Rumpf that the additional evaporator stages of Rumpf would comprise a reduction split in the 2-EHA content of its liquid phase through partial evaporation of the liquid phase, in a manner consistent with the instant claim.
Although Nestler and Rumpf fail to explicitly teach wherein two or more helical-tube evaporators are connected in parallel, the skilled artisan would recognize that parallel arrangements are commonly used to increase the output of the reaction without physically scaling up the reactor vessels.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would recognize that the use of a plurality of evaporators connected either in series or in parallel is known in the art as routine, desirable configurations and therefore obvious alternatives for purification processes involving (meth)acrylic esters including 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, as evidenced by Schroder (Schroder; Title; Abstract; paragraphs [0005] and [0032]). Such an endeavor would result in choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(E). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed process based on the teachings of Nestler in view of Rumpf as further evidenced by Schroder.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestler et al. (DE 10246869 A1; IDS of 08-02-2023; English language machine translation; hereinafter “Nestler”), in view of Rumpf et al. (US 20080217158 A1; IDS of 08-02-2023; hereinafter “Rumpf”) as applied to claims 19-27 and 29-35 above, and further evidenced by Yi et al. (Appl. Eng. Therm. 2003, 23, 89-99; hereinafter “Yi”).
Regarding claim 36, claim 19 is rendered obvious over Nestler in view of Rumpf, as detailed above.
Although Rumpf teaches that in general, the residence time can be set by means of the flow velocity or the geometry of the helical tube evaporator (diameter and length) and a wave-like flow is produced in the tube by appropriate selection of geometry (Rumpf; paragraphs [0014] and [0022]), Nestler and Rumpf fail to explicitly teach wherein the helical tube in the helical-tube evaporator, or each individual helical tube of a helical-tube evaporator in the case of an evaporator cascade, independently has a dimensionless ratio of curvature a in the range from 0.01 to 0.5 and a dimensionless pitch b in the range of 0.01 to 1.0, as recited in the instant claim.
However, these evaporator characteristics are established in the prior art as evidenced by Yi, who teaches heat characteristics and flow patterns of evaporator sections using small helical coiled pipes (Yi; Title; Abstract). The skilled artisan would recognize that the helical coil evaporator sections of Yi correspond in structure and function with the helical-tube evaporator of the instantly claimed invention (c.f., Yi, page 93, Fig. 3b and Fig. 1 of the instant application):
PNG
media_image1.png
412
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
349
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Helical coil evaporator section of Yi instantly claimed Helical-tube evaporator
Of particular note, Yi teaches the geometrical size of the helix coil, including the dimensions and parameters (Yi; page 93; Fig. 3; Table 1), wherein the dimensionless ratio of curvature is within the range of 0.040-0.062 (calculated from d/D and corresponds to formula: a = di / D as recited in the instant application; Yi; Fig. 3 and Table 1) and the dimensionless pitch is within the range of about 0.02-0.03 (calculated from B/D and corresponds to formula: b = h / D as recited in the instant application; Yi; Fig. 3 and Table 1). These values reside within the ranges recited in the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Furthermore, the teachings of Rumpf would inform the skilled artisan that the geometry of the helical tube evaporator (diameter and length) can be modified to adjust the velocity and residence time to further optimize the process, such that the skilled artisan could arrive at the parameters recited in the instant claim based on the teachings of Nestler in view of Rumpf as further evidenced by Yi through means of routine experimentation that is non-inventive in nature. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed process based on the teachings of Nestler in view of Rumpf as further evidenced by Yi through means of routine experimentation.
Based on the combined teachings of the references, the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the instantly claimed process. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and absent a clear showing of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Derek Rhoades whose telephone number is (703)-756-5321. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday, 7:30 am–5:00 pm EST; Friday, 7:30 am–4:00 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached on 571-270-5241. 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.
/D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/AMY C BONAPARTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692