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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 28 December 2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 as amended are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5-10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 2, “said vinyl aromatic monomer” should be “said at least one vinyl aromatic monomer” to be consistent with claim 1.
In claim 5, line 2, “said comonomer” should be “said at least one comonomer” to be consistent with claim 4.
In claim 6, line 3, “said radical initiator” should be “the at least one radical initiator to be consistent with claim 1.
In claim 7, line 3, “said radical initiator” should be “the at least one radical initiator” to be consistent with claim 1.
In claim 8, line 3, “said solvent” should be “said at least one solvent” to be consistent with the earlier recitation.
The term “chain transfer” should be “chain transfer agent” in claim 9 (from which claim 10 depends). See inconsistency with claim 10 following.
Claim 10 should be amended to recite “said at least one chain transfer agent” to be consistent with “at least one’ in claim 9.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (From which claims 2-12 depend), lines 7-8, recites “the reaction mixture in liquid phase”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends amending to “(CSTR) containing a reaction mixture in liquid phase containing a polymer fraction between . . . “. Likewise, lines 12-13 recite “the reaction mixture in liquid phase leaving said at least one Plug Flow Reactor”, which has insufficient antecedent basis. This should be phrased “(PFR) having a reaction mixture in liquid phase leaving said at least one plug flow reactor (PFR), containing a polymer fraction of at least 65 % by mass . . . “.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “halogenated alkyl group with 1 to 2 carbon atoms”, and the claim also recites “such as chloromethyl . . . “, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 5 recites “vinyl monomers”, and then recites “such as C4-C8 alkyl esters”, which is a narrower statement. Claim 5 also recites “divinyl monomers”, and then “such as isomers of divinylbenzene”, a narrower statement. Claim 5 recites “esters of (meth)acrylic acid with diols” and then “sch as ethylene glycol-dimethacrylate . . .”, a narrower statement.
Claim 6 recites “said radical initiator . . .”, then recites “preferably difunctional radical initiators,” a narrower statement of the limitation, and then “such as” a listing of specific initiators, a still narrower statement of the limitation.
Claim 8 recites “optionally substituted aromatic hydrocarbons,” then recites “such as “ethylbenzene . . . “, a narrower statement of the limitation.
Claim 10 recites several instances of limitations followed by narrower limitations, specifically “low reactivity chain transfer agents, such as”, “polyunsaturated organic substances of the hydrocarbon type such as”, “medium reactive chain transfer agents such as”, “tertiary mercaptans with 4 to 12 carbon atoms such as,” “high reactivity chain transfer agents such as,” and “primary mercaptans with 4 to 12 carbon atoms, such as”.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites “said vinyl aromatic monomer having general formula (I)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in this claim, because neither claim 3 nor base claim 1 recite such a monomer.
Claim 7, last line recites “per kg of reaction mixture in liquid phase”. Claim 1 recites more than one “reaction mixture in liquid phase”. This should be clarified to denote with mixture this refers to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: DE 4236058 A1 (“Brandstetter”) teaches bulk radical polymerization mixing vinyl aromatic monomer and radical initiator, polymerizing in a stirred continuous reactor (CSTR) followed by plug flow reactor (PFR), to the same polymer content as recited. Brandstetter does not teach or suggest diverting some of the reaction mixture from the plug flow reactor between a devolatilzation apparatus and feeding to the mixing device (feed). Sosa (US 6,162,880), in a different process using CSTR and PFR, sends the full output of the PFR to a devoliatilizer, from which a volatile portion is processed and recycled to the feed, and thus does not teach or suggest the recirculation as recited for claim 1. Brady (US 4,209,599) teach recirculation from a tubular reactor, which may be considered a PFR, but Brady does not teach or suggest recirculating to a feed for a CSTR, nor the recited amount of such recirculated material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights