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 the Claims
Claims 16, 18-22, and 24-32 are pending.
Claim 32 is new.
Claims 16, 21, 22, and 25-30 are currently amended.
Claim 23 is currently cancelled.
Claims 1-15 and 17 were previously cancelled.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 03 June 2026 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 21 and 22 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 21 and 22 have been amended to depend from claim 16. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 26 is not sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 26 has been amended to clarify the second phase-containing second stream in line 2; however, the line 4 “the second stream” still lacks clarity. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 27-30 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims have been amended to delete the limitations drawn to a post reactor. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 23 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendment to claim 16 adding a specific concentration of the organic phase in the aqueous phase containing second stream is taught by Papp ‘702 and is not sufficient to overcome the rejections of:
Claims 16, 18-27, and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papp et al. (US20150141702, published 21 May 2015, hereinafter Papp ‘702) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012); and,
Claims 16 and 18-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papp et al. (US20150141702, published 21 May 2015, hereinafter Papp ‘702) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012), as applied in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 16, 18-27, and 29-31 above, in further view of Min et al. (CN102323748, published 18 January 2012, see machine translation, hereinafter Min).
The above rejections are maintained. Due to the amendment to claim 1, the cancellation of claim 23, and the addition of new claim 32, additional modified and new ground(s) of rejection is/are provided below.
Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant’s amendment to claim 16 adding a specific concentration of the organic phase in the aqueous phase containing second stream is taught by Papp ‘702 and is not sufficient to overcome the rejections of:
Claims 16 and 18-27 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,115,069 B2 to Papp et al. (hereinafter Papp ‘069, published 25 August 2015) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012);
Claim 28 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,115,069 B2 to Papp et al. (hereinafter Papp ‘069) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012) and Min et al. (CN102323748, published 18 January 2012, see machine translation, hereinafter Min); and,
Claims 29-31 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,115,069 B2 to Papp et al. (hereinafter Papp ‘069) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012) and Grenacher et al. (US6723884, patented 20 April 2004, hereinafter Grenacher).
The above rejections are maintained. Due to the amendment to claim 1, the cancellation of claim 23, and the addition of new claim 32, additional modified ground(s) of rejection is/are provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot or not persuasive.
Applicant’s specifically argue that Papp ‘702 and Junya do not disclose the limitations as recited in amended claim 1. These arguments have been considered but are moot or not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the maintained and new grounds of rejection below and the response to arguments below.
In response to applications arguments throughout the remarks filed on 03 June 2026 regarding Junya. As stated on page 5 of the previous office action dated 06 March 2026 (hereinafter POA), “[t]he arguments with respect to Junya have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Junya reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.”
On pages 5-6 of the remarks filed on 03 June 2026, Applicant’s traverse the rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Papp ‘702, Henry, and Min; however, applicant’s do not specifically argue that Papp ‘702, Henry, and Min do not disclose the limitations as recited in amended claim 1. “Where an amendment substantially responds to the rejections, objections, or requirements in a non-final Office action (and is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action) but contains a minor deficiency (e.g., fails to treat every rejection, objection, or requirement), the examiner may simply act on the amendment and issue a new (non-final or final) Office action”, see MPEP 714.03. Therefore, the traversal has been considered but is not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the maintained, modified, and new grounds of rejection below and the response to arguments below.
In response to applicant’s arguments throughout the remarks filed on 03 June 2026 regarding “the amount of organic phase present in the second stream”. As stated by Applicants on page 5 of the remarks filed on 03 June 2026, regarding the Interview conducted on 14 April 2026 and Interview Summary dated 17 April 2026, “[t]he Examiner suggested to limit the amount of organic phase in the second stream as seen in Table 1 of the as-filed specification. Such an amendment is made here, and presented as well in new claim 32.” Instant claim 16 is currently amended to state “wherein the second stream contains from 10 to 20 vol% organic phase” and new claim 32 states “wherein the second stream contains from 10 to 17 vol% organic phase”. After further detailed review of the instant specification, these claim amendments appear to detail new matter.
Claim 16 states “a hydroformylation products-containing first stream is withdrawn at the top of the reactor and an aqueous phase-containing second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor via at least one line leading out of the bottom of the reactor”. Instant specification Example 2, Pg, 20, Ln. 14-Pg. 22, Table 1, states the “reactor discharge is fed to a lower pressure vessel and air is added to oxidise and inactivate the catalyst and to remove it from the organic phase to the water phase. The discharge of that oxidation vessel is fed to a phase separator”, where in “the phase separator, the water phase settled to the bottom and was discharged”, a “Coriolis mass flow meter measuring and reporting mass flow, temperature and density of the discharged stream was installed in the pipe used to discharge the water from the phase separator”, and the “amounts of organic and aqueous phases were determined by collecting the stream discharged at the bottom of the phase separator and measuring the volume of the individual phases after a settling period long enough to obtain two well separate and clear phases. Table 1 shows the results of this experiment. FIGS. 2, 3, and 4 show measured density and density set point, the share of the organic phase in the discharged mixture and the temperature of the discharged mixture, respectively, from Table 1”.
The instant claims are drawn to the amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase-containing second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor via at least one line leading out of the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor. The measurements in Table 1 are drawn to a reactor discharge that is sent to an oxidation vessel, then the oxidation vessel discharge is sent to a phase separator to separate a top organic phase and a bottom aqueous phase, then the aqueous phase discharged from the bottom of the phase separator is used to quantify the amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase results shown in Table 1. Therefore, the claim amendments do not reflect the amount of the organic phase in the aqueous phase second stream 12 discharged from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor 1, where “[t]he density of the stream withdrawn via the line leading out of the bottom of the reactor 12 is measured by means of Coriolis mass flow meter and used for control 7”, see instant specification, Pg. 13, Ln. 35-Pg. 14, Ln. 13 and Fig. 1.
The only specific support regarding the amount of organic phase withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor in the instant specification appears to be found on Pg. 4, Ln. 34-Pg. 5, Ln. 15, stating the “amount of organic phase withdrawn at the bottom of the reactor is insignificant in comparison to the overall organic outlet of the reactor”, and on Pg. 11, Lns. 8-12, stating “[t]he second stream, withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor, can contain, besides the aqueous phase, significant amounts of partially reacted organic phase. Preferably, the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor contains 10 to 80 % by volume of aqueous phase”. Applying the above concentration range, as calculated by the examiner, the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor may contain 20 vol% to 90 vol% organic phase.
Due to the lack of adequate support in the instant specification for the amendment to claim 16 and new claim 32 regarding the amount of the organic phase in the second stream aqueous phase withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor, applicant’s above arguments are not persuasive. See also the 35 USC 112(a) new matter rejection below.
In response to applications argument on page 6 of the remarks filed on 03 June 2026 that “Papp discloses only the measurement of the temperature, and says nothing about measuring the density”. See pages 5-6 of the POA detailing “Papp ‘702 also teaches the temperature measurement is related to the density of the phases and other control variables can be captured for input into the control process, see Paras. [0021]-[0022], such as the mass flow of the cobalt(II) aqueous salt solution is the same as the “mass flow” of the organic output from a reactor, see Para. [0043], suggesting another parameter for measurement besides temperature is density. Therefore, applicant’s above argument regarding Papp ‘702 saying nothing relating to measuring the density is not persuasive.”
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and MPEP 2145. “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)”, see MPEP 2141.01(a).
In this case, as stated on pages 15-16 of the POA, Henry is applied to teach “systems and methods for determining concentrations of components of a multiphase fluid by using mass flow, density, and temperature measurements throughout the system, see Abstract; Paras. [0007];[0014]-[0016];[0046]; Figs. 1-3.”
As stated on pages 17-18 of the POA, “[t]he rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and both Papp ‘702 and Henry teach measuring parameters in the pipes/lines of reaction processes to determine the concentration of the mixed fluids therein, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Papp ‘702 by relying upon Henry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the process line concentration measurement art regarding the concentration of the mixed fluids therein by measuring the density of the fluid within the pipes/lines, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3 and MPEP 2141.”
For the reasons indicated above, applicant’s above argument is not persuasive.
In response to applications arguments on pages 6-8 of the remarks filed on 03 June 2026 that “the particular control of flow parameters based on density are not disclosed or suggested in the art sufficient to form prima facie obviousness, and further that they reflect the unexpected results presented in Table 1 of the as-filed specification”, and “low amounts of organic phase in the second stream” leads to “a surprising effect not disclosed or suggested by the relied upon references”. As stated above, the results of Table 1 are not currently claimed and are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The results of Table 1 do not correspond with the instant claim 16 amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase-containing second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor. The results of Table 1 correspond to the amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase discharged from the bottom of the phase separator.
“To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range” In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 716.02(d). As stated above, the instant specification does not provide support for the claimed amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase-containing second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor. As a result, Applicant’s have not provided a proper comparison to the closest prior art and have not established test points inside and outside the claimed range of the amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase-containing second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor to support the argument of surprising and unexpected results, see MPEP 716.02(e).
For the reasons indicated above, applicant’s above arguments are not persuasive.
Double Patenting Rejections
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the remarks filed on 03 June 2026 that the non-statutory double patenting rejections over Papp ‘069 in view of Henry, Min, and Grenacher should be withdrawn because the references do not teach the amended claim 16 “low amounts of organic phase in the second stream”. As stated above, the instant specification lacks adequate support for the amendment to claim 16 and new claim 32 regarding the amount of the organic phase in the second stream aqueous phase withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor; therefore, applicant’s above argument is not persuasive. The non-statutory double patenting rejections are maintained; however, due to the amendment to claim 1, the cancellation of claim 23, and the addition of new claim 32, additional modified ground(s) of rejection is/are provided below.
In the Spirit of Compact Prosecution
Throughout prosecution the examiner has attempted to identify all objections and clarity issues amongst the claims, applicant is advised that some objections and clarity issues may still remain. Going forward, the examiner respectfully requests applicant to perform a detailed review of the claims regarding clarity, grammar, antecedent basis, word spacing, and spelling issues.
New, Maintained, and Modified Rejections Based on Amendments to the Claims in the reply filed on 03 June 2026
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16, 18-22, and 24-32 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16, line 9 is currently amended to recite “wherein the second stream contains from 10 to 20 vol% organic phase”. This claim amendment appears to detail new matter.
New claim 32, lines 1-2 intended to depend from claim 16 recite “wherein the second stream contains from 10 to 17 vol% organic phase”. This new claim appears to detail new matter.
Claim 16, lines 3-6 recite “a hydroformylation products-containing first stream is withdrawn at the top of the reactor and an aqueous phase-containing second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor via at least one line leading out of the bottom of the reactor”. Instant specification Example 2, Pg, 20, Ln. 14-Pg. 22, Table 1, states the “reactor discharge is fed to a lower pressure vessel and air is added to oxidise and inactivate the catalyst and to remove it from the organic phase to the water phase. The discharge of that oxidation vessel is fed to a phase separator”, where in “the phase separator, the water phase settled to the bottom and was discharged”, a “Coriolis mass flow meter measuring and reporting mass flow, temperature and density of the discharged stream was installed in the pipe used to discharge the water from the phase separator”, and the “amounts of organic and aqueous phases were determined by collecting the stream discharged at the bottom of the phase separator and measuring the volume of the individual phases after a settling period long enough to obtain two well separate and clear phases. Table 1 shows the results of this experiment. FIGS. 2, 3, and 4 show measured density and density set point, the share of the organic phase in the discharged mixture and the temperature of the discharged mixture, respectively, from Table 1”.
The instant claims are drawn to the amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase-containing second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor via at least one line leading out of the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor. The measurements in Table 1 are drawn to a reactor discharge that is sent to an oxidation vessel, then the oxidation vessel discharge is sent to a phase separator to separate a top organic phase and a bottom aqueous phase, then the aqueous phase discharged from the bottom of the phase separator is used to quantify the amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase results shown in Table 1. Therefore, the claim amendments do not reflect the amount of the organic phase in the aqueous phase second stream 12 discharged from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor 1, where “[t]he density of the stream withdrawn via the line leading out of the bottom of the reactor 12 is measured by means of Coriolis mass flow meter and used for control 7”, see instant specification, Pg. 13, Ln. 35-Pg. 14, Ln. 13 and Fig. 1.
The only specific support regarding the amount of organic phase withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor in the instant specification appears to be found on Pg. 4, Ln. 34-Pg. 5, Ln. 15, stating the “amount of organic phase withdrawn at the bottom of the reactor is insignificant in comparison to the overall organic outlet of the reactor”, and on Pg. 11, Lns. 8-12, stating “[t]he second stream, withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor, can contain, besides the aqueous phase, significant amounts of partially reacted organic phase. Preferably, the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor contains 10 to 80 % by volume of aqueous phase”. Applying the above concentration range, as calculated by the examiner, the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor may contain 20 vol% to 90 vol% organic phase.
Therefore, as per MPEP 2163.06, the claim 16 limitations drawn to the amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase-containing second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor via at least one line leading out of the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor is herein interpreted to include a range of wherein the second stream contains 20 vol% organic phase. Also, as per MPEP 2163.06, the claim 32 limitations drawn to the amount of organic phase in the aqueous phase-containing second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor via at least one line leading out of the bottom of the hydroformylation reactor is herein interpreted to include the as claimed range of from 10 to 17 vol% organic phase.
Claims 18-22 and 24-31 depend from base claim 16 and are included in this rejection as they do not correct the informalities identified in base claim 16.
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.
Claim 26 stands rejected and Claim 32 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites in line 4 “the second stream”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 depends from claim 25, Claim 25 states “an aqueous phase-containing second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the post- reactor”. Claim 25 depends from claim 24. Claim 24 states “the second stream”. Claim 24 depends from claim 16. Claim 16 states “an aqueous phase-containing second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor”. It is unclear as to which second stream claim 26 refers, the claim 16 bottom of the reactor stream or the claim 25 bottom of the post-reactor stream. The claim 26 recitation of “the second stream” in line 4 is interpreted as “the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the post-reactor”.
Claim 32 depends from cancelled claim 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim because the claim depends from a cancelled claim. Claim 32 is interpreted to depend from claim 16.
For clarity between the new, modified, and maintained rejections, the specific new and modified rejections below are in italics.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 18-22, 24-27, and 29-31 stand rejected in modified form under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papp et al. (US20150141702, published 21 May 2015, hereinafter Papp ‘702) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012).
Papp ‘702 is in the known prior art field of hydroformylation of olefins having 6 to 20 carbon atoms in the presence of a cobalt catalyst in the presence of an aqueous phase with thorough mixing in a reactor, see Abstract, where the reaction is carried out in a controlled manner in order to increase the yield of the crude hydroformylation product as a result of stable sustained operation by controlling the computer-based process or manual process of the withdrawal of the aqueous phase from the bottom space of the reactor in order to maintain the desired concentration of catalyst in the reaction zone, see Paras. [0006]-[0007];[0013]-[0017];[0021]; Fig. 1.
Regarding instant application claim 16, Papp ‘702 teaches “a continuous process for hydroformylation of olefins having 6 to 20 carbon atoms in the presence of a cobalt catalyst in the presence of an aqueous phase with thorough mixing in a reactor wherein a hydroformylation products-containing first stream is withdrawn at the top of the reactor and an aqueous phase-containing second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor, which process comprises controlling the flow rate of the second stream in accordance with a temperature which is measured at a point in the bottom of the reactor or in a line leading out of the bottom of the reactor”, see Para. [0016], Claim 1; Fig. 1 and Paras. [0047]-[0052], meeting:
The hydroformylation of C6-C20 olefins, cobalt catalyst, aqueous phase, mixing, reactor, top first stream, bottom second stream, and controlling a flow parameter of the second stream in instant application claim 16; and,
Measuring a flow parameter of the second stream at a point in the line leading out of the bottom of the reactor in instant application claim 16.
Papp ‘702 teaches the temperature measurement is a control variable related to the density of the phases and other control variables can be captured for input into the control process, see Paras. [0021]-[0022], such as the mass flow of the cobalt(II) aqueous salt solution is the same as the “mass flow” of the organic output from a reactor, see Para. [0043], suggesting another control variable/parameter for measurement besides temperature is density.
Regarding the limitations of currently amended instant application claim 16, Papp ‘702 teaches the “second stream, withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor, can contain, besides aqueous phase, significant amounts of partially reacted organic phase. Preferably, the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor contains 10 to 80% by volume of aqueous phase”, see Para. [0038], as calculated by the examiner, the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor may contain 20 vol% to 90 vol% organic phase, meeting within the range of the organic phase in the second aqueous stream in instant application claim 16.
Regarding instant application claim 19, Papp ‘702 teaches controlling the flow rate of the second stream in accordance with one or more control variables/parameters, such as variables associated with temperature, by measuring one or more control variables/parameters in the line leading out of the bottom of the reactor for input into a control process for the flow rate of the second stream, where the influence of the change in a correcting variable/reference/threshold value on one or more control variables can be stored as a mathematical model or algorithm and are used to determine the correcting interventions/actuating signals for regulating the quantity of the control variable, see Paras. [0021];[0024]-[0026], meeting the controlling variables, reference values, controlling quantities, actuating signals, and controlling the flow parameters in instant application claim 19.
Regarding instant application claims 21 and 22, Papp ‘702 teaches the second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor by passing it out of the bottom of the reactor through a controllable apparatus, where the controllable apparatus is preferably a valve, the valve is opened as soon as the first threshold value is exceeded, and the valve is closed as soon as the control variables/parameters, such as variables associated with temperature, fall below the second threshold value, and the control unit calculates the control variable difference as compared to the threshold values and transmits a signal to the valve to open/increased mass flow or close/decreased mass flow dependent on the difference, see Paras. [0021];[0024]-[0026]. The second stream is the aqueous phase with a higher specific density, see Paras. [0016];[0022], which will inherently have a mass as it flows, see MPEP 2112, meeting the controlling the flow parameters based on a measured value compared with a predefined reference and increasing or decreasing the mass flow of the second stream based on the control variable difference as compared to the threshold values in instant application claim 21 and in instant application claim 22.
Regarding instant application claims 24 and 25, Papp ‘702 teaches “the first stream and the second stream are passed into a post-reactor”, where “a hydroformylation products-containing first stream is withdrawn at the top of the post-reactor and an aqueous phase-containing second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the post-reactor”, see claims 5 and 6; Paras. [0039];[0041], meeting the post reactor second top stream and second bottom stream in instant application claim 24 and in instant application claim 25.
Regarding instant application claim 26, Papp ‘702 teaches wherein the flow rate of the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the post-reactor is controlled in accordance with control variables/parameters, such as variables associated with temperature, measured in a line leading out of the bottom of the post-reactor, see Claim 7; Paras. [0021];[0024]-[0026];[0041]. The second stream is the aqueous phase with a higher specific density, see Paras. [0016];[0022];[0041], which will inherently have a mass as it flows, see MPEP 2112, meeting the parameter in line measurement of the second aqueous stream from the bottom of the post reactor in instant application claim 26.
Regarding instant application claim 27, Papp ‘702 teaches “wherein the first stream and second stream, withdrawn from the reactor or post-reactor, are subjected in the presence of aqueous cobalt(II) salt solution to oxygen treatment wherein the cobalt catalyst decomposes to form cobalt(II) salts which are extracted into the aqueous phase and the phases are then separated”, see Claim 10; Para. [0043], meeting the streams, cobalt treatment, and separation in instant application claim 27.
Regarding instant application claims 29-31, Papp ‘702 teaches the temperature in the reactor and post-reactor are generally 100 to 250° C., the prevailing pressure in the reactor and post-reactor are preferably in the region from 100 to 400 bar, see Paras. [0028];[0040], and the reactors are generally customary reactors for gas-liquid reactions such as e.g. tubular reactors, stirred tanks, gas circulation reactors, bubble columns, loop reactors etc., see Para. [0027], meeting:
Within the temperature range in instant application claim 29;
Within the pressure range in instant application claim 30; and,
The specific reactor type in instant application claim 31.
Papp ‘702 does not specifically teach:
The instant application claim 16 limitations of measuring the mass flow parameter in accordance with density;
The controlled variable is density in instant application claims 19, 21, 22, and 26;
and,
The limitations of instant application claims 18 and 20.
As stated above, Papp ‘702 teaches the temperature measurement is a control variable related to the density of the phases and other control variables can be captured for input into the control process, see Paras. [0021]-[0022], such as the mass flow of the cobalt(II) aqueous salt solution is the same as the “mass flow” of the organic output from a reactor, see Para. [0043]. The second stream is the aqueous phase with a higher specific density, see Paras. [0016];[0022];[0041], which will inherently have a mass as it flows, see MPEP 2112. Papp ‘702 suggests another control variable/parameter for measurement besides temperature is density.
Henry is in the known prior art field of systems and methods for determining concentrations of components of a multiphase fluid by using mass flow, density, and temperature measurements throughout the system, see Abstract; Paras. [0007];[0014]-[0016];[0046]; Figs. 1-3.
Regarding instant application claims 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26, Henry teaches flowmeters for measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of reaction processes, such as an alkylation process reaction of isobutane and C4 olefins to form octane or “alkylate”, in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3. The system measures density, mass flowrate, temperature, and other parameters as compared to reference examples to control the concentration of the individual fluids in the lines by opening or closing the desired valve configuration enabling a rapid, dynamic response to changes in the proportion of the individual fluids in the pipes/lines from both top and bottom streams, see Paras. [0006]-[0007];[0014]-[0016];[0020]-[0024];[0038];[0046]; Figs. 1-3, meeting:
Measuring the mass flow parameter in accordance with density in a bottom stream and the controlled variable is density in instant application claim 16, in instant application claim 18, in instant application claim 19, in instant application claim 21, in instant application claim 22, and in instant application claim 26.
Regarding instant application claim 20, Henry teaches the flowmeters can be a Coriolis flowmeter using a bent tube or a Coriolis flowmeter using a straight flowtube, see Para. [0016], meeting the specific flow meter in instant application claim 20.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the measurement of Papp ‘702 to capture mass flow parameters related to density for input into the control process as taught by Henry with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and both Papp ‘702 and Henry teach measuring parameters in the pipes/lines of reaction processes to determine the concentration of the mixed fluids therein, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Papp ‘702 by relying upon Henry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the process line concentration measurement art regarding the concentration of the mixed fluids therein by measuring the density of the fluid within the pipes/lines, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3 and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges”, such as the amount of organic phase in the bottom aqueous phase, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means,” such as measuring mass flow density instead of temperature, “is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 28 stands rejected in modified form under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papp et al. (US20150141702, published 21 May 2015, hereinafter Papp ‘702) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012), as applied in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 16, 18-22, 24-27, and 29-31 above, in further view of Min et al. (CN102323748, published 18 January 2012, see machine translation, hereinafter Min).
Papp ‘702 does not teach the limitations of instant application claim 28.
Regarding instant application claim 28, Henry teaches a phase separator 114 connected to bottom stream flow meter 1 aka 108 which controls water, see Fig. 1; Paras. [0025]-[0028];[0036]-[0037], by opening or closing the desired valve configuration enabling a rapid, dynamic response to changes in the proportion of the individual fluids, such as water, in the pipes/lines from the bottom stream, see Paras. [0006]-[0007]; Figs. 1-3, meeting the dynamic control of water in phase separation in instant application claim 28.
Min is in the known prior art field of a direct mass flow balancing mechanism to realize the dynamic decoupling of a water supply regulating loop, see Abstract; Para. [0017].
Regarding instant application claim 28, Min teaches dynamic decoupling controls the water content in the reactor, see Abstract and Paras. [0017]-[0018];[0030];[0053], meeting the dynamic decoupling of a water content in instant application claim 28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the computer-based process control apparatus of Papp ‘702 with the dynamic decoupling controlling apparatus process as taught by Henry and Min with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the water, and continuously, automatically, and efficiently controlling the water content in the system to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3; Min, Paras. [0037];[0053].
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Papp ‘702, Henry, and Min all teach measuring parameters in the pipes/lines of reaction processes to determine the concentration of the mixed fluids therein, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Papp ‘702 by relying upon Henry and Min before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the process line concentration measurement art regarding the concentration of the mixed fluids therein by measuring the density of the fluid within the pipes/lines, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the water, and continuously, automatically, and efficiently controlling the water content in the system to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3; Min, Paras. [0037];[0053] and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means,” such as measuring mass flow density instead of temperature, “is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 16 is newly rejected and claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenacher et al. (US6723884, patented 20 April 2004, hereinafter Grenacher) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012).
Grenacher is in the known prior art field of “[o]lefins having from 6 to 20 carbon atoms are hydroformylated by means of a continuous process in which a) an aqueous cobalt(II) salt solution is brought into intimate contact with hydrogen and carbon monoxide to form a hydroformylation-active cobalt catalyst”, see Abstract; Col. 7, Ln. 19-Col. 8, Ln. 13; Fig. 1, where the reactor has a top and a bottom steam and the phase ratio of organic phase to aqueous phase taken from the bottom of the reactor is measured in line and “maintained by means of the phase regulator 6”, see Col. 7, Lns. 26-58; Fig. 1.
Regarding the limitations of currently amended instant application claim 16 and new claim 32, Grenacher teaches “a continuous process for the hydroformylation of olefins having from 6 to 20 carbon atoms, in which
a) an aqueous cobalt(II) salt solution is brought into intimate contact with hydrogen and carbon monoxide to form a hydroformylation-active cobalt catalyst, (hereinafter also referred to as simply “cobalt catalyst”) and the aqueous phase comprising the cobalt catalyst is brought into intimate contact with the olefins and, if desired, an organic solvent and also hydrogen and carbon monoxide in at least one reaction zone where the cobalt catalyst is extracted into the organic phase and the olefins are hydroformylated”, see Abstract, Col. 3, Lns. 13-35; Fig. 1, where the reactor is an “upright high-pressure reactor 1 equipped with facilities for intensive mixing of the reactants and for removing the heat of reaction”, see Fig. 1; Col. 7, Ln. 19-Col. 8, Ln. 13, meeting the hydroformylation process of olefins having within the range of carbon in the presence of an aqueous cobalt catalyst with through mixing in a reactor in instant application claim 16;
“The reaction product taken off at the top goes via line 7 to the after-reactor 8 which is likewise equipped with facilities for removing heat. … At the bottom of reactor 1, a part of the reactor contents is taken off via line 5 … This stream taken off at the bottom comprises, depending on the olefin used and on the concentration of the cobalt formate solution, from 10 to 80% of aqueous phase, with the remainder being organic phase. A particular phase ratio (e.g. 50:50) is maintained by means of the phase regulator 6”, see Fig. 1; Col. 7, Lns. 19-58, meeting a hydroformylation product first stream withdrawn from the top of the reactor and an aqueous phase second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor via a bottom line leading out of the reactor while measuring and controlling the phase ratio of the organic phase to the aqueous phase in the line leading out of the bottom of the reactor in instant application claim 16; and,
“At the bottom of reactor 1, a part of the reactor contents is taken off via line 5 and combined with the feed stream to the after-reactor 8”, see Col. 7, Lns. 19-37; Fig. 1, where the “stream taken off at the bottom of the hydroformylation zone comprises not only aqueous phase but also significant amounts of partially reacted organic phase”, and the “takeoff of reaction product from the bottom zone is preferably phase-regulated. The amount taken off at the bottom is, depending on the cobalt concentration of the aqueous cobalt(II) salt solution and the chain length of the olefin to be hydroformylated, generally from about 10 to 40% by weight, based on the olefin used, see Col. 5, Ln. 65-Col. 6, Ln. 34; Fig. 1, i.e., about 10 to 40% by weight organic phase within the aqueous phase is removed from the bottom of the reactor, meeting:
Within the range of the organic phase in the aqueous phase second stream in instant application claim 16 and in instant application claim 32.
Grenacher does not teach:
The instant application claim 16 limitations of controlling one or more mass flow parameter in accordance with density of the second stream, wherein the density of the second stream is measured in the line leading out of the bottom of the reactor.
Henry is in the known prior art field of systems and methods for determining concentrations of components of a multiphase fluid by using mass flow, density, and temperature measurements throughout the system, see Abstract; Paras. [0007];[0014]-[0016];[0046]; Figs. 1-3.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 16, Henry teaches flowmeters for measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of reaction processes, such as an alkylation process reaction of isobutane and C4 olefins to form octane or “alkylate”, in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3. The system measures density, mass flowrate, temperature, and other parameters as compared to reference examples to control the concentration of the individual fluids in the lines by opening or closing the desired valve configuration enabling a rapid, dynamic response to changes in the proportion of the individual fluids in the pipes/lines from both top and bottom streams, see Paras. [0006]-[0007];[0014]-[0016];[0020]-[0024];[0038];[0046]; Figs. 1-3, meeting:
Measuring the mass flow parameter in accordance with density in a bottom stream and the controlled variable is density in instant application claim 16.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the phase regulating measurement of Grenacher to capture mass flow parameters related to density for input into the control process as taught by Henry with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3.
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the phase regulating measurement of Grenacher by applying the known technique of capturing mass flow parameters related to density for input into the control process as taught by Henry with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Grenacher and Henry both teach measuring parameters in the pipes/lines of reaction processes to determine the concentration of the mixed fluids therein, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Grenacher by relying upon Henry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the process line concentration measurement art regarding the concentration of the mixed fluids therein by measuring the density of the fluid within the pipes/lines, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3 and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges”, such as the amount of organic phase in the bottom aqueous phase, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means,” such as measuring the mass flow density by a phase regulator, “is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929), see MPEP 2144.05.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16, 18-22, and 24-27 stand rejected in modified form on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,115,069 B2 to Papp et al. (hereinafter Papp ‘069, published 25 August 2015) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012).
Regarding instant application claim 16, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite a process for hydroformylation of olefins having 6 to 20 carbon atoms in the presence of a cobalt catalyst in the presence of an aqueous phase with thorough mixing in a reactor wherein a hydroformylation products-containing first stream is withdrawn at the top of the reactor and an aqueous phase-containing second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor via at least one line leading out of the bottom of the reactor, which process comprises controlling one or more flow parameters of the second stream, wherein the second stream is measured in the line leading out of the bottom of the reactor (Claim 1), wherein the second stream contains from 10 to 20 vol% organic phase (Claim 13, As per MPEP 804 II.B.1., the portion of the specification that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of the claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of the claim, see Papp ‘069, Col. 6, Lns. 31-38 stating “[t]he second stream, withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor, can contain, besides aqueous phase, significant amounts of partially reacted organic phase. Preferably, the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor contains 10 to 80% by volume of aqueous phase”, as calculated by the examiner, the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the reactor may contain 20 vol% to 90 vol% organic phase).
Regarding instant application claim 18, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite wherein one or more flow parameters are the flow, the flow rate or any other parameter determined on the basis of the flow and/or the flow rate (Claims 1-3 & 7, flow rate).
Regarding instant application claim 19, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite comprising measuring the second stream to determine one or more controlled variables on basis of the measured, comparing the one or more controlled variables with one or more reference values to determine one or more controlling quantities and using the one or more controlling quantities to determine one or more actuating signals to control the one or more flow parameters of the second stream (claims 1-3, reference variable is the mixing temperature, controlled variable is the bottom or in line temperature).
Regarding instant application claim 21, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite wherein the measured second stream is compared with a predefined reference value for the second stream and the flow and/or the flow rate of the second is increased if the measured second stream is above the predefined reference value for the second stream (claims 1-3, reference variable is the mixing temperature, controlled variable is the bottom or in line temperature).
Regarding instant application claim 22, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite wherein the measured second stream is compared with a predefined reference value for the second stream (claims 1-3, reference variable is the mixing temperature, controlled variable is the bottom or in line temperature).
Regarding instant application claim 24, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite wherein the first stream and the second stream are passed into a post-reactor (Claim 5).
Regarding instant application claim 25, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite wherein a hydroformylation products containing first stream is withdrawn at the top of the post-reactor and an aqueous phase-containing second stream is withdrawn from the bottom of the post-reactor (Claim 6).
Regarding instant application claim 26, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite wherein the one or more flow parameters of the second stream withdrawn from the bottom of the post-reactor via at least one line leading out of the bottom of the post-reactor is controlled in accordance with the second stream (Claim 7).
Regarding instant application claim 27, the claims of Papp ‘069 recite wherein the first stream and second stream, withdrawn from the reactor or in case a post-reactor is in place withdrawn from the post-reactor, are subjected in the presence of aqueous cobalt(II) salt solution to oxygen treatment wherein the cobalt catalyst decomposes to form cobalt(II) salts which are extracted into the aqueous phase and the phases are then separated (Claim 10).
The claims of Papp ‘069 do not recite:
The instant application claim 16 limitations of measuring the mass flow parameter in accordance with density;
The controlled variable is density in instant application claims 19, 21, 22, and 26;
and,
The limitations of instant application claims 18 and 20.
Henry is in the known prior art field of systems and methods for determining concentrations of components of a multiphase fluid by using mass flow, density, and temperature measurements throughout the system, see Abstract; Paras. [0007];[0014]-[0016];[0046]; Figs. 1-3.
Regarding instant application claims 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26, Henry teaches flowmeters for measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of reaction processes, such as an alkylation process reaction of isobutane and C4 olefins to form octane or “alkylate”, in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3. The system measures density, mass flowrate, temperature, and other parameters as compared to reference examples to control the concentration of the individual fluids in the lines by opening or closing the desired valve configuration enabling a rapid, dynamic response to changes in the proportion of the individual fluids in the pipes/lines from both top and bottom streams, see Paras. [0006]-[0007];[0014]-[0016];[0020]-[0024];[0039];[0046]; Figs. 1-3, meeting:
Measuring the mass flow parameter in accordance with density in a bottom stream and the controlled variable is density in instant application claim 16, in instant application claim 18, in instant application claim 19, in instant application claim 21, in instant application claim 22, and in instant application claim 26.
Regarding instant application claim 20, Henry teaches the flowmeters can be a Coriolis flowmeter using a bent tube or a Coriolis flowmeter using a straight flowtube, see Para. [0016], meeting the specific flow meter in instant application claim 20.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the measurement of the claims of Papp ‘069 to captured mass flow parameters related to density for input into the control process as taught by Henry with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and both the claims Papp ‘069 and Henry teach measuring parameters in the pipes/lines of reaction processes to determine the concentration of the mixed fluids therein, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify the claims of Papp ‘069 by relying upon Henry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the process line concentration measurement art regarding the concentration of the mixed fluids therein by measuring the density of the fluid within the pipes/lines, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently measuring mass flow and density of the fluids within the pipes/lines of the reaction processes in order to control the process by knowing the concentration of the components of the mixture, such as the catalyst and the water, to increase efficiency of the process and decrease corrosiveness of the catalyst, Henry, see Paras. [0003]-[0005];[0014]-[0016]; Figs. 1-3 and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means,” such as measuring mass flow density instead of temperature, “is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 28 stands rejected in modified form on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,115,069 B2 to Papp et al. (hereinafter Papp ‘069) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012), as applied in the claims 16, 18-22, and 24-27 nonstatutory double patenting above, in further view of Min et al. (CN102323748, published 18 January 2012, see machine translation, hereinafter Min).
Regarding instant application claim 28, the claims of Papp ‘069 do not recite wherein the water content in the reactor, in case a post-reactor is used in the post-reactor and in the phase separation is controlled by means of dynamic decoupling.
Min teaches dynamic decoupling controls the water content in the reactor, see Abstract; Paras. [0017]-[0018];[0030];[0053], meeting the limitations in instant application 28.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claims of Papp ‘069 with the dynamic decoupling controlling apparatus of Min with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of continuously, automatically, and efficiently controlling the water content in the system, see Min, Paras. [0037];[0053].
By applying “routine optimization” and “predictable results” to select the optimal controlling apparatus, as taught by Min, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications because Min provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to efficiently control the water content in a system by pursuing the known options within their technical grasp, such as the use of computerized dynamic decoupling control, for the benefit of continuously, automatically, and efficiently controlling the water content in the system, see Min, Paras. [0037];[0053] and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Claims 29-31 stand rejected in modified form and claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,115,069 B2 to Papp et al. (hereinafter Papp ‘069) in view of Henry (US20120137754, published 07 June 2012), as applied in the claims 16, 18-22, and 24-27 nonstatutory double patenting above, in further view of Grenacher et al. (US6723884, patented 20 April 2004, hereinafter Grenacher).
Regarding instant application claim 29, the claims of Papp ‘069 do not recite wherein the temperature in the reactor is from 100 to 250 0C and in case a post-reactor is used, the temperature in the post-reactor is from 100 to 250 0C.
Grenacher teaches wherein the temperature in the reactor is from 100 to 250 0C, see Col. 5, Lns. 61-64, and in case a post-reactor is used, the temperature in the post-reactor is from 100 to 250 0C, Col. 5, Lns. 61-64; Col. 9, Lns. 32-35, meeting and within the ranges in instant application claim 29.
Regarding instant application claim 30, the claims of Papp ‘069 do not recite wherein the prevailing pressure in the reactor is from 100 to 400 bar abs and in case a post-reactor is used, the prevailing pressure in the post-reactor from 100 to 400 bar abs.
Grenacher teaches wherein the prevailing pressure in the reactor is from 100 to 400 bar abs, see Col. 5, Lns. 61-64, and in case a post-reactor is used, the prevailing pressure in the post-reactor from 100 to 400 bar abs, see Col. 5, Lns. 61-64; Col. 9, Lns. 32-35, meeting and within the ranges in instant application claim 30.
Regarding instant application claim 31, the claims of Papp ‘069 do not recite wherein the reactor is a gas-liquid reactor.
Grenacher teaches wherein the reactor is a gas-liquid reactor, see Col. 4, Lns. 57-60, meeting the specific reactor in instant application claim 31.
Regarding instant application claim 32, the claims of Papp ‘069 do not recite wherein the second stream contains from 10 to 17 vol% organic phase.
Regarding instant application claim 32, Grenacher teaches “[a]t the bottom of reactor 1, a part of the reactor contents is taken off via line 5 and combined with the feed stream to the after-reactor 8”, see Col. 7, Lns. 19-37; Fig. 1, where the “stream taken off at the bottom of the hydroformylation zone comprises not only aqueous phase but also significant amounts of partially reacted organic phase”, and the “takeoff of reaction product from the bottom zone is preferably phase-regulated. The amount taken off at the bottom is, depending on the cobalt concentration of the aqueous cobalt(II) salt solution and the chain length of the olefin to be hydroformylated, generally from about 10 to 40% by weight, based on the olefin used, see Col. 5, Ln. 65-Col. 6, Ln. 34; Fig. 1, i.e., about 10 to 40% by weight organic phase in the aqueous phase removed from the bottom of the reactor, meeting within the range of the organic phase in the aqueous phase second stream in instant application claim 32.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claims of Papp ‘069 with the temperature, pressure, reactor, and concentration teaching of Grenacher with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of performing a hydroformylation reaction to produce products at high yield, see Grenacher, Col. 2, Lns. 53-58 and Col. 6, Lns. 19-34.
By applying “routine optimization” and “predictable results” to select the optimal temperature and pressure, as taught by Grenacher, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications because Grenacher provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to efficiently produce a hydroformylation product by pursuing the known options within their technical grasp for the benefit of performing a hydroformylation reaction to produce products at high yield, see Grenacher, Col. 2, Lns. 53-58 and Col. 6, Lns. 19-34 and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571) 270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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 Yen-Ye 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights