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
Claims 1 and 3-19 of Keyes, Timothy H., US 17/772,271 (04/27/2022) are pending, under examination on merits and are rejected.
Withdrawal Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Rejection of claims 1 and 3-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Bitsch-Larsen, et al, WO2019019012A1 (published on 01/31/2019)(“Larsen”) in view of T. Bartos, et al, WO2016014830 A1 (2016)(“Bartos”); R. Wakeman, 58(2) Separation and purification technology 234-241(2007)(“Wakeman”); and F. Zaima, et al, US20100016629A1 (2010)( “Zaima”) is withdrawn in view of the instant claim 1 has been amended with a new limitation of “the second feed filtrate being collected from a second, later-in-time filter zone before the filter cake proceeds to a wash zone”, which can not be met by the recited art, Applicant also argues on this new limitation can not be met by the cited arts (See paragraph 3 at page 10 of the Remarks filed on 04/09/2026), therefore, the rejection made in the previous Office action is withdrawn.
New Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112(a) -- New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The rejection is on the grounds that the following italicized new recitation in the independent claim 1 is not supported by the application as filed.
1. . . . . the second feed filtrate being collected from a second, later-in-time filter zone before the filter cake proceeds to a wash zone. . . .
This limitation is not recited literally in application as filed.
Examiner conducted telephonic interview with Applicant regarding the supporting of the filed specification on the amended claim 1. Applicant told Examiner that the mentioned claim limitation is supported by the paragraph [031] at page 4 in the specification and the original claim 8.
The paragraph [031] at page 4 of the specification discloses the follows information:
[0031] The present inventors have determined that a rotary pressure filter can be used to separately collect filtrates from different filter zones, such that in an initial stage of filtration in a given zone (e.g., a feed zone) the higher-in-solids first feed filtrate is collected and recycled to a reactor zone, while in a subsequent stage of filtration the lower-in-solids (or even substantially free of solids) second feed filtrate can be conducted to a catalyst recovery zone, e.g., for removal of all or a part of an oxidation catalyst. Accordingly, one aspect of the disclosure provides a process including filtering a solid/liquid mixture having a solid crude aromatic carboxylic acid and a monocarboxylic acid solvent (e.g., from a crystallization zone) in a feed zone of a rotary pressure filter having at least two filter zones to form a first feed filtrate and then a second feed filtrate separate from the first feed filtrate, each of the first feed filtrate and the second feed filtrate comprising monocarboxylic acid solvent, the second feed filtrate being lower in solids than the first feed filtrate. By "lower in solids," it is meant that the second feed filtrate has a lower absolute amount of solids by mass than the first feed filtrate. In certain embodiments, the second feed filtrate has no more than 50%, no more than 25%, or even no more than 10% of the solids of the first feed filtrate as a mass percent. In this context, "solids" means material that is actually solid in the mixture (i.e., not dissolved solids).
Specification at page 4, [031], emphasis added.
Clearly, paragraph [031] at page 4 of the specification does not disclose any information related washing of any filter cake obtained in the first or the second filtration.
Regarding the original claim 8 in the claim set filed on 04/27/2022, it claims:
8. The process of any of claim 1, wherein the filtering operation forms a filter cake, and wherein the process further comprises washing the filter cake in a first wash zone with a first wash fluid to form a first wash filtrate.
Clearly, none of information in the original claim 8 claims “the second feed filtrate being collected from a second, later-in-time filter zone before the filter cake proceeds to a wash zone” as recited in the instant claim 1.
Therefore, the new limitation of “the second feed filtrate being collected from a second, later-in-time filter zone before the filter cake proceeds to a wash zone” is not recited literally in application as filed, and the 112(a) rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the filter cake” as there is at least three filter cakes in the instant claim 1 ( the filter cake formed in the earlier-in-time filter zone, the filter cake formed in the later-in-time filter zone, and the filter cake formed in a wash zone). Therefore, one ordinary skill does not know which filter cake in the instant claim 1 to be washed in a first wash zone as claimed in the instant claim 8?
Subject Matter Free of the Art
Subject to the above 112 rejection(s), claim 1 and 3-19 are free of the art recorded. The closest prior art of record is a combination of A. Bitsch-Larsen, et al, WO2019019012A1 (published on 01/31/2019)(“Larsen”), T. Bartos, et al, WO2016014830 A1 (2016)(“Bartos”); R. Wakeman, 58(2) Separation and purification technology 234-241(2007)(“Wakeman”); and F. Zaima, et al, US20100016629A1 (2010)( “Zaima”).
The Combination of Larsen, Bartos, Wakeman and Zaima
As detail discussed in the previous Office action that the combination of Larsen, Bartos, Wakeman and Zaima teaches a process for manufacturing an aromatic carboxylic acid, which comprises:
(i). oxidizing in a reactor zone a feedstock comprising a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon in the presence of an oxidation catalyst and monocarboxylic acid solvent to form crude aromatic carboxylic acid;
(ii).cooling the reactor zone effluent to form a solid/liquid mixture comprising a solid crude aromatic carboxylic acid, a monocarboxylic acid solvent, and the oxidation catalyst;
(iii). filtering the solid/liquid mixture in a feed zone of a rotary pressure filter, the rotary pressure filter comprising a plurality of compartments each having a filter member, the feed zone having at least two filter zones, wherein the filtering forms a filter cake on a filter member of a compartment and the filter cake of a compartment becomes more compressed as the compartment rotates,
(iv).collecting separate feed filtrates from different filter zones of the rotary pressure filter, the separate feed filtrates comprising a first feed filtrate comprising monocarboxylic acid solvent and solids; and a second feed filtrate separate from the first feed filtrate, the second feed filtrate comprising monocarboxylic acid solvent and solids, the second feed filtrate being lower in solids than the first feed filtrate;
(v). transferring at least a portion of the first feed filtrate to the reactor zone as recycle; transferring the second feed filtrate to a catalyst recovery zone;
(vi). recovering oxidation catalyst from the second feed filtrate in the catalyst recovery zone to provide an effluent that is poor in catalyst; and
(vii). purging a portion of the effluent that is poor in catalyst.
Different between the Combination and the instant Claims
The combination differs from the instant claim 1 in that it does not teach to conduct the second filtration at a later-in-time filter zone before the filter cake obtained from the first filtration at an earlier-in-time filter zone proceeds to a wash zone.
Claim 1 and 3-19 are not Obvious
Claims 1 and 3-19 are not obvious because none of Larsen, Bartos, Wakeman or Zaima provide guidance to teach one ordinary skill to conduct the second filtration at a later-in-time filter zone before the filter cake obtained from the first filtration at an earlier-in-time filter zone proceeds to a wash zone in the process taught by the combination Larsen, Bartos, Wakeman or Zaima.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday.
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 on (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights