DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 5-10 are currently pending
Claims 1-4 are currently withdrawn
Claims 5-10 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 06/15/2022 and 02/10/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II claims 5-10 in the reply filed on 06/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 5-6, 14 and 25 each state “during operation” and instead should each state “during the operation” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 8, 30 and 32 each state “suspension” and instead should each state “the suspension” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, lines 12 and 17-18 each state “the temperature sensors and the impedance sensors” and instead should each state “the temperature sensor and the impedance sensor” to maintain consistency and for further clarity. ALSO, line 25 states “the following steps” and instead should state “a following steps” to avoid any antecedent issues. IN ADDITION, lines 27 and 27-28 each state “solution or suspension” and instead should each state “the solution or the suspension” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. ADDITIONALLY, line 33 states “the sum” and instead should stat “a sum” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 35 states “and temperature at at least two locations” and instead should state “and the temperature at the at least two locations” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 states “the arrangement of the temperature sensors and the impedance sensors in the process” and instead should state “an arrangement of the temperature sensor and the impedance sensor in a process” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “of crystallization.” and instead should state “of the crystallization.” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 states “wherein solvent” and instead should state “wherein the solvent” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-10 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 5 recites the limitation "the total product concentration” on lines 3-4, “the temperature” on line 9, “the concentration of the solids content” on line 15, “the concentration of the dissolved product content and/or the concentration of the impurity content,” on lines 15-16, “the measured values” on line 17, and “the relationship between the electrical impedance” on line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 5 recites the limitation “it determines” on line 14. It is unclear and confusing what Applicant means and what Applicant is referring to by reciting ‘it’? ADDITIONALLY, claim 5 recites the limitation “has an impurity content,” on line 19. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘an impurity content’ as recited on line 16 of claim 5, or a different impurity content? Claims 6-10 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the permittivity and/or the electrical conductivity” on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the crystal growth is monitored after the onset” on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the impurity concentration in the mother liquor” on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 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.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO YANLIN et al. (CN 109030303 A) (hereinafter “Zhao”) (see attached English description).
Regarding Claim 5:
Zhao teaches a method for purifying a product with a device including a feed unit with a solvent (see FIG. 1) (see paragraphs 2, 4, 8, 15, 47 and 54-56),
wherein the product is fed to the device via the feed unit during operation (see FIG. 1, a reactor 1), so that in the feed unit there is a solution in which the total product concentration is substantially completely dissolved, or a suspension with the total product concentration (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur) (see paragraphs 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, 47 and 54-56),
a crystallization unit, in which the product crystallizes during operation and thus forms a solids content, wherein a further content of the product is present as a dissolved product content (see FIG. 1) (see paragraphs 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, 47 and 54-56),
a temperature control unit by means of which the temperature can be controlled at least in the feed unit and/or the crystallization unit (see FIG. 1, a temperature control structure 4) (see paragraphs 16, 47 and 54-57), and
further comprising a control and evaluation unit (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61), wherein a temperature sensor and an impedance sensor are arranged in each case at at least two locations of the device (see paragraphs 12-13, 16, 19, 47 and 49), wherein the temperature sensors and the impedance sensors are connected to the control and evaluation unit (see paragraphs 12-13, 16, 19, 47 and 49), and wherein the control and evaluation unit is designed such that, during operation, it determines the total product concentration and/or the concentration of the solids content and/or the concentration of the dissolved product content and/or the concentration of the impurity content (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur) (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61), taking into account the measured values of the temperature sensors and of the impedance sensors (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61),
wherein the product is produced by a chemical method, and wherein the product has an impurity content (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61), the method comprising:
in a preparatory step, the relationship between the electrical impedance of the solution or the suspension and the temperature and/or the total product concentration in the solution or the suspension and/or the solids content and/or the impurity content is captured (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur) (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61);
wherein a calibration matrix is determined from the captured relationship (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61); and
wherein, during operation of the device, the following steps are carried out:
in a feed step, the product is fed to the feed unit, wherein the product is placed in solution or suspension in the feed unit, or wherein the product is fed in solution or suspension to the feed unit (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur) (see FIG. 1) (see paragraphs 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, 47 and 54-56);
wherein the temperature in the feed unit is adjusted such that the solution or suspension is in an undersaturated state (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61);
starting crystallization in a crystallization step by bringing the solution or suspension to a supersaturated state (see FIG. 1) (see paragraphs 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, 47 and 54-56), by adjusting the temperature to a target temperature, wherein the total product concentration in the crystallization unit is the sum of the crystallized solids and the dissolved product content (see FIG. 1) (see paragraphs 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, 47 and 54-56);
capturing the electrical impedance and temperature at at least two locations of the device in an impedance measurement step (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 16, 19, 47 and 49); and
determining the total product concentration and/or the solids content and/or the dissolved product content and/or the impurity content in an analysis step from the electrical impedance, the measured temperature, and the calibration matrix (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61).
Zhao does not explicitly teach a separation unit, in which the crystallized product is separated from the solution or suspension.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water treatment system and method of Zhao to include a separation unit to further remove and separate unwanted contaminants from the crystallized product for optimization purposes (see paragraphs 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, 47 and 54-56).
Regarding Claim 6:
Zhao teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein for determining the total product concentration and/or the solids content and/or the dissolved product content and/or the impurity content (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61), limiting conditions resulting from the arrangement of the temperature sensors and the impedance sensors in the process are additionally taken into account (see paragraphs 12-13, 16, 19, 47 and 49).
Regarding Claim 7:
Zhao teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the permittivity and/or the electrical conductivity of the solution or the suspension is determined with the electrical impedance (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61).
Regarding Claim 8:
Zhao teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the crystal growth is monitored after the onset of crystallization (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61).
Regarding Claim 9:
Zhao teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the impurity concentration in the mother liquor is monitored (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61);
wherein a limit value for the impurity concentration is stored in the device (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61); and
wherein solvent is replenished into the feed unit or the solvent is at least partially replaced if the impurity concentration exceeds the limit value (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur. FURTHERMORE, this claim limitation is in a conditional form and therefore does not have to occur) (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61).
Regarding Claim 10:
Zhao teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the product is replenished in such a way that the total product concentration in the solution or in the suspension remains substantially constant (see FIG.1, a data acquisition unit 8 and a control display unit 6) (see paragraphs 12-13, 50-51, 55-58 and 61).
Other Reference Considered
GRUDEN ROMAN et al. (EP 2902774 A1) (hereinafter “Gruden”) (see attached English description) teaches a system and method for detecting properties of aqueous media.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773