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 11-13 ar 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 11 recites the limitation as described in “the description" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, critical limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims (see, e.g., In re Van Guens, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 PSPG2d 1057 (Ded. Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, without the recitation of all these critical limitations, the claims do not adequately define the instant invention. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stark (6,807,009).
Stark sets forth polyvinyl acetals with improved adhesion, said polyvinyl acetals are low molecular weight that have a solution viscosity of from 2 to 12 mPa*s.
Starks sets forth polyvinyl acetals obtained by hydrolyzing a vinyl ester polymer (such as vinyl acetate) into polyvinyl alcohol and then reacting that alcohol with aliphatic or aromatic aldehydes in an acid-catalyzed process (hydrolysis)—see col. 2, lines 58-60.
Regarding claims 1-6: Stark explicitly sets forth obtaining polyvinyl butyraldehyde by (a) reactive polyvinyl alcohol with a butyraldehyde in the presence of hydrochloric acid (HCL) in an aqueous environment; (b) precipitating the obtained polyvinyl butyraldehyde; (c) filtering and washing with distilled water as a washing liquid until the filtrate is neutral; and (d) drying said neutralized filtrate to obtain said polyvinyl butyraldehyde. Stark does not explicitly set forth said washing liquid contains equal to or less than 100 mg/l chloride ions. However, it is believed the washing liquid inherently has a chloride ion contented of less than or equal to 100 mg/l. Stark expressly sets forth the use of distilled water as the liquid washing reagent in example 1. It is known water distillation (boiling and condensing) is highly effective at removing chlorine, producing water with a very neutral chemical profile. Thus, it is deemed in absence to the contrary and/or unexpected results the chlorine content of the washing liquid (distilled water) in the process, set forth by Starks, comprises less than the amounts found in claims 1-3. In the alternative, since the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicant’s composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed reference. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants. Additionally, it is deemed the deionized water inherently reads in claim 7 since deionized water is commonly obtained by ion-exchange which is a physiochemical method that typically uses reverse osmosis to remove larger particles such as chlorine.
Regarding claims 8-9: It is deemed, in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results, the obtained polyvinyl butyraldehyde powder contains less than 25 ppm of chloride, as well as less than 10 ppm of chloride since Stark sets forth using a washing liquid of distilled water (wherein it is deemed distilled water comprises 0 ppm of chlorine) until the obtained powder is neutral. Thus, claims 8-9 are inherent.
Additionally, it is deemed Stark explicitly set forth polyvinyl acetals obtained by hydrolyzing polyvinyl alcohol with a mixture of acetaldehyde and butanal (butyraldehyde) in example 2 (claim 5, second embodiment).
Regarding claim 10: Stark explicitly teaches the obtained polyvinyl acetals are suitable as binders in the ceramics industry, specifically as binders for green ceramics, binders for ceramic powders and/or binders for metal powders in injection molding, or as binders for the internal coating of containers—see col. 6, lines 39-43. Therefore, it is deemed any product obtained from said polyvinyl acetals as binders in the ceramics industry, specifically as binders for green ceramics are set forth with sufficient specificity for a skilled artisan to understand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc
