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.
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 24 February 2026 have been entered and considered for this action. The prior claim objection is withdrawn, and the prior claim interpretations are rendered moot by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim should be amended to include the word “and” as follows:
“…wherein the diluted sulfuric acid comprises at least one nitroaromatic compound and at least one of the at least one nitroaromatic compound is mononitrotoluene and/or dinitrotoluene.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, pages 5-6 of the reply filed 24 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-17, 21-22, and 29 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 over Lailach in view of Henke et al. (DE 102007013983 B3), as analyzed below.
Applicant's arguments, pages 6-7, with respect to the incompatibility of Lailach’s teachings with the amended claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that Lailach teaches away from temperatures below 270 °C for addition of the oxidizing agent and operation of the last evaporation stage. While it is true that Lailach discusses the ineffectiveness of operating below 200 °C for the oxidative destruction of organic contaminants, Lailach does not comment on temperatures between 200 °C and 250 °C, and therefore is not considered as teaching away from any temperatures above 200 °C. Furthermore, based upon the disclosure of Henke, applicant’s assertion that it is surprising that temperatures in the range of 180 °C to 250 °C are sufficient to oxidize nitroaromatic compounds is not persuasive, as Henke uses temperatures in this range for cleaning waste sulfuric acid generated from the production of DNT (p. 6, ¶ 2 and Example 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 requires that the third evaporation stage is operated at a temperature in the range from 180 to 300 °C. However, claim 16, upon which claim 23 depends, requires the temperature to be in the range of 180°C to 250°C. It is therefore unclear if operating the third evaporation stage at a temperature in the range of 250°C to 300 °C meets the limitations of claim 23. Accordingly, the claim is rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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.
Claim 23 requires that the third evaporation stage is operated at a pressure in the range from 10 to 800 mbar (abs) and a temperature in the range from 180 to 300 °C. However, claim 16, upon which claim 23 depends, already requires the pressure to be in the range of 10 to 800 mbar (abs) and the temperature to be in the range of 180°C to 250°C, which is narrower than the range of claim 23. Claim 23 therefore does not further limit claim 16, and also does not include all the limitations of claim 16 because it allows for temperatures outside the range required by claim 16. Accordingly, the claim is rejected.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lailach et al. (CA 2,236,620 A1; foreign patent document 1 on the IDS filed 15 May 2023) in view of Henke et al. (DE 102007013983 B3). These rejections address embodiments of the claims in which optional step (b) is not carried out. The provided English machine translation of Henke (DE 102007013983 B3) is referenced below.
Regarding claim 16, Lailach teaches a process for concentrating sulphuric acid comprising:
feeding the diluted sulfuric acid into a first stage in which low boilers are removed by evaporation to obtain a first concentrated sulfuric acid (the concentration of the sulphuric acids is firstly raised by evaporative concentration; p. 5, lines 1-4); and,
feeding the first concentrated sulfuric acid into the third evaporation stage if step (b) is not carried out to obtain concentrated sulfuric acid as product (this is followed…by further evaporative concentration; p. 5, lines 5-6), wherein an oxidizing agent is fed into the third evaporation stage (mixed simultaneously or subsequently…with oxidizing agents; p. 6, line 25-26).
Lailach further teaches the pressure in the third evaporation stage being 100 mbar to 2000 mbar (abs), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 mbar to 800 mbar(abs), and the temperature being about 270 to 340°C (p. 5, line 8), which lies just above the instantly claimed range of 180 °C to 250 °C. Lailach further teaches that at temperature below 200°C oxidative destruction of organic contaminants is unfavorable (p. 1, line 33- p. 2, line 2), but is silent with respect to operating at temperatures between 200° and 270°C.
However, Henke teaches a similar process for simultaneously purifying (cleaning) sulfuric acid by treating with an oxidant and concentrating the sulfuric acid (the purification of waste sulfuric acid, in by treatment at high temperature and addition of oxidizing agent…. also used for cleaning and concurrent concentration of waste acid; p. 2 ¶ 1 and p. 7, ¶ 4). Henke further teaches that the temperature at which to operate this system is optimally between 190 °C and 260 °C (With sulfuric acids of different concentration in the range 60 wt .-% H2SO4 to 98 wt .-% H2SO4 and acid temperatures 190 ° C to 260 ° C optimum cleaning results were achieved; p. 6, ¶ 2).
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 invention of Lailach at temperatures in the range of 200°C to 260 °C, a range which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 180 °C to 250 °C. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Henke teaches that these temperature are optimal for destruction of organic contaminants in waste sulfuric acid. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the temperature in the process of Lailach to obtain the desired balance of energy use versus rate and extent of the oxidative degradation reaction, with higher temperatures resulting in faster and more complete oxidation, as suggested by Lailach, but requiring more energy input.
It is 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 temperature range merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Furthermore, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Lailach teaches the method of claim 16, as analyzed above, and further teaches that the oxidizing agent may be nitric acid (p. 6, line 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nitric acid as the oxidizing agent in the method of Lailach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lailach suggests that this oxidizing agent be used.
Regarding claim 22, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16, and the further limitation of this claim applies to an optional limitation of claim 16 only if carried out. Therefore, because modified Lailach as applied to claim 16 does not invoke optional limitation (b), modified Lailach teaches all the required limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16, where Lailach teaches that the third evaporation stage is operated at a pressure between 100 and 2000 mbar (0.1 bar to 2 bar) and Lailach as modified by Henke teaches operating at a temperature of 200 °C to 250 °C, as analyzed for claim 16. The ranges of pressure and temperature taught by the prior art each overlap with the instantly claimed ranges of 10 to 800 mbar and 180 °C to 300 °C.
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 ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 24, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 but is silent on the number of evaporative units.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a single evaporation unit in the method of Lailach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to minimize costs where larger scale operations are not necessary.
Regarding claim 27, modified Lailach teaches the process of claim 16, where Lailach teaches introducing the oxidizing agent simultaneously or subsequently to the third evaporation stage. Lailach therefore does not explicitly teach the oxidizing agent and/or the precursor of the oxidizing agent being mixed with the second concentrated sulfuric acid or with the first concentrated sulfuric acid if step (b) is not carried out before feeding into the third evaporation stage.
However, it is noted that the courts have held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959)). See MPEP §2144.04 IV C. Thus, the claimed order of steps where the oxidizing agent is introduced before feeding into the third evaporation stage is an obvious variant of the simultaneous feeding in the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 29, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 and Lailach further teaches that the concentrated sulfuric acid has a concentration of between 95% and 98% (p. 1, line 5).
Claims 17, 22, 25, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lailach et al. (CA 2,236,620 A1; foreign patent document 1 on the IDS filed 15 May 2023) in view of Henke et al. (DE 102007013983 B3), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gerken et al. (US 4,663,490). The provided English machine translation of Henke (DE 102007013983 B3) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claims 17 and 28, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 and Lailach further teaches that the process can be carried out on waste sulphuric acids and where the first stage is carried out according to the known process disclosed in EP 155586 A1 by Gerken et al. (p. 5, lines 1-4). An English language equivalent of EP 155586 A1 is US 4,663,490.
Lailach does not explicitly teach the diluted sulfuric acid comprising mononitrotoluene or dinitrotoluene, nor does Lailach teach the concentration of the diluted sulfuric acid.
However, Gerken teaches carrying out their evaporation process on diluted sulphuric acid which is 76.0 wt% H2SO4 and also contains the nitroaromatic compounds of dinitrotoluene (DNT) and mononitrotoluene (MNT) (col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to concentrate diluted sulfuric acid according to the method of modified Lailach, where the diluted sulphuric acid has a concentration of 76 wt% and which contains mononitrotoluene and dinitrotoluene, as taught by Gerken, thereby arriving at the invention of claims 17 and 28. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lailach explicitly suggests Gerken’s process as their first stage, and Gerken’s process uses sulphuric acid of such a composition.
Regarding claim 22, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 but does not teach a second stage, and is therefore silent on the number of evaporative units in the second stage. Lailach does teach that the sulfuric acid to be fed into their evaporation process (third evaporation stage) is first concentrated according to the known process disclosed in EP 155586 A1 by Gerken et al. (p. 5, lines 1-4). An English language equivalent of EP 155586 A1 is US 4,663,490.
Gerken teaches that it may be advantageous to carry out the evaporation of spent acid to a concentration of from 88 to 94% in a series of evaporators operated at different low pressures (col. 5, lines 48-51), each of which can be considered a different stage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second evaporation stage in the method of modified Lailach, as taught by Gerken, and to use a single evaporation unit in said stage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a second stage because Gerken teaches that it may be advantageous. Because Gerken teaches that the second stage is optional, i.e. may be comprised of zero evaporation units, if one were to include a second stage as suggested by Gerken, it would have been obvious to start by including only one evaporation unit in such a stage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to minimize costs associated with using multiple additional units that are not necessary.
Regarding claim 25, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 but does not teach the evaporation units being circulation evaporators, horizontal evaporators, or falling film evaporators.
However, Gerken teaches that sulphuric acid can be concentrated in a horizontal evaporator, falling film evaporator, or a circulation evaporator (col. 3, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of modified Lailach evaporation units that are horizontal evaporators, falling film evaporators, or circulation evaporators, as taught by Gerken. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Gerken teaches that such evaporators are successful for concentrating sulphuric acid.
Regarding claim 30, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 and Lailach further teaches that the process can be carried out on waste sulphuric acids and where the first stage is carried out according to the known process disclosed in EP 155586 A1 by Gerken et al. (p. 5, lines 1-4). An English language equivalent of EP 155586 A1 is US 4,663,490.
Gerken teaches that their sulphuric acid is obtained in a process for producing nitrotoluene (production of dinitrotoluene by a two-stage reaction of toluene with nitric acid in the presence of sulfuric acid ….spent acid from the first stage [is] concentrated under vacuum; col. 1, lines 7-15). Gerken further teaches that the sulphuric acid from their process can be further concentrated and then recycled back into the process for producing nitrotoluene (concentrating the spent acid to a sulphuric acid content of from 88 to 94% by evaporation under vacuum and then to a concentration of from 94 to 97% H2SO4 by evaporation in a high-concentration stage before it is used again for the production of dinitrotoluene; col. 3, lines 38-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of modified Lailach to provide the high-concentration stage suggested by Gerken and then to recycle the highly concentrated sulphuric acid back into the process for producing nitrotoluene, as taught by Gerken. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Gerken teaches sulphuric acid is a substantial proportion of the production costs of nitrotoluene (col. 1, lines 19-20) and that such a method allows the sulphuric acid to be reused.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lailach et al. (CA 2,236,620 A1; foreign patent document 1 on the IDS filed 15 May 2023), in view of Henke et al. (DE 102007013983 B3), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bodenbenner et al. (US 4,157,381 A; US Patent document 1 on the IDS filed 15 May 2023). The provided English machine translation of Henke (DE 102007013983 B3) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 19, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 and Lailach further teaches that the purpose of the oxidizing agent is to destroy organic compounds containing carbon. Lailach is silent on the specific amount of oxidizing agent to be used.
However, Bodenbenner teaches a similar multi-stage process for concentrating sulfuric acid (abstract) where an oxidant is used to destroy organic contaminants in at least one of the process steps (organic compounds may be oxidized by means of a suitable oxidant to form low molecular weight substances which are than eliminated from the hot acid by means of the steam. This oxidation may be carried out either in all three steps or in any one of them individually; col. 1, lines 49-54).
Bodenbenner further teaches that the amount of the oxidant depends upon the content of the organic substances (col. 2, lines 3-4) and provides an example where 44 g of oxidant are provided per kg of sulfuric acid (4.4% relative to the concentrated acid; col. 3, lines 57-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of modified Lailach an amount of oxidant that is 44 g of oxidant per kg of sulfuric acid, as taught by Bodenbenner, or to optimize the amount of oxidant, including into the instantly claimed range 0.01 g to 100 g per kg, based upon the amount of organic contaminants in the sulfuric acid, as also taught by Bodenbenner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that all of the organic compounds are destroyed without wasting excess oxidizing agent that is not needed.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lailach et al. (CA 2,236,620 A1; foreign patent document 1 on the IDS filed 15 May 2023) in view of Henke et al. (DE 102007013983 B3), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Forter et al. (CA 1,152,285 A). The provided English machine translation of Henke (DE 102007013983 B3) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 20, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 and Lailach further teaches that the process can be carried out according to the known process disclosed in EP 22181 A2 by Forter et al. (p. 5, lines 1-4). An English language equivalent of EP 22181 A1 is CA 152285 A. Lailach does not disclose the pressure and temperature of the first stage as recited in the instant claim.
However, Forter teaches that a method for carrying out their pre-concentrating evaporation process comprising an evaporation stage for diluted sulfuric acid operating at temperatures of 125 °C to 225 °C and pressures of 670 to 2000 mbar (p. 11, lines 14-19), which overlap with the instantly claimed ranges of 130 °C to 200 °C and 800 to 1200 mbar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the method of modified Lailach where the first stage comprises an evaporation which is operated at temperature in the range of 125 °C to 225 °C and a pressure in the range of 670 to 2000 mbar. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select temperatures and pressures that lie in the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Forter and the instantly claimed range, or 130 °C to 200 °C and 800 mbar to 1200 mbar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lailach suggests using the method of Forter for the first stage of evaporation and Forter teaches a method comprising pressures and temperatures in ranges that overlap with the claimed ranges.
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. Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
It is additionally noted that the open claim language of the instant claim means that though Forter teaches a step before the one considered here, it is consistent with the claim language to consider the second stage of Forter as the “first stage” of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, modified Lailach teaches the method of claim 16 and Lailach further teaches that the process can be carried out according to the known process disclosed in EP 22181 A2 by Forter et al. (p. 5, lines 1-4). An English language equivalent of EP 22181 A1 is CA 152285 A. Lailach does not disclose carrying out optional step (b) or the pressure and temperature of the second evaporation stage as recited in the instant claim.
Forter teaches a method for carrying out their pre-concentrating evaporation process that comprises two stages where the first concentrated sulfuric acid is fed into a second evaporation stage to obtain a second concentrated sulfuric acid (p. 13, line 31-p. 14, line 3), and where the second stage operates at temperatures of 125 °C to 225 °C and pressures of 670 to 2000 mbar (p. 11, lines 14-19), which overlap with the instantly claimed ranges of 120 °C to 200 °C and 10 to 800 mbar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the method of modified Lailach where step (b) is carried out by feeding the first concentrated sulfuric acid into a second evaporation stage to obtain a second concentrated sulfuric acid, and where the second stage comprises an evaporation which is operated at temperature in the range of 125 °C to 225 °C and a pressure in the range of 670 to 2000 mbar. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select temperatures and pressures that lie in the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Forter and the instantly claimed range, or 120 °C to 200 °C and 670 mbar to 800 mbar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lailach suggests using the method of Forter for the first stages of evaporation and Forter teaches a method comprising two stages where the pressures and temperatures of the second stage that overlap with the claimed ranges.
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 ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lailach et al. (CA 2,236,620 A1; “Lailach ‘620” for this section; foreign patent document 1 on the IDS filed 15 May 2023) in view of Henke et al. (DE 102007013983 B3), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lailach et al. (CA 2,262,265 A1; hereinafter “Lailach ‘265”). The provided English machine translation of Henke (DE 102007013983 B3) is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claims 25 and 26 , modified Lailach ‘620 discloses the process of claim 16, but does not teach the evaporation units being circulation evaporators, horizontal evaporators, or falling film evaporators, nor does Lailach ‘620 teach the oxidizing agent being fed into an evaporation loop.
However, Lailach ‘265 teaches an apparatus for carrying out a process largely identical to that disclosed in Lailach ‘620 (p. 1, lines 1-6) and this apparatus comprises a circulation evaporator (abstract and Fig. 1) and a port (12) for introducing oxidizing agents (p. 9, lines 13-15 and Fig. 1). This port leads to a line through which the liquid phase sulfuric acid is circulated during the evaporation process (Fig. 1), and can therefore be considered an evaporation loop, as described in the instant specification (p. 8, lines 32-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out the process of modified Lailach ‘620 using evaporation units that are circulation evaporators and where the oxidizing agent is fed into an evaporation loop, as taught by Lailach ‘265.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lailach ‘265 teaches that their apparatus which has these features is designed to carry out the process described in Lailach ‘620.
Conclusion
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 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