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 1
A method for continuous post-treatment of benzotriazole (BTA) synthetic fluid, wherein the method comprises the following steps: (1) continuously feeding the BTA synthetic fluid and an acidification reagent into an acidification reactor for a continuous acidification, and extracting an acidified aqueous layer and an acidified oil layer; (2) feeding the acidified oil layer in (1) into a water washing device for continuous water washing, and extracting a water-washed oil layer and a water-washed aqueous layer; (3) combining the acidified aqueous layer in (1) and the water-washed aqueous layer in (2), and feeding into an extraction tower for a continuous extraction, and extracting an extracted aqueous layer and an extracted oil layer; (4) feeding the extracted oil layer in (3) into a back-extraction tower for a continuous back-extraction, and extracting a back-extracted oil layer and a back-extracted aqueous layer, as to achieve the reuse of an extractant and the BTA in the aqueous layer; and (5) subjecting the water-washed oil layer in (2) to a continuous dehydration and a continuous distillation, and forming in a molding device, as to obtain a BTA product.
§112(b)
Claims 1 – 20 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’s preamble characterizes the claimed method as a “post-treatment of …(BTA) synthetic fluid.” It is unclear whether, and what, predicate treatment step must occur before the explicitly recited steps of claim 1 occur. Alternatively, it is unclear whether the claimed method is itself a “post-treatment” of a fluid resulting from a chemical synthesis of BTA ripe for further purification and isolation by the clamed method. If such is the case, then it is confusing to either recite in a last-recited step, a “forming in a mold[ing] …to obtain a BTA product,” or to not state that the method is a method of making a molded article. Further, it is unclear whether the “forming in a molding device” step is necessarily a “continuous forming” step, as the preamble might imply, and accordingly have the claim not read on a fed-batch or batch forming step even if the other steps recited in claim 1 were indeed continuously performed.
Per claims 2 and 7, it is unclear what chemicals other than hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and acetic acid fall within the scope of “a hydrochloric acid, a sulfuric acid, a nitric acid, and an acetic acid,” respectively. This basis for rejection may be overcome by deleting the indefinite article before each compound in the list, i.e., “[[ a ]] hydrochloric acid,” etc.
Like each other of claims 2 – 20 that is dependent on claim 1 directly or indirectly, Claim 6 is rejected under §112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1 supra. Claim 6 is not independently rejected under §112(b) for several recitations of “prefer[red]” back-extraction conditions, i.e., volume flow rate ratio, residence time, residual BTA amount,
PNG
media_image1.png
226
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
because claim 6 is clearly not limited by any of those conditions while equally clearly being limited by the back-extraction temperature 20 ~ 100°C. The examiner suggests, but does not require, that the three “preferably” recitations be deleted insofar as they subtract nothing from the scope of claim 6.
Similar remarks apply to claim 8.
Similar remarks apply to claim 14’s recital of preferred conditions, none of which are limiting. Claim 14 is clearly limited by the pH range 3~8.
Claim 9 is directed to a “system” without the recital of any structure of the claimed system. Rather, the recitations in claim 9 detail the arrangement of unclaimed structures to which the claimed system is “connected.” This basis for §112(b) rejection may be overcome by amending claim 9 as follows:
--… system comprises
The examiner suggests, but does not require, that “extractor 1” and “extractor 2” be amended to -- first extractor – and -- second extractor – for improved claim clarity especially in view of the recitations of references “(6)” and “(7)”. If so adopted, the examiner suggests further that in the specification, at least on recitation of “extractor 1” be amended to read, “extractor 1, aka first extractor, “ and at least on recitation of “extractor 2” be amended to read, “extractor 2, aka second extractor, “ or the like. No corresponding changes to the drawings regarding extractor 1 and extractor 2 are suggested or required.
The limitation introduced by Claim 16 is not itself a basis for rejection under §112(b), but is construed as equivalent to “ … step (2), the ratio of the water wash volumetric flow rate to the acidified oil layer volumetric flow rate is in the range ~0.1 – ~20.”
Similarly, the limitation introduced by Claim 19 is not itself a basis for rejection under §112(b), but is construed as equivalent to “ … step (3), the ratio of the extractant volumetric flow rate to the sum of the water-washed aqueous layer volumetric flow rate and the acidified aqueous layer volumetric flow rate is in the range ~0.1 – ~20.”
Each recitation of A~B where A and B are numeric quantities regardless of engineering units, and absence thereof in the case of a ratio, is construed as
~A - ~B, i.e., ~A to ~B, i.e., “about A to about B”.
Claim Objections for Minor Informalities
Objection is made to claim 4 for minor informalities: Amendment to
-- an extraction – is required.
Objection is made to claim 5 for minor informalities: Amendment to
-- the extractant is or [[ and ]] ethyl acetate, or any mixture thereof. – is required, or an equivalent phrasing.
Drawings
Objection is made to Fig. 1 of the drawings, and excerpt of which is inset below, insofar as the text and lines are blurry. Correction is required, but may be held in abeyance until allowance.
PNG
media_image2.png
440
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Discussion of Selected Prior Art
CN1844108A to Xinxing Industry & Trade (herein after Xinxing) discloses a method for continuous post-treatment of a compound TTA (toyltriazole, aka, methyl benzotriazole) similar1 to BTA (see claims 1 and 4; description, page 3; examples 1 and 2; and figure 1), the method comprising:
(examiner’s discussion continues after the next page)
PNG
media_image3.png
1166
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
824
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[See also the GOOGLE translation of Xinxing].
preparing and obtaining a material comprising TTA (methyl benzotriazole) (i.e. the synthetic liquid) and then performing the following post-treatment:
acidification: performing acidification with sulfuric acid, stirring and adding an acid at 50-60°C to make a pH value of 3.5-4, standing and separating same into layers, taking the upper layer of methyl benzotriazole TTA crude material, and then the following process;
rinsing: rinsing same with water...standing and separating same into layers, taking the lower layer of TTA crude material, and entering the next process;
dehydration: performing self-dehydration on the rinsed TTA crude material under stirring conditions...and then performing vacuum dehydration; and
rectification: sucking the dehydrated material into a rectification kettle, gradually raising the temperature, wherein the temperature of the material in the kettle is 170-195°C, performing rectification under vacuum of 50-200 Pa, and finally performing
granulation on a finished crystal by means of a crushing and granulating machine (i.e. the forming device), so as to obtain a purified TTA product.
Accordingly, Xinxing discloses a method for post-treatment of a chemically similar compound, and in particular discloses steps (1), (2) and (5) of claim 1. Claim 1 differs from Xinxing by further defining steps (3) and (4), namely:
“(3) combining the acidified aqueous layer in (1) and the water-washed aqueous layer in (2), and feeding into an extraction tower for a continuous extraction, and extracting an extracted aqueous layer and an extracted oil layer; (4) feeding the extracted oil layer in (3) into a back-extraction tower for a continuous back-extraction, and extracting a back-extracted oil layer and a back-extracted aqueous layer, as to achieve the reuse of an extractant and the BTA in the aqueous layer.”
Although back-extraction was a known purification process, see, for example, Zilnik, and a BTA post-synthesis purification based on Xinxing’s purification of structurally obvious methyl benzotriazole (aka, TTA) would have been obvious, the suggested post-treatment process of Xinxing fails to describe or to suggest the following additional claim-limiting steps, i.e., steps not described by Xinxing:
(3) combining the acidified aqueous layer in (1) and the water-washed aqueous layer in (2), and feeding into an extraction tower for a continuous extraction, and extracting an extracted aqueous layer and an extracted oil layer; (4) feeding the extracted oil layer in (3) into a back-extraction tower for a continuous back-extraction, and extracting a back-extracted oil layer and a back-extracted aqueous layer, as to achieve the reuse of an extractant and the BTA in the aqueous layer.
USP 3564001 to Long (Sherwin-Williams Co.) describes an extraction-based BTA purification scheme that includes a back extraction step:
PNG
media_image5.png
368
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
302
458
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 – 20 would be allowed if the rejections and objections not based on prior art detailed above were to be overcome, and no more relevant prior art were to be found during a search update upon Applicant’s response to this Office action.
/CHESTER T BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 571-272-1152
1 TTA, being a methylated form of BTA, is “structurally obvious” over BTA