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. Status of Claims Claims 1 – 8 are pending. Claims 1 – 8 are rejected. Drawings The drawings are objected to because the single Figure is not referenced according to MPEP 1.84(u) . (u) Numbering of views. (1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. Amending the title of the drawing to “The Figure” will overcome this objection. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 3 of the original specification refers to “The Figure” as Figure 1 . This objection can be overcome by amending the specification to “The Figure” when referring to the Drawing . Appropriate correction is required. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: A word appears to be missing on page 11, line 22 after "A second class of weakly basic". Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the term “weakly basic amine” line 3. Specifically, in terms of basicity of “weakly basic”, the claim lacks clarity . Also , an amine is an amine. The term has a generally accepted meaning (see IUPAC, Gold V). Any attempt to broaden the meaning of this term in the description, e.g. as of page 11, line 22 onwards, leads to a discrepancy between the claims and description and hence to a lack of clarity of the claims. As such, in addition to clearly defining “weakly basic” a proper structural definition of “weakly basic amine” would add to clarity of the claim. Claim 1 recites the term “any excess weakly basic amine” in line 6 . The Amount expressed in the claim lacks clarity . The reason being that it is not clearly defined how much amine may be present in the aldehyde vapor stream, or the combined vaporous aldehyde and hydrogen stream. Even when it is desired that the amine has a substantially higher boiling point than the aldehyde, some amine will evaporate along with the aldehyde. This is shown in Frohning and in the model calculation of example 1 of the instantly claimed invention . This example shows that a small amount of triethanolamine leaves with the vaporized aldehyde stream. The feature of claim 1 that any excess weakly basic amine is removed as a heavies purge is thus not sufficiently clear to distinguish the present process from a prior art, wherein the same type of amine is present in the vaporizer. For this reason the claim lacks clarity. Claim 4 recites … step (c) is less than 1 ppmw (by nitrogen) . Applicant’s definition for “ ppmw ” on page 4, lines 1 – 18 is not necessarily what the skilled person would expect when reading only dependent claim 4 . Specifically, since not all nitrogen is to be considered . This leads to a discrepancy between the claims and the description . For this reason the claim is indefinite and lacks clarity. Claims 2 – 8 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification, while being enabling for the process wherein a weakly basic a mine such as a triethanolamine , does not reasonably provide enablement for any nitrogen-compound that may be deemed a weakly basic amine . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described in In re Wands , 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir., 1988). The court in Wands states, “Enablement is not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation, such as routine screening . However, experimentation needed to practice the invention must not be undue experimentation . The key word is ‘undue’, not ‘experimentation’” ( Wands , 8 USPQ2sd 1404) . Clearly, enablement of a claimed invention cannot be predicated on the basis of quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention . “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations” ( Wands , 8 USPQ2d 1404) . Among these factors are: (1) the nature of the invention; (2) the breadth of the claims; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the relative skill of those in the art; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary. While all of these factors are considered, a sufficient amount for a prima facie case is discussed below. (1) The nature of the invention and (2) the breadth of the claims: The claims are drawn to a process for the vapor phase hydrogenation of aldehydes comprising: step (a) providing a liquid aldehyde stream to a vaporization system to generate a vaporous aldehyde stream in the presence of a weakly basic amine, wherein the weakly basic amine has a normal boiling point that is at least 500 C greater than the normal boiling point of the aldehyde, wherein the weakly basic amine reacts with acidic impurities in the liquid aldehyde stream to form ammonium salt adducts, and wherein the ammonium salt adducts and any excess weakly basic amine are removed as a heavies purge from the vaporization system . The claim is very broad in that there is no clear definition for “weakly basic amine”. (3) The state of the prior art : the state of the prior art is found in the teaching of Frohning (US 6,096,931) . The process of Frohning a process for preparing alcohols by hydrogenation of aldehydes in the gaseous phase. Particularly, the hydrogenation of saturated aldehydes which are obtained by hydroformylation of alkenes, e.g. n- butyraldehyd (n-butanal). (col. 1, ln 1-26) . Further, in Frohning the aldehyde and an amine are vaporized together and then passed to the hydrogenation reactor. That means, a vaporous aldehyde stream is generated in a vaporization system in the presence of the amine. (col. 5, ln 47-49 & claim 8). Furthermore, in Example 1 of Frohning , In example 1 of D1, n-butanal is vaporized in the presence of tri- isooctyl amine in a vaporizer which is installed upstream of the hydrogenation reactor ( col. , l n 22 – 41). Additonally , it is known from the teaching of Leung Tak Wai (US 5,731,472 ) to add various nitrogen compounds to the hydroformylation reaction and work up . (col. 2, ln 50-61). (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art: Chemistry is unpredictable. In re Marzocchi , 439 F2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 para. 3. However, the "predictability or lack thereof ” in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclose d or know results to the claimed invention. If one skilled in the art can readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, then there is predictability in the art. MPEP 2164.03. (5) The relative skill of those in the art: One of ordinary skill is a practicing organic chemist. (6) The amount of direction or guidance presented and (7) the presence or absence of working examples: The specification has provided guidance for process wherein a weakly basic amine such as a triethanolamine . , does not reasonably provide enablement for any nitrogen-compound that may be deemed a weakly basic amine . However, the specification does not provide guidance of any other nitrogen-compound that may be deemed a weakly basic amine . It is not defined in present claim 1 when, how and in which amount the "weakly basic amine" is actually added to the aldehyde. All that is required is "to generate a vaporous aldehyde stream in the presence of a weakly basic amine". The weakly basic amine can be present in any (trace) amount and can have been added at any earlier stage of the process. (8) The quantity of experimentation necessary : Considering the state of the art as discussed by the references above, particularly with regards to lack of definition for weakly basic amine and the high unpredictability in the art as evidenced therein, and the lack of guidance provided in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be burdened with undue experimentation to practice the invention commensurate in the scope of the claims. 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 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frohning et al. (US 6,096,931) in view of Bahrmann et al. (US 4,740,626) and Krokoszinski et al. (JP 2015-513553) and further in view of Miller et al. (US 2017/233322) and Bradley et al. (US 4,451,677). The rejected claims cover, inter alia, a process for the vapor phase hydrogenation of aldehydes comprising:(a) providing a liquid aldehyde stream to a vaporization system to generate a vaporous aldehyde stream in the presence of a weakly basic amine, wherein the weakly basic amine has a normal boiling point that is at least 500 C greater than the normal boiling point of the aldehyde, wherein the weakly basic amine reacts with acidic impurities in the liquid aldehyde stream to form ammonium salt adducts, and wherein the ammonium salt adducts and any excess weakly basic amine are removed as a heavies purge from the vaporization system; (b) combining the vaporous aldehyde stream with a hydrogen stream by either providing a hydrogen stream to the vaporization system, by adding a hydrogen stream to the vaporous aldehyde stream following step (a), or by a combination thereof; (c) providing the combined vaporous aldehyde and hydrogen stream to a vapor phase hydrogenation zone; and (d) hydrogenating the vaporous aldehyde in the vapor phase hydrogenation zone. Dependent claims 2 – 4, 7 and 8 further limit the weakly basic amine . Dependent claim 6 further limits the liquid aldehyde stream. However, Frohning describes in a process for preparing alcohols, describes a method for obtaining n-butanol by supplying n-butanal, adding triisooctylamine , vaporized together in vaporizers connected upstream to the reactor, and supplying hydrogen to the vaporizers, and hydrogenating in the reactor. (col. 5, ln 47 – 50; col. 6, ln 29 – 34; Example 1, claim 1 & 9) . The “n-butanal” and “ triisooctylamine ” of Frohning correspond to “aldehyde” and “weakly basic amine” . The triisooctylamine has a boiling point higher than that of n-butanal by 100 degrees or more and a pKa in the range of 5 to 11. (for reference see Bahrmann col. 3, ln 10 – 15; & Krokoszinski pp. 10, [0038]). Further, it is recognized that if a weakly basic amine is present, it will inevitably “react with acidic impurities in the liquid aldehyde stream to form an ammonium salt adduct . Alternatively, Frohning also describes that an aldehyde is obtained by hydroformylation (col. 1, ln 17 – 19) ; and Miller describes that water-soluble amine (corresponding to weakly basic amine) is contained in a hydroformylation process for obtaining an aldehyde useful as an intermediate for obtaining an alcohol or the like by hydrogenation . ([0002] & [0013]). Furthermore, Miller describes the use of triethanolamine and benzimidazole ([0039], [0046]. & [0117]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to apply teaching of Miller to the process of Frohning to contain water-soluble amine in a hydroformylation process . Then in that case, since it is recognized that (at least trace amount of) water-soluble amine will remain even when aldehyde is vaporized in the subsequent process. Therefore, 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 combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). The difference between the instant claimed invention and Frohning is as follows: wherein the ammonium salt adducts, and any excess weakly basic amine are removed as a heavies purge from the vaporization system ; and herein the weakly basic amine concentration in the combined vaporous aldehyde and hydrogen stream in step (c) is less than 1 ppmw (by nitrogen). However, with regard to wherein the ammonium salt adducts and any excess weakly basic amine are removed as a heavies purge from the vaporization system , it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art to remove unnecessary components from the system at each stage. See for instance column 9, line 64 – 66 of Bradley . Th is limitation is deemed to be obvious absent a showing of unexpected results . A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 ( CCPA) 1976 ). In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35USC 103. With regard to herein the weakly basic amine concentration in the combined vaporous aldehyde and hydrogen stream in step (c) is less than 1 ppmw (by nitrogen) , the Examiner turns to the teaching of Miller . In the prior art of Miller is described the use of triethanolamine and benzimidazole ([0039], [0046]. & [0117]) . In light of this one of ordinary skill in the art could have easily , by routine experimentation, conceived of appropriately setting the concentration thereof to satisfy this requirement . Where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9067 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /YATE' K CUTLIFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692