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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (US 5,240,997, of record) and further in view of (a) Kani (US 2011/0178222, of record) and (b) Neter (US 6,717,541, newly cited) and/or Matsunaga (US 3,635,279, newly cited).
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.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the method of Yanai generally involves the steps of performing saponification, concentrating a mixture and adding water, cooling a solution to form a solidified or coagulated product, and pulverizing said product to form particles having a particle diameter of 1.5 mm (Column 25, Lines 5-30). While Yanai refers to a coagulation bath, it is equally well known and conventional in a multitude of applications to solidify or coagulate solutions via a mold, as shown for example by Neter (Column 7, Lines 45+) and/or Matsunaga (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any commonly used apparatus to provide a solidified or coagulated product and such includes a mold as evidenced by Neter and/or Matsunaga. It is emphasized that the use of a mold to arrive at a solidified or coagulated product was known in the prior art and there is a reasonable expectation of success independent of what apparatus is used to form the solidified or coagulated product (akin to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results- see MPEP 2143). It is further noted that an inventive concept of Yanai is the use of a specific solvent system (dialkyl sulfoxide) to achieve a high rate of saponification (Abstract and Column 10, Lines 32+) and such appears to be consistent with that set forth by Applicant (Paragraph 5 of originally filed specification- the use of a specific solvent system does not necessitate excessive washing).
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.
With respect to claim 18, the method carried out in Column 25, Lines 5-30 is devoid of extrusion and pelletizing.
4. Claim(s) 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai, Kani, Neter, and Matsunaga as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Nakano (JP 2009-242644, of record).
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.
5. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai, Kani, Neter, and Matsunaga as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Kawahara (US 2003/0050410, of record).
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.
6. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai, Kani, Neter, and Matsunaga as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Kiuchi (US 3,742,090, of record).
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.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. 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 August 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights