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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered. A request for suspension of action was NOT filed.
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are pending. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are under examination in their entirety. Claims 1-2, 8-11 and 14-16 are allowed. Claims 3-7, 12 are rejected.
Filing Receipt
PNG
media_image1.png
146
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
144
978
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
74
972
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 01/29/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below in original or modified form is herein withdrawn.
Withdrawn/Modified Rejections
The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-2, 8-11 and 14-16 in the final mailed 09/29/2025 is withdrawn. The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection.
The 103 rejection of claims 1-16 over Kyu et al. (KR102162204, Published 10-2020. Cited in the IDS filed 03/01/2022) or Kim et al. (USPGPub2020/0317861, Published 10-2020) in view of Lee et al. (KR10-2020-0064619, Published 06-2020) in the final mailed 09/29/2025 is withdrawn. None of the references individually or in combination teach splitting a portion of the lower discharge stream comprising the
alcohol from each of the layer separators, and feeding back only a portion of the split stream into each of the second to the nth reactors through the column of each of the second to the nth reactors.
The 103 rejection of claims 1-16 over Jiang et al. (NL2021197, Published 01-2019. Cited in the IDS filed 11/21/2022), Osborne et al. (USPGPub20070161815, Published 07-2007), Guihe et al. (CN201670810, Published 12-2010. Machine translation attached.) and Disteldorf et al. (USPGPub2015/0141691, Published 05-2015) in the final mailed 09/29/2025 is withdrawn. None of the references individually or in combination teach splitting a portion of the lower discharge stream comprising the
alcohol from each of the layer separators, and feeding back only a portion of the split stream into each of the second to the nth reactors through the column of each of the second to the nth reactors.
The no statutory double patenting rejections over US Patent 11,512,166, US application 17/616,912 and 18/016198 in view of Disteldorf et al. (USPGPub2015/0141691, Published 05-2015) in the final mailed 09/29/2025 are withdrawn. None of the references individually or in combination teach splitting a portion of the lower discharge stream comprising the alcohol from each of the layer separators, and feeding back only a portion of the split stream into each of the second to the nth reactors through the column of each of the second to the nth reactors.
The following modified 112(b) rejections constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/11/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments do not address the modified 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “in which a conversion rate reaches 50 to 99%” is interpreted as an optional phrase. The immediately above phrase is in claims 3 and 7.
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 3-7, 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 3 utilizes the following phrase which is deemed to be indefinite. “which span from the reactor in which a conversion rate reaches 50 to 99% among the second to nth reactors to any one reactor among the third reactor to the nth reactor”. This phrase may be intended to establish a range of reactors from the second to the third to the nth reactor. However, the phrase may also be intended to be a range within a range. For example, from the second to the nth reactors or the third reactor to the nth reactor.
Additionally, deleting the superfluous phrase “to any one reactor among the third reactor to the nth reactor” does not appear to alter the scope of the claim. Without understanding the reason for the existence of the superfluous phrase, the superfluous phrase may be imparting unrealized limitations onto the claims. Clarification is needed.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the following phrase, “among the second to nth reactors to the nth reactor”. Deleting the repeated phrase “to the nth reactor” does not appear to change the scope of the claim. Without understanding the reason for the existence of the duplicate phrase, the duplicate phrase may be imparting unrealized
limitations onto the claims.
Claims 4-6 and 12 either have the lower discharge supplied to the reactors or the
lower discharger is refluxed into each reactor. However, claim 1 from where claims 4-6 and 12 depend require the lower discharge to be split prior to any addition to the reactors. Clarification is needed to ensure the lower discharge in the dependent claims are being split.
Claims 3 and 7 require the 2nd to nth reactors that supply an upper discharge stream to have a conversion rate that reaches 50 to 99%. This requirement conflicts with claim 1 from where claims 3 and 7 depend. For example, claim 1 requires an upper discharge from the first and second to nth reactors into the respective columns regardless of the conversion rates of the reactors. Moreover, when the claimed range is not reached, an upper discharge from the reactors is not required in claims 3 and 7. Clarification is needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 8-11 and 14-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to the invention is Jiang et al. (NL2021197, Published 01-2019. Cited in the IDS filed 11/21/2022).
Jiang et al. teach the production of dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) via the esterification of terephthalic acid (PTA) with 2-ethylhexanol (2EH) (Embodiment 1, p. 5). Jiang et al. teach the process to be continuous (p. 1, lines 1-10). Jiang et al. teach the below series of esterification reactors that are utilized for the above process (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
444
876
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above Figure 1 depicts esterification reactors connected in series. Each reactor has a condenser and alcohol-water separator (p. 3). Wherein the alcohol is returned to the reactor. Each reactor with condenser and phase separator is the reaction unit.
Jiang et al. does not teach a column on top each reactor as currently claimed.
Osborne et al. (USPGPub20070161815, Published 07-2007) was brought in to teach a distillation column above an esterification reactor (Figure 2, item 34, par. 30).
PNG
media_image5.png
493
425
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Jiang et al. nor Osborne et al. separately or in combination teach splitting a portion of the lower discharge stream comprising the alcohol from each of the layer separators, and feeding back only a portion of the split stream into each of the second to the nth reactors through the column of each of the second to the nth reactors.
It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE G DOLETSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST.
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 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.
/B.G.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights