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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant's preliminary amendment filed 11 November, 2021. As filed, claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
This application, filed 09/12/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2021/112637 , International Filing Date: 08/14/2021 claims foreign priority to 202011500112.5, filed 12/17/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement No information disclosure statement (IDS)has been filed in the instant application. Applicants are reminded of the duty to disclose anything believed to be material to the patentability of the instant application in accordance with 37 CPR 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites the “use” language. The objected claim is not viewed as “use” claim, but proper transition wording should be present.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 1-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107325015, Nov. 07, 2017 by Feng et al (cited in PTO-892 attached herewith; machine translation provided).
Instant claims are drawn to a process for glycine, by the steps of a hydantoin synthesis and hydrolysis reaction on glycolonitrile, ammonium carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate and water in a reactor with multiple serially connected kettles, and then purifying, concentrating, crystallizing, separating and drying the products to obtain refined glycine,
wherein the reactor with multiple serially connected kettles consists of a hydantoin synthesis section and a hydantoin hydrolysis section which are connected in sequence, the hydantoin synthesis section comprising a first reaction kettle group of reaction kettles with a reaction temperature of 80-100C and a second reaction kettle group of reaction kettles with a reaction temperature of 100-120C, the first reaction kettle group or the second reaction kettle group consisting of one or more reaction kettles connected in series, the hydantoin ~hydrolysis section comprising
a third reaction kettle group of reaction kettles with a reaction temperature of 130- ·150'C and a fourth reaction kettle group of reaction kettles with a reaction temperature of 160-180C, and the third reaction kettle group or the fourth reaction kettle or the fourth consisting of one or more reaction kettles connected in series.
PNG
media_image1.png
122
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The ‘015 publication teaches a method for preparing glycine from hydroxyacetonitrile ( also known as glycolonitrile) in tubular packed reactor is composed of at least three sub-reactors connected in series in order to carry out the synthetic hydantoin reaction more efficiently, the method of increasing the temperature in stages is usually used to improve the synthesis efficiency, in two stages. The use of at least three sub-reactors connected in series to not only synthesize hydantoin in the tubular packing reactor, but also to hydrolyze hydantoin, which can save the total residence time of the reaction solution , improve reaction efficiency and reduce equipment cost. The method of the prior art comprises the following steps:
Step 1) mix hydroxyacetonitrile with ammonia source and carbon source in proportion, put them into the tubular packing reactor, and react at a temperature of 90-180° C and a pressure of 0-10 MPa to obtain a reaction mixture; wherein the ammonia source is ammonium bicarbonate or ammonia water, and the carbon source is ammonium bicarbonate or carbon dioxide;
The tubular packed reactor is composed of at least three sub-reactors connected in series, and the reaction temperature is sequentially increased between each sub-reactor;
Step 2) putting the reaction mixture obtained in step 1) into the tank-type series reactor, and reacting at a temperature of 150-200° C and a pressure of 0-10 MPa to obtain a hydrolysis reaction liquid;
The tank-type series reactor is composed of at least three hydrolysis reactors in series, and the temperature is sequentially increased in each series of hydrolysis reactors;
Step 3) entering the hydrolysis reaction liquid obtained in step 2) into the gas-liquid separation device, and the separated carbon dioxide is recycled as a carbon source;
Step 4) Entering the liquid obtained in step 3) into a flash tower for distillation, cooling and separating the gas phase and recycling it as an ammonia source; crystallizing, separating and drying the liquid phase to obtain the glycine; (page 2-3 of the translation; instant claim 1).
The ‘015 publication teaches example on page 5-6 of continuous preparation of glycine by hydroxyacetonitrile: hydroxyacetonitrile, ammonium bicarbonate and water and the three substances are mixed according to the molar ratio of 1:2:50, and transported by the metering pump to the tubular packing reactor at 350L/hour for the synthesis of hydantoin and the hydrolysis reaction of hydantoin. The temperature of the first stage of the tubular packing reactor is 90°C, the pressure is 5MPa, and the residence time is 15min; the temperature of the second stage is 110°C, the pressure is 5MPa, and the residence time is 15min; 5MPa, residence time 15min. Afterwards, the feed liquid enters the tank-type series reactors to continue the hydantoin hydrolysis reaction. Reactor 1 has a temperature of 150°C, a pressure of 5MPa, and a residence time of 2 hours. Reactor 2 has a temperature of 170°C, a pressure of 5MPa, and a residence time of 1 hour. Reactor 3 The temperature is 190°C, the pressure is 5MPa, and the residence time is 0.5 hours. The temperature of the reactor 4 is 200°C, the pressure is 5MPa, and the residence time is 0.5 hours (instant claims 1, 7). Regarding instant claims 2-3, the ‘015 publication teaches that the method Step 1) hydroxyacetonitrile is mixed in proportion with ammonia source, carbon source after enter in the tubular packed reactor, in temperature 90~180 C, reacted under the conditions of 0~10MPa of pressure, to obtain the reaction mixture.The tubular packed reactor is composed in series by least three estrade reactors, and reaction temperature between each sub- reactor successively it is incremented. Step 2) obtained reaction mixture resulted in step 1) is transferred tinto the autoclave reactor, in temperature 150~200 C, reacted under the conditions of 0~10MPa of pressure, to obtain hydrolysis liquid；the autoclave reactor is composed in series by least three hydrolytic reaction kettles, and reaction temperature is passed successively between each kettle Increase (see claim 4 of the reference).
Regarding instant claims 4, 5, 6, 7 the ‘015 publication teaches that the ammonia source and the carbon source are both ammonium bicarbonate, and the molar ratio of the hydroxyacetonitrile to ammonium bicarbonate and water is 1:2-10:50-100; before the raw material enters the tubular reactor: ammonium bicarbonate and water are mixed in proportion in batching kettle 1, after that by preheating Heat the device to 70-90°C, and then mix it with the aqueous solution of hydroxyacetonitrile in a static mixer in proportion; the molar ratio of the above-mentioned hydroxyacetonitrile to ammonium bicarbonate and water is 1:2:50 (page 4 of the translation).
Regarding instant claims 9-10, the ‘015 publication teaches the hydrolysis reaction liquid obtained in step 2) is firstly separated into carbon dioxide in the gas-liquid separation device. The gas phase generated by the gas-liquid separation device enters the batching tank 2; the liquid phase enters the flash tower, and ammonia and part of the water are removed by vacuum distillation. The gas phase produced by the flash tower is condensed and recovered and then enters the batching tank and the carbon dioxide obtained in step 3) and supplemented ammonia water are mixed in proportion and then returned to the above-mentioned preheater for reuse; the liquid phase enters the crystallization tank for a continuous crystallization, centrifuged; after separation, the mother liquor -the main component is incompletely hydrolyzed hydantoin and its derivatives- is returned to the tank series reactors for reuse. The remaining crude solid glycine is dissolved by heating, decolorized by activated carbon, hot filtered, second continuous crystallization, centrifuged, and dried to obtain refined glycine. The waste activated carbon obtained by filtration is sent to the incinerator, and the mother liquor (mainly composed of glycine) obtained by the second centrifugal separation is returned to the flash tower for reuse. Such continuous preparation of glycine from hydroxyacetonitrile and the recycling of materials allow for environmentally friendly and clean process (translation page 4).
The method of the present application differs from the method described in the ‘015 publication in that prior art teaches the temperatures in a third and fourth reactors slightly higher than as claimed (160 vs 150C or 200 versus 180C) and does not teach connecting the kettle reactors from small effective volume to a larger ones.
It is noted that the cited prior art specifically teaches that the method of increasing the temperature in stages is usually used to improve the synthesis efficiency (page 3 of translation).
Furthermore, regarding the temperature and concentration of the process, it is noted that generally, differences in such parameters will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such parameter is critical. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the reaction conditions as part of routine optimization in attempting to obtain the highest product yield. In other words, it is inherent that a person of ordinary skill in art would be motivated to optimize a reaction by varying experimental parameters in search of optimal conditions. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A:
“[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of the ‘015 concerning preparation of glycine by hydantoin synthesis and hydrolysis reaction of glycolonitrile, ammonium carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate and water in a reactor with multiple serially connected kettles, and optimizing the temperature and volume of the reaction at different stages and have reasonable expectation of success, because the prior art teaches increasing the temperature in stages is usually used to improve the synthesis efficiency.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR, 550 U.S. at_, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
2. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107325015, Nov. 07, 2017 by Feng et al (cited in PTO-892 attached herewith; machine translation provided) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-10 and further in view of Baboo et al. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 6 Issue 12, December 2017 (cited in PTO-892 attached herewith).
The teachings of the ‘015 publication regarding claims 1-7, 9-10 are discussed above.
The cited reference does not teach the urea-grade stainless steel as a kettle body lining of instant claim 8.
However, the article by Baboo, teaches that by using urea-grade stainless steel as reactor lining, prevents the corrosion/erosion of the reactors (abstract; page 155, Fig 1; table 4 pages 156-158). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of the ‘015 concerning preparation of glycine and utilize urea-grade stainless steel as a kettle body lining to prevent reactor corrosion.
Conclusion – the process taught in the instant application fails to set forth a patentable inventive step, but instead combines known steps. In view of the high level of skill in the art, the optimization of a known processes has been herein shown to be prima facie obvious because the specification fails to produce evidence of unexpected results, a long-felt industrial need, or other secondary considerations to overcome the lack of an inventive step. Further, it has been held that a two-step combination of two separately obvious process steps is unpatentable when each lends properties to the final product known to be produced when the step is practice alone. In re Fortess, 369 F.2d 1009, 152 USPQ 13 (CCPA 1966).
"Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;". See MPEP § 2143.
Thus, the instant claims are obvious over the combined teachings of prior art.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to:
Ana Muresan
(571) 270-7587 (phone)
(571)270-8587 (fax)
Ana.Muresan@uspto.gov
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:00AM - 5:30PM).
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANA Z MURESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights