DETAILED ACTION
Claims 25-28 are withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The RCE is accepted.
Double patenting rejections
Claims 15-17, 19, 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 17, 20-25 of copending Application No. 17/612237 (reference application) taken with Mattke. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter. Mattke teaches in para 49 avoiding hotspots that will decompose phosgene. The present specification deactivates the catalyst and uses an excess of CO, thus CCl4 formation is suppressed to make for of the desired product.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The ‘237 application has been allowed, however.
Claims 15-17, 19, 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 36, 39-54 of copending Application No. 17/925331 (reference application) taken with Mattke. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter. Mattke teaches in para 49 avoiding hotspots that will decompose phosgene. Using mesoporous carbon in the process is obvious to provide a catalyst with pores accommodating efficient contact of the reagents.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The ‘331 application has been allowed, however.
Claims 15-17, 19, 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-32 of copending Application No. 18/287481 (reference application) taken with Mattke. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter. Mattke teaches in para 49 avoiding hotspots that will decompose phosgene. Combining the reactants in separate streams is obvious to prevent fouling from premature reaction. Separating byproducts from the reaction is obvious to capture the desired gases. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 15-17, 19, 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-14 of copending Application No. 18/562358 (reference application) taken with Mattke. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter. Mattke teaches in para 49 avoiding hotspots that will decompose phosgene. Using sufficient cooling fluid is obvious to avoid hotspots. The baffle plates at right angles are depicted in present fig. 2. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection since the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 15-17, 19, 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/580641 (reference application) taken with Mattke. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter. Mattke teaches in para 49 avoiding hotspots that will decompose phosgene. While the wear is not taught, it is obvious to minimize it to assure a long-lasting system. Similarly, using dry gas is obvious to prevent corrosion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is proper to compare specifications of copending claims to determine what features are possessed, even though the claims may not mention them.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736