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 § 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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1-11, in claim 1 the recitation “each receiving flask (81, 82, 83)” lacks antecedent basis terminology, and “each” appears to be referring to an earlier recitation, applicant can consider adding “each of a receiving flask (81, 82, 83)” to include antecedent basis terminology.
Regarding claim 1-11, in claim 1 the recitation “the specified sequence” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 1-11, in claim 1 the recitation in step (IV) of “the limit pressure” has confused antecedent basis and must recite “the first limit pressure” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1-11, in claim 1 the recitation in last paragraph of “Δt6” lacks antecedent basis and must recite “Δt6i” for antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1-11, in claim 1 the recitation in last paragraph of “the Zeitabschnitt Δt7i” appears to be untranslated German, and the examiner believes this should use antecedence to “the final decompression time Δt7i”.
Regarding claim 4-5 in claim 4, each recitation in steps (III)-(VI) must use proper antecedent basis terminology, and currently there are multiple issues with antecedent basis as claim 4 depends upon claim 1, terms including “a first limit pressure”, “a third time interval Δt3i”, “a holding pressure”, “a fourth time interval Δt4i”, “a fifth time interval Δt5i”, etc all have issues with antecedent basis that must be corrected.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “the temperature Tv of the tempering bath (4)” in each case has confused antecedent basis, therefore reciting “a temperature Tv of the temperature control bath (4)” would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 9-10, in claim 9, the recitation “optionally: process step (1) with the subsequent process step (II),” have insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, claim 9 would need to depend upon claim 4 for antecedent basis for this claim terminology.
Regarding claims 9-10, in claim 9, each recitation of a step must be preceded by “the” for proper antecedent basis terminology.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation “process step (1) process step (II),” have insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, claim 9 would need to depend upon claim 4 for antecedent basis for this claim terminology.
Regarding claim 11, each recitation of a step must be preceded by “the” for proper antecedent basis terminology.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 9-10 are dependent claim, dependent upon claim 1, however as worded the claim bring into question whether or not they comprise all limitations of claim 1, for example in claim 9 “Electronic control module (9) for the rotary evaporator (1) according to claim 1” it is unclear whether this is requiring all limitations of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For purposes of examination claim 9 will be examined as a dependent claim that recites “The rotary evaporator (1) according to claim 1, wherein the control module (9) is an electronic control module (9)...” and “The rotary evaporator (1) according to claim 9, wherein the electronic control module (9)…” (claim 10).
Examiner notes that if applicant elected amend these claims into independent claim format they will be restricted by original presentation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loschel et al (US 2020/0376407) taken in combination with Siegel et al (DE10103441A1 with page/paragraph reference to Espacenet Machine Translation of DE 10103441 Obtained 19 November 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Loschel teaches a rotary evaporator 1 having system pressure generator 5 across valve 9 in line 10, and condenser 4 having valve 16 between receiving flask 14 through distillate conduit 12 (title, abstract, Fig 1, [0033-0037]), Loschel teaches “the rotary evaporator comprises an operating unit not shown in FIG. 1 for controlling the rotary drive 7, the heating bath 3, the compressor 5, the vertical drive and the valves 9, 15, 16, 40 as well as the peristaltic pump 17. In particular the valves 9, 15, 16, 40 and the peristaltic pump 17 can also be controlled in a coordinated manner by a control unit (not shown in FIG. 1)” (Fig 1, [0038]), in an alternative case there are multiple condensate receiving flasks 24, 25, 26 connected with distillate conduit 12 across intermediate valves 47, 48, 49 (Fig 3, [0049-0052]), with product being sent to each container based upon a suitable heating temperature and/or a suitably low pressure and/or a suitable rotational speed [0051-0052], lastly Loschel teaches the control is such that “Automatic filling and/or automatic removal of the distillate or of residues of the initial substance is possible by controlling the valves and the device for generating a low and/or excess pressure in a coordinated manner by means of a control device. For this purpose, sensors can be provided in the distillate collection container and/or the evaporation flask, which sensors detect, for example, a filling level and are connected to an evaluation unit of the signal detected by the sensors. The control unit is connected to the evaluation unit and controls the valves and the device for generating a low and/or excess pressure in dependence on a sensor signal such as a filling level. The control unit can also be configured to control the rotation motor and/or the heating bath temperature and/or the vertical drive, so that the distillation process can also be carried out automatically” [0055].
However Loschel is silent to the specific sequence of the controller as claimed in steps (III)-(VII).
Siegel teaches a system and method for synthesizing solvent containing mixtures by bringing to a distillation temperature which is not to be exceeded with reducing system pressure at discrete pre-determined intervals (title, abstract), Siegel teaches pressure and temperature are cyclically controlled at discrete associated intervals in an iterative pressure reduction cycle, after which the vacuum pump is turned off and the pressure returns to atmospheric pressure and temperature increases, until the controller cycles the vacuum pump back on (see Figs 1-2, [0043-0048]), the advantage of the iterative process avoids sudden evaporator and subsequent condensation of solvent that occurs in the otherwise usual processes and the mixture does not cool excessively leading to recovery of well over 99% of solvent, as well as ensuring a safe process [0049-0051], Siegel teaches this occurs in distillation unit 2, having receiving vessel 4, under controlled vacuum, and associated industrial PC 23 computing unit that can be input via keyboard 31 (Fig 3, [0053-0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to improve the control schema of Loschel in view of Siegel based upon the broad general teaching of Loschel that the control unit automatically controls aspects of Siegel, including pressure as well as temperature and rotation (Loschel [0055]) and improve with the stepwise iterative control schema of Siegel to avoid sudden evaporator and subsequent condensation of solvent that occurs in the otherwise usual processes and the mixture does not cool excessively leading to recovery of well over 99% of solvent, as well as ensuring a safe process (see Siegel [0049-0051]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Loschel, as modified by Siegel teaches returning to the same pressure in each cycle (see Figs 1-2, [0043-0048]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Loschel teaches using controller which would be programmed by PHOSITA to automatically carry out the claimed steps within prescribed time periods as suggested by Siegel (see Figs 1-2, [0043-0048]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Loschel teaches all limitations as set forth above and Siegel teaches initial cycle steps (I)-(II)as claimed over time intervals (see Figs 1-2, [0043-0048]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Loschel teaches using controller which would be programmed by PHOSITA to automatically carry out the claimed steps within prescribed time periods as suggested by Siegel (see Figs 1-2, [0043-0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Loschel has taught “The control unit can also be configured to control the rotation motor and/or the heating bath temperature and/or the vertical drive, so that the distillation process can also be carried out automatically” [0055] therefore rendering obvious gradual temperature increase to target specific solvent compounds when modified by Siegel.
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Loschel teaches all claim limitations as set forth above, furthermore use of flange and/or screw connections as well as solenoid valves and venting was notoriously well known design choice for rotary evaporators to ensure safe operation and control through normal design choices.
Regarding claim 9, modified Loschel teaches all limitations as set forth above and Siegel teaches initial cycle steps (I)-(II) as claimed over time intervals and modified Loschel teaches the controller which would be programmed by PHOSITA to automatically carry out the claimed steps within prescribed time periods as suggested by Siegel (see Figs 1-2, [0043-0048]) Siegel teaches this occurs in distillation unit 2, having receiving vessel 4, under controlled vacuum, and associated industrial PC 23 computing unit that can be input via keyboard 31 (Fig 3, [0053-0061]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Loschel teaches all limitations as set forth above and Siegel teaches this occurs in distillation unit 2, having receiving vessel 4, under controlled vacuum, and associated industrial PC 23 computing unit that can be input via keyboard 31, of which a touchscreen was a well known input alternative for standard PCs (Fig 3, [0053-0061]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Loschel teaches all limitations as set forth above and Siegel teaches the process of carrying out initial cycle steps (I)-(VII) as claimed over time intervals and modified Loschel teaches the controller which would be programmed by PHOSITA to automatically carry out the claimed steps within prescribed time periods as suggested by Siegel (see Figs 1-2, [0043-0048]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mevdey et al (US 4,759,825) teaches rotary evaporator. Bolton et al (US 5,294,916) teaches controller for evaporative condenser. Genser (US 7,150,807) teaches rotary evaporator. Torii et al (US 2009/065653) teaches liquid separation controls. Carl et al (US 2013/0153397) teaches rotary evaporator. Adjabeng (US2017/0252668) teaches rotary evaporator. Flora et al (US 2018/0140965) teaches evaporator control systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772