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
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) 1-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (US 5,240,997) and further in view of Kani (US 2011/0178222).
Yanai is directed to a method for preparing an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer comprising performing saponification on an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer in the presence of an alkali catalyst and a C1-4 alcohol to obtain a reaction mixture containing an ethylene alcohol copolymer (Column 11, Lines 1-38), concentrating said mixture (Column 12, Lines 29-33), adding water to said mixture (Column 12, Lines 38-40 and Column 13, Lines 1-13), providing a coagulating bath to cool said mixture (Column 25, Lines 22 and 23), pulverizing a material formed by said coagulating bath (Column 25, Lines 19+), and washing the thus formed particles (Column 25, Lines 24+). In such an instance, though, Yanai is silent as to the ratio between alcohol and water and the solid content.
The claimed ratio and content, though, are consistent with those that are commonly present in EVOH mixtures or solutions prior to coagulation, as shown for example by Kani (Paragraphs 79 and 80). More particularly, teaches a ratio between alcohol and water that generally varies between 1:4 and 19:1 and such substantially overlaps the claimed range between 1:9 and 9:1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of common ratios absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Additionally, as to the solids content, Kani teaches a “preferred” EVOH content as small as 20% by weight- this disclosure suggests any number of contents between 10% and 25% as required by the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed content.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed range is fully encompassed by the range taught by Kani.
With respect to claim 3, as detailed above, Kani teaches a preferred EVOH content as small as 20% by weight.
As to claim 4, Yanai suggests the use of lower monohydric alcohols having 1 to 5 carbon items, such as methanol, ethanol, n-propanol, and n-butanol (Column 11, Lines 4+).
With respect to claim 5, Kani teaches coagulating temperatures that are generally as small as -10°C (Paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 6, Yanai teaches an exemplary average particle diameter of 1.5 mm (Column 25, Lines 23-25).
With respect to claim 8, the modified method of Yanai is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention and as such, it reason that an electrical conductivity of a residual washing solution would mimic that required by the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 9, the modified method of Yanai is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention and as such, it reasons that a residual sodium content obtained after washing would mimic that required by the claimed invention.
As to claim 12, Yanai teaches a plurality of the claimed catalysts (Column 11, Lines 25+).
With respect to claim 13, Yanai teaches the claimed catalyst loading (Column 11, Lines 33-38).
Regarding claim 14, Yanai teaches the claimed temperatures (Column 11, Lines 39+).
As to claim 16, Yanai teaches a neutralization step (Column 12, Lines 29+) and such would be well recognized as involving an acid.
Claim(s) 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai and Kani as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Nakano (JP 2009-242644).
As detailed above, Yania is directed to a processing in which pulverized EVOH is washed. While Yanai fails to specifically disclose the presence of multiple washing steps, such is consistent with the known manner of treating pulverized EVOH, as shown for example by Nakano (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to carry out multiple washing steps in the method of Yanai to obtain the desired purity.
With respect to claim 10, the modified method of Yanai is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention and as such, it reason that an electrical conductivity of a residual washing solution would mimic that required by the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 11, the modified method of Yanai is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention and as such, it reasons that a residual sodium content obtained after washing would mimic that required by the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai and Kani as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Kawahara (US 2003/0050410).
As detailed above, Yanai is directed to a method in which saponification is performed on an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer in the presence of an alkali catalyst and a C1-4 alcohol to obtain a reaction mixture containing an ethylene alcohol copolymer. While Yanai fails to expressly teach the claimed reaction pressure during saponification, the use of low pressures in in initial stages of saponification is known, as shown for example by Kawahara (Paragraph 21). It is further noted that Kawahara suggests the exemplary use of atmospheric pressure (approximately 1 bar) as the low pressure. A fair reading of Kawahara suggests that similar low pressures would be within the scope of Kawahara (based on “e.g. atmospheric pressure) and such would include the range of low pressures required by the claimed invention. It is emphasized that the general disclosure of low pressures would have been recognized as encompassing the claimed range of pressures and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for said range, it being noted that Applicant’s original disclosure states that “the present disclosure is not limited thereto” (Paragraph 39 in original specification) and such suggests a lack of criticality for the pressure.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai and Kani as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Kiuchi (US 3,742,090).
As detailed above, the method of Yanai involves a neutralization step. While the exact amount of acid in relation to the catalyst is not disclosed, the claimed range of loadings are consistent with those that are conventionally used in similar neutralization steps, as shown for example by Kiuchi (Column 17, Lines 25-30). It is emphasized that equivalent amounts of acid, in relation to a catalyst, are commonly used in neutralization steps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the same amount of catalyst and acid in the modified method of Yanai absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 12, 2026