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 1-8 are pending in the application. Claims 4, 6 and 7 are rejected. Claims 1-3 and 5 are allowed. Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on July 14th, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 8 “is an apparatus specifically designed for carrying out the process of claim 1 and so should be considered part of the unitary invention.” This is not found persuasive because the various limitations of “for HCl storage,” “for sodium nitrite solution,” etc. do not require the presence of these materials and therefore claim 8 is directed to a generic apparatus rather than one that is specific to the claimed process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 14th, 2025.
Priority
This application is a 35 U.S.C. 371 National Stage Filing of International Application No. PCT/IN2020/050961, filed November 16th, 2020, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a-d) to IN201911046583, filed November 15th, 2019.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on May 13th, 2022.
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.
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 4, 6 and 7 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 4 is rejected as indefinite based on the limitation “selected from the group consisting of beta-Naphthol, phenol, aniline pyrazoles orother phenolic compounds.” First, it is unclear if the phrase “orother phenolic compounds” (which should at least refer to “or other”) is limiting each of the previous recitations or only the first two. Only the first two options necessarily contain an phenolic moiety. Second, it is unclear if “aniline pyrazoles” is intended to be a singular option or if the limitation is missing a comma. The phrase fails to maintain standard Markush grouping language as set forth in the MPEP. MPEP 2173.05(h) states “Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C").” In this situation, the claim recites “selected from the group consisting of” but does not separate the last two options with “and”. Accordingly, it is unclear how to parse the list and determine which terms belong together and/or rely upon the others.
Claim 6 is rejected as indefinite based on the limitation “the coupled compounds of diazonium salt have a yield in” a particular range. Parent claim 1 recites two steps and it is unclear if the yield should be calculated based on step b or based on the overall process including step a.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "conversion of the substrate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 1 does not specifically define a “substrate” and it is unclear if the “substrate” should be considered the at least one primary amine, the diazonium salt or the at least one coupler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5 are allowed.
The Examiner has reviewed the ISR that indicates a lack of inventive step for the instant invention. The ISR relies upon the following disclosure corresponding to instant step (b) from Shukla et al. (React. Chem. Eng. 2016, 1, 387, page 390, left column):
[…] In order to quench the reaction and stabilize the dia-zonium salt, the reaction mixture at the outlet of the reactor was collected in several vials containing 2 to 10 ml of aque-ous solution of β-naphthol (0.45 M) and NaOH (1.5 M). The collection was done over a period of 15–30 s to meet the stoi-chiometric requirement and give Sudan-I dye, which is insol-uble in the solution. The samples were made homogeneous by adding ethanol and subjected to analysis using a UV-vis spectrophotometer (Cary 8454 Agilent Technologies). […]
Shuckla et al. do not disclose performing the above reaction in any specific type of reactor or (as required by instant claim 1) under particular residence times and air flowrates. The ISR then relies upon CN 102078789 B for disclosure of a reactor corresponding to instant step (b). The CN document, however, is directed to a reactor for the diazotization reaction (corresponding to instant step (a)) and does not disclose a system or conditions for further reacting the diazonium salt. Even if a person having ordinary skill in the art were to assume that a variety of reactors could be applied, the prior art fails to provide guidance and a reasonable expectation that the instantly claimed reactors could be applied under the recited conditions. For instance, Wang et al. (Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 2018, 127, 43-49) disclose a continuous process for generating azo dyes (involving two steps) as follows (page 44):
PNG
media_image1.png
122
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The prior art specifically addresses flow rate on the azo-coupling on page 46 as follows (right column):
As shown in Fig. 4, it can be seen that the yields increased when the flow rates of the reactants increased from 10 mL/min to 60 mL/min. When the flow rates reached 50 mL/min–60 mL/min, the yield reached the highest. However, the yields declined with the flow rates increasing over 60 mL/min continuously. The reason for this phenomenon is that when the flow rates increase, the mixing performance increase in the micro-mixer and the secondary flow is enhanced in the coils. The stronger the secondary flows are, the greater the contact area of the fluids are, which maintains excellent mixing, mass and heat transfer. When the flow rate reaches 60 ml/min or more (mixing rate 2 m/s or more), the residence time of the reactants in the coil becomes shorter due to the increase of the flow rates, resulting in the reaction being incomplete and the yields decline.
First, the prior art uses flow rates that are not embraced by the instant claims suggesting that (even if a person having ordinary skill in the art would apply a variety of reactors) the instantly claimed flowrates are not universally useful. Second, the prior art discloses that higher flow rates result in incomplete reactions and lower yields. Accordingly, the Examiner finds a lack of guidance in the prior art that would have suggested the instantly claimed approach with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P COUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 am - 6 pm 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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 571-272-8394. 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.
/MATTHEW P COUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626