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 Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a “Formula (1)”. In the most recent filing, the text of this formula is small and blurry and therefore, nearly illegible. In subsequent filings, Formula (1) should be presented in large and clearer text.
Claim 1 recites a “Formula (1)”. Several terms in said formula refer to a “(meth)arcyl monomer”, whereas the other limitations in claim 1 recite a “(meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer”.
Claim 1 should be amended such that the terms in Formula (1) are consistent with the terminology used in the other limitations of said claim.
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 recites a “Formula (1)”. Said formula contains a term which references an “amount of air supplied per unit time”. The other limitations of claim 1 reference a supply of oxygen (see line 6 of claim 1), but not a supply of air. In view of this inconsistency between the formula and limitations of the claim, it is unclear if claim 1 should be treated as requiring supplying the oxygen in the form of air.
For the purposes of Examination, claim 1 is treated as NOT requiring a supply of air.
If Applicant’s intent is to limit the supply of oxygen to a supply of air, Applicant should amend claim 1 to describe the supply of air in the active method steps of said claim. Otherwise, Applicant should remove references to a supply of air from formula 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the molar ratio of oxygen to vapor derived from the (meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer" in lines 6-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the composition containing the (meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the polymerization inhibitor is comprised in a concentration of 10 to 50,000 ppm in a distilled mother liquor comprising the composition containing the (meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer,” (emphasis added). The role of the distilled mother liquor in the claimed process is unclear.
As presently presented, claim 7 does not clearly indicate whether or not the distilled mother liquor is a process stream which is actually involved in the purifying/distillation step recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, assuming that the distilled mother liquor is involved in the purifying/distillation step, it is unclear what role the distilled mother liquor plays in said step. To elaborate, it is unclear if the distilled mother liquid should be treated as: 1) a product of the purifying/distillation step, e.g. a distillation bottom/residue product; 2) a feed mixture to be distilled in the purifying/distillation step, wherein said feed mixture has been previously distilled in a different distillation step; or 3) a feed mixture to be distilled in the purifying/distillation step, wherein said feed mixture has not necessarily been previously distilled in a different distillation step.
Paragraph [0026] of the specification as filed 9/13/2024 suggests that the claimed “distilled mother liquor” is a feed mixture which is to be distilled in the claimed purifying/distillation step. Accordingly, the fact that said mother liquor is described as “distilled”, suggests that said mother liquor has previously been subjected to distillation prior to the claimed purifying/distillation step. However, Applicant’s description leaves considerable doubt as to whether or not said mother liquor is subjected to any prior distillation.
Though Applicant’s specification (paragraph [0026]) describes preparing the mother liquor in a flask equipped with a distillation column, such preparation is merely described as involving addition of various substances to said flask, with no reference to any distillation occurring prior to that corresponding to the claimed purifying/distillation step of claim 1. Thus, Examiner remains uncertain as to whether or not Applicant intends for the distilled mother liquor to have been already distilled prior to the claimed purifying/distillation step.
Examiner notes that the forgoing clarity issues involving the claimed mother liquor are further exacerbated by the fact that “the composition containing the (meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
For the purposes of examination, the “distilled mother liquor” of claim 7 has been treated as a feed stream which is to be distilled in the purification/distillation step of claim 1, wherein said feed stream is NOT required to have been subjected to a previous distillation.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 7 to clarify the role of the claimed mother liquor. If Applicant intends the mother liquor to be a feed stream which is to be distilled in the purification/distillation step of claim 1, wherein said feed stream is NOT required to have been subjected to a previous distillation, said mother liquor should not be described as “distilled”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the polymers of the (meth)acrylic acid and/or the (meth)acrylic acid ester" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the polymers of the (meth)acrylic acid and/or the (meth)acrylic acid ester are not substantially generated.”
The term “substantially” in claim 9 is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, it is unclear what degree of polymer generation permitted by claim 9. In other words, it is unclear how much polymer may be generated before polymers are “substantially generated”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 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 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.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Otsuki et al. (US 3,674,651), hereafter referred to as Otsuki, in view of Levy (“Inhibitor-Oxygen Interaction in Acrylic Acid Stabilization”).
With regard to claims 1-3 and 12: Otsuki teaches a method for purifying acrylic acid (Abstract, Column 4 Lines 1-20), the method comprising:
Purifying a composition containing acrylic acid by distillation (Column 4 Lines 1-20).
And recovering the purified acrylic acid (Column 4 Lines 1-20).
Wherein from the beginning to the end of the distillation, oxygen is supplied, so that an oxygen concentration in the gas within a distillation still (distillation column) is maintained at a ratio of 0.02-2 percent by weight based on the amount of acrylic acid in the vapor phase (Column 4 Lines 1-20). Thus, it is understood that the oxygen is supplied such that a molar ratio of oxygen to vapor derived from the acrylic acid (i.e. the acrylic acid in the vapor phase) is in a range of roughly 4.5 X10-4 --to 0.046, which overlaps the claimed range of claimed range of 1.67X10-3 - 8.00X10-2 (0.00167-0.08).
Furthermore, the fact that Otsuki teaches maintaining oxygen to acrylic acid vapor ratio in a specific range indicates that the ratio of oxygen to vapor derived from acrylic acid monomer is a result effective variable. Furthermore, it is well-known and widely practiced in the acrylic acid and acrylic acid ester art to add oxygen to enable or increase the effectiveness of a polymerization inhibitor. For example, Levy, titled “Inhibitor-Oxygen Interaction in Acrylic Acid Stabilization”, teaches that oxygen enables, or otherwise enhances, the ability of MEHQ to inhibit acrylic acid polymerization (see page 188). Notably, MEHQ (aka hydroquinone monomethyl ether) is a polymerization inhibitor which may be used in the method of Otsuki (Column 4 Lines 1-20).
Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the oxygen concentration should be maintained within a particular range to achieve a desired polymerization inhibiting effect. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the oxygen concentration should be maintained within a particular range to achieve a desired polymerization inhibiting effect. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Otsuki in view of Levy by maintaining the molar ratio of oxygen to vapor derived from monomer at a level between 1.67X10-3 - 8.00X10-2 in order to obtain a predictably functional method wherein the oxygen achieves a desired polymerization inhibiting effect.
Though Otsuki does not expressly describe calculating the molar ratio of oxygen to the vapor derived from the monomers by an equation matching equation 1, the manner in which the ratio is calculated is inconsequential so long as the claimed ratio itself is satisfied.
With regard to claim 4: Otsuki does not describe the use/presence of NO, NO2, or any metal ion sequestering agent. Accordingly, it is understood that the distillation in Otsuki is carried out in the absence of NO, NO2, and any metal ion sequestering agents.
In the alternative, Otsuki’s silence to the use/presence of NO, NO2, and metal ion sequestering agents would at least suggest that the method thereof can be carried out in the absence of such substances.
If it is not implicit that Otsuki’s method, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Otsuki by carrying out the distillation in the absence of of NO, NO2, and metal ion sequestering agents, in order to obtain a predictably functional method which is congruent with the teachings of Otsuki.
With regard to claim 5: The distillation is carried out in the presence of one or more polymerization inhibitors, wherein said one or more inhibitors may be at least phenolic, amine based, and/or quinone based (Otsuki: Column 4 Lines 1-20).
With regard to claim 6: The polymerization inhibitor may comprise P-Methoxyphenol (hydroquinone monomethyl ether) (Otsuki: Column 4 Lines 1-20).
With regard to claim 7: Otsuki teaches that the polymerization inhibitor is added in a concentration of 50 to 5000 ppm with respect to the acrylic aid in the liquid phase (Otsuki: Column 4 Lines 1-20).
Otsuki does not explicitly teach that the polymerization inhibitor is comprised in a distilled mother liquor (i.e. the feed stream for the distillation) at a concentration of 10 to 50,000 ppm.
However, the fact that Otsuki teaches supplying inhibitor in a particular range of concentrations indicates that inhibitor concentration is a result effective variable. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inhibitor would need to be present in an appropriate amount to effectively inhibit polymerization without excessively contaminating the monomer. “[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Otsuki by supplying the polymerization inhibitor at an amount such it is comprised in a distilled mother liquor (i.e. the feed stream for the distillation) at a concentration of 10 to 50,000 ppm, in order to obtain a method wherein the inhibitor effectively inhibits polymerization without excessively contaminating the monomer.
With regard to claim 8: Otsuki teaches that the polymerization inhibitor is added in a concentration of 50 to 5000 ppm with respect to the acrylic aid in the liquid phase (Otsuki: Column 4 Lines 1-20).
Otsuki does not explicitly teach that the polymerization inhibitor is comprised in the distillate at a concentration of 0 to 1,000 ppm.
However, the fact that Otsuki teaches supplying inhibitor in a particular range of concentrations indicates that inhibitor concentration is a result effective variable. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inhibitor would need to be present in an appropriate amount to effectively inhibit polymerization without excessively contaminating the monomer. “[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Otsuki by supplying the polymerization inhibitor at an amount such it is comprised in the distillate at a concentration of 0 to 1,000 ppm, in order to obtain a method wherein the inhibitor effectively inhibits polymerization without excessively contaminating the monomer.
With regard to claim 9: The method of Otsuki is carried out in the presence of oxygen and a polymerization inhibitor (with which oxygen cooperates to inhibit polymerization) (Otsuki: Column 4 Lines 1-20). Accordingly, polymers of the acrylic acid are not generated in a substantial amount.
With regard to claim 10: Otsuki does not explicitly teach that the (meth)acrylic acid and/or the (meth)acrylic acid ester may one of the substances listed in claim 10.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Otsuki’s method involves the distillation of acrylic acid. Because Otsuki is applicable to acrylic acid, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect Otsuki’s method to be applicable to methacrylic acid given its similar chemical structure to that of acrylic acid (compare the structure of acrylic acid, pictured below on the left, to that of methacrylic acid, pictured below on the right).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
207
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Otsuki by applying the method thereof to the distillation of methacrylic acid, in order to obtain a predictably functional process in which methacrylic acid is purified.
With regard to claims 10 and 11: Otsuki does not explicitly teach that the (meth)acrylic acid ester may be glycidyl methacrylate.
However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Otsuki’s method involves the distillation of acrylic acid. Because Otsuki is applicable to one (meth)acrylic acid (acrylic acid), a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect Otsuki’s method to be applicable to other (meth)acrylic acids, as well as esters thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Otsuki by applying the method thereof to the distillation of glycidyl methacrylate, in order to obtain a predictably functional process in which a particular ester of a methacrylic acid is purified.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fauconet et al. (US 7,029,556), hereafter referred to as Fauconet.
With regard to claims 1-3, and 12: Fauconet teaches a method of purifying a (meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer, wherein said monomer may be acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, a C1-C10 alkyl acrylate, or a C1-C10 alkyl methacrylates (claims 1 and 13), the method comprising:
Purifying a composition containing the monomer or monomers by distillation (claims 1 and 13).
And recovering the purified monomer (claims 1 and 15).
Wherein, from the beginning to the end of the distillation, oxygen is supplied, so that the weight ratio of oxygen to organic vapor in a distillation still (distillation column) is maintained at a level between 0.0002-0.03 (claim 1).
It is understood that oxygen gas has a molecular weight of approximately 32 g/mol. It is understood that the lightest monomer which may embody the (meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer is acrylic acid, having a molecular weight of approximately 72 g/mol. Bearing this in mind, it is understood that the teaching to a weight ratio of between 0.0002 and 0.03 at least suggests a molar ratio of oxygen to vapor derived from the monomer which overlaps the claimed range of 1.67X10-3 - 8.00X10-2 (0.00167-0.08). To elaborate, assuming that: i) the “organic vapor” is comprised entirely of vapor derived from the monomer (i.e. the monomer and feasible reaction derivatives thereof), and iii) the monomer is acrylic acid (the lightest monomer and thus, the one which will be present in the highest molar amount), if the weight ratio is maintained in the taught range of between 0.0002 and 0.03, the molar ratio of oxygen to organic vapor will be maintained at a level between approximately 0.00045 and 0.0675, which overlaps the claimed range. It is understood that the range would be higher, but nevertheless overlapping, if the organic vapor were to comprise impurities in addition to vapor derived from the monomer and/or if the monomer were a heavier monomer. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, the fact that Fauconet teaches maintaining oxygen to organic vapor ratio in a specific range indicates that the ratio of oxygen to vapor derived from monomer is a result effective variable. Indeed, Fauconet’s teachings indicate that oxygen is added to enable or increase the effectiveness of a polymerization inhibitor (Abstract), as is notoriously well-understood and widely practiced in the acrylic acid and acrylic acid ester art. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the oxygen concentration should be maintained within a particular range to achieve a desired polymerization inhibiting effect. "[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fauconet by maintaining the molar ratio of oxygen to vapor derived from monomer at a level between 1.67X10-3 - 8.00X10-2 in order to obtain a predictably functional method wherein the oxygen achieves a desired polymerization inhibiting effect.
Though Fauconet does not expressly describe calculating the molar ratio of oxygen to the vapor derived from the monomers by an equation matching equation 1, the manner in which the ratio is calculated is inconsequential so long as the claimed ratio itself is satisfied.
With regard to claim 5: The method is further carried out in the presence of one or more polymerization inhibitor, wherein said one or more polymerization inhibitor may include a phenolic inhibitor, an amine-based inhibitor, a quinone-based inhibitor, an n-oxyradical-based inhibitor, or a nitroso-based inhibitor (Claims 1, 14, and 16).
With regard to claim 7: Fauconet teaches supplying the polymerization inhibitor in a concentration of 50 to 2000 ppm relative to a distillate (condensed organic vapors) distilled the distillation still (Claim 15).
Fauconet does not explicitly teach that the polymerization inhibitor is comprised in a distilled mother liquor (i.e. the feed stream for the distillation) at a concentration of 10 to 50,000 ppm.
However, the fact that Fauconet teaches supplying inhibitor in a particular range of concentrations indicates that inhibitor concentration is a result effective variable. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inhibitor would need to be present in an appropriate amount to effectively inhibit polymerization without excessively contaminating the monomer. “[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fauconet by supplying the polymerization inhibitor at an amount such it is comprised in a distilled mother liquor (i.e. the feed stream for the distillation) at a concentration of 10 to 50,000 ppm, in order to obtain a method wherein the inhibitor effectively inhibits polymerization without excessively contaminating the monomer.
With regard to claim 8: Fauconet teaches supplying the polymerization inhibitor in a concentration of 50 to 2000 ppm relative to a distillate (condensed organic vapors) distilled the distillation still (Claim 15).
Fauconet does not explicitly teach that the polymerization inhibitor is comprised in the distillate at a concentration of 0 to 1,000 ppm.
However, Fauconet’s teaching to supplying the polymerization inhibitor in a concentration of 50 to 2000 ppm relative to a distillate would at least suggest that the distillate should comprise the inhibitor at a concentration of 50 to 2000 ppm, a range which overlaps the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, the fact that Fauconet teaches supplying inhibitor in a particular range of concentrations indicates that inhibitor concentration is a result effective variable. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inhibitor would need to be present in an appropriate amount to effectively inhibit polymerization without excessively contaminating the monomer. “[When] 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," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fauconet by supplying the polymerization inhibitor at an amount such it is comprised in the distillate at a concentration of 0 to 1,000 ppm, in order to obtain a method wherein the inhibitor effectively inhibits polymerization without excessively contaminating the monomer.
With regard to claim 9: The method of Fauconet is carried out in the presence of oxygen and a polymerization inhibitor (with which oxygen cooperates to inhibit polymerization) (claim 1). Accordingly, polymers of the (meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer are not generated in a substantial amount.
With regard to claim 10: The (meth)acrylic acid monomer and/or a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer may be acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, a C1-C10 alkyl acrylate, or a C1-C10 alkyl methacrylates (claims 1 and 13).
With regard to claim 11: Fauconet does not explicitly teach that the methacrylic acid ester may be glycidyl methacrylate.
However, Fauconet teaches that the process is one “for purifying a (meth)acrylic monomer selected from the group consisting of (meth)acrylic acids and esters thereof,” (claim 1). This would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that said method is suitable for purifying any and all (meth)acrylic acids and esters thereof. Furthermore, given the apparent broad applicability of Fauconet’s method to “(meth)acrylic acids and esters thereof”, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that said method could be successfully applied to glycidyl methacrylate (a methacrylic acid ester).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fauconet by applying the method thereof to the distillation of glycidyl methacrylate, in order to obtain a predictably functional process in which a particular ester of a methacrylic acid is purified.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauconet as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Levy (“Inhibitor-Oxygen Interaction in Acrylic Acid Stabilization”).
With regard to claim 6: In Fauconet, the polymerization inhibitor may be “methyl ether of hydroquinone” (claim 5).
P-Methoxyphenol (AKA: 4-Methoxyphenol, Mequinol, MeHQ, Hydroquinone methyl ether, etc.) is “methyl ether of hydroquinone”. Accordingly, Fauconet teaches an embodiment wherein the polymerization inhibitor is 4-Methoxyphenol.
One might argue that “methyl ether of hydroquinone” refers to a plurality of substances. For reasons which will be made apparent in the discussion to follow, it is at beast doubtful that “methyl ether of hydroquinone” refers to anything other than P-Methoxyphenol. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, if “methyl ether of hydroquinone” refers to more than one substance, use of P-Methoxyphenol as the polymerization inhibitor would be obvious
If “methyl ether of hydroquinone” refers to more than one substance, there is only other substance other than P-Methoxyphenol which said term could plausibly refer to, i.e. 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene. Thus, if, for the sake of argument, “methyl ether of hydroquinone” to more than one substance, it refers to only two, i.e. P-Methoxyphenol and 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene.
Furthermore, use of P-Methoxyphenol as a polymerization inhibitor for (meth)acrylic acid esters has long been known in the art, and is taught, for example, by Levy.
Additionally, Levy teaches the mechanism by which P-Methoxyphenol inhibits polymerization (see page 188 right column). Based on the mechanism taught by Levy, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene to be incapable of inhibiting polymerization in the same way (as it does not comprise an OH group). Thus, Levy’s teachings provide evidence that “methyl ether of hydroquinone” in Fauconet refers only to P-Methoxyphenol. And even if “methyl ether of hydroquinone” does also refer to 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene, when the teachings of Fauconet are considered in view of Levy, they would strongly suggest that P-Methoxyphenol would be preferable.
If, for the sake of argument, Fauconet does not teach the use of 4-Methoxyphenol, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fauconet in view of Levy by selecting 4-Methoxyphenol as the inhibitor, in order to obtain a predictably functional method which is congruent with Fauconet’s teaching to the use of “methyl ether of hydroquinone”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights