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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24-30 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 29 September 2025.
Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, abstract, and drawings filed 2 March 2026 have been entered and considered for this action. The prior objections to the abstract and drawings are withdrawn. The prior rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim Objection
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The first comma in line 11 of claim 16 should be deleted: “… hydrochloric acid[[,]] is formed in a low pressure desorption device…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
As previously set forth, the claims recite the term “desorption device”. This term is interpreted as any apparatus that is used to cause the release of a volatile substance, in particular a gas, from another substance. Accordingly, apparatuses in the prior art may use different terms, such as a distillation device, distillation tower and the like, but if the apparatus is used to separate a gas from a liquid it is considered to be a “desorption device.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 2 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 16, 18, and 19 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejection has been withdrawn.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Hyodo with Taylor have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, it is persuasive that it would not have been obvious to process an aqueous solution using a low pressure desorption device designed for an organic reaction mixture. Therefore, the prior rejections are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Onoda et al. (JP H0986901 A). Because these new grounds of rejection were not necessitate by amendment, this action is NOT made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onoda et al. (JP H0986901 A). The provided English machine translation of Onoda (JP H0986901 A) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Onoda discloses a method for producing hydrogen chloride (anhydrous hydrochloric acid; [0001]) comprising:
feeding a pressurized highly concentrated hydrochloric acid having a hydrogen chloride concentration of 35% by weight into a high pressure desorption device (35 wt% hydrochloric acid at 50°C was obtained from the top of the column and supplied to the top of the second distillation column; [0021]);
operating the high pressure desorption device at a pressure Pdes of 3.9 bar and at a temperature T of 140 °C in the bottom of the high pressure desorption device (a distillation temperature of 140°C at the bottom of the column and a pressure of 4 kg/cm²·G; [0022]), and desorbing the hydrogen chloride in the high pressure desorption device (vapor from the top of the second distillation column 22, which was distilled, was partially condensed in a water-cooled condenser 6 and a brine condenser 7 to obtain dried hydrochloric acid gas; [0022]),
wherein at least part of the highly concentrated hydrochloric acid is formed in an absorption device in which a hydrogen chloride containing gas is absorbed into a less concentrated hydrochloric acid, wherein at least part of the hydrogen chloride containing gas that is absorbed into the less concentrated hydrochloric acid, is formed in a low pressure desorption device (a portion of the raw hydrochloric acid 23 may be sent to the water-cooled condenser 26 via the pipe 18 and used for the condensation and absorption of hydrogen chloride gas [generated in the low pressure desorption device (first distillation column)]; [0017]), and
wherein at least a part of the liquid obtained in the bottom of the high pressure desorption device is recycled into a low pressure desorption device (From the bottom of the second distillation column 22, 27.5% by weight hydrochloric acid, at a concentration higher than the azeotropic composition corresponding to the distillation pressure, was taken out and refluxed [sic] to the first distillation column via tube 27; [0022]).
For further clarity, Figure 1 of Onoda is copied below. This figure shows a low-pressure desorption device (first distillation column 21) supplying an absorption device (condenser 26) that supplies a high pressure desorption device (second distillation column 22), where the column bottoms of the high pressure desorption device are recycled back to the low pressure desorption device (via line 27). This arrangement, coupled with the temperature and pressure conditions disclosed in [0022], satisfies the limitations of claim 16.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Onoda.
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (JP H0986901 A). The provided English machine translation of Onoda (JP H0986901 A) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 17, Onoda discloses the method of claim 16, and further teaches that the concentration of hydrochloric acid supplied to the high pressure desorption device (second distillation column) should be as high as possible to reduce the load on the next distillation process, and specifically can be in the range of 30 to 42% by weight ([0016]), which overlaps the with instantly claimed range of between 40 wt-% and 60 wt-%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maximize the concentration of the highly concentrated hydrochloric acid, or to select the high end of the range taught by Onoda, or 42 wt%, thereby meeting the limitations of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the load on the high pressure desorption device, as taught by Onoda.
It is also noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of hydrogen chloride concentration merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values in the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Onoda discloses the method of claim 16, and further teaches that the pressure of the high pressure desorption device (second distillation column), Pdes, should be greater than 2 bar, and preferably in the range of 3.4 to 6.9 bar (the pressure is greater than 2 kg/cm²·G, preferably 3.5 to 7 kg/cm²·G; [0018]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of from 6 bar to 20 bar.
It is again noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, the claimed range of pressures merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values in the cited prior art.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoda et al. (JP H0986901 A), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hyodo (JP 2008230927 A). The provided English machine translation of Onoda (JP H0986901 A) and the previously provided translation of Hyodo are used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 21, Onoda discloses the method of claim 16, but is silent on the specific pressure in the absorption device.
However, Hyodo teaches a similar hydrogen chloride generating process where a highly concentrated stream of HCl (preferably greater than 35% by weight; [0034]) is fed to a high pressure desorption device (hydrogen chloride distillation tower 33 operating at 0.2 to 0.3 MPaG; [0035] and [0036]) to produce hydrogen chloride (high-purity HCl gas: purity approximately 100%, D9; [0036])). Hyodo further teaches the highly concentrated hydrochloric acid being formed in absorption device (absorption tower 31; [0032]) in which a hydrogen chloride containing gas (D1;[0032]) is absorbed into a less concentrated hydrochloric acid (the liquid medium supplied to the hydrogen chloride absorption tower 31 is preferably …dilute hydrochloric acid; [0033])) and Hyodo teaches that absorption device is operated at atmospheric pressure ([0032]) which is lower than the pressure of the desorption device of either Hyodo (0.2 to 0.3 MPaG; [0036]) or Onoda (4 kg/cm²·G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the absorption device of Onoda at 1 atm, as taught by Hyodo, which is less than the pressure Pdes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Hyodo teaches that such a pressure is effective in a largely similar method, and because increasing the pressure when not required introduces extra complexity and cost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights