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 .
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 1 to 3, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nordhoff (US 20050222459 A1).
The Nordhoff reference teaches an apparatus for purification of (meth)acrylic acid. The apparatus consists of a means to feed a compound, in this case (meth)acrylic acid, mix containing liquid to be purified to a crystallization unit (CU) having number of tanks, forming crystals of the compound in CU, discharging a portion of a mother liquor outside of the purification apparatus, separating a slurry containing the formed crystals to a mother liquor and a slurry having an increased crystal concentration, feeding a portion of slurry in a wash column (entire application, especially, figures, pages 2, 3, paragraphs 0060-0101, 0112-0131, 0167-0278 and claims). The Nordhoff reference further discloses number CU (tanks) with hydraulic wash column, solid liquid separators with filter (figures, para. 0060-0101, 0112-0131, 0167- 0278 and claims). The reference further teaches sending mother liquor from one CU (tanks) to another CU tank and adjusting liquid levels (para 0060-0101, 0112-0131, 0167-0278 and claims). The Nordhoff reference teaches final mother liquor discharged from purification apparatus and depletion of (meth)acrylic acid in the mother liquor, note, claims. The final mother liquor discharged from purification apparatus comes from compound mix feed from which crystals were extracted, the compound mix must have purity higher than final mother liquor discharged from purification apparatus. Further, mother liquor separated from first wash column or subsequent wash columns, note figures. The apparatus of the reference has a means to separated crystals, which are melted and a portion is recycled to step a of feeding to CU, through crystallization.
With regards to claim 2, the Nordhoff reference teaches multiple tanks with each having lines to send slurry back upstream via a solid liquid separator, note figures 2 to 5.
With regards to claim 3, the Nordhoff reference teaches a mother liquid line from one tank to an upstream tank, note para 0060-0101.
With regards to claim 5, the Nordhoff reference teaches a mother liquid line from one tank to an upstream tank directly, note para 0060-0101.
With regards to claim 9, the Nordhoff reference teaches a crystallization unit with no scrapper mechanisms, note para 0277.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff (US 20050222459).
The Nordhoff reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the outside line on the purification apparatus which can be a mother liquid line. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Nordhoff reference to include an outside line in the purification part of the apparatus in order to be able to control the concentration of the liquids by either adding or subtracting liquid via an outside line.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff (US 20050222459).
The Nordhoff reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the outside cooling means. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Nordhoff reference to include an outside cooling means in order to better control the temperature of the materials increasing uniformity in the crystals.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff (US 20050222459).
The Nordhoff reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the scaping mechanism in the crystallization unit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Nordhoff reference to include a scrapper means in order to collect as much of the crystals as possible and keep the crystallization units from getting clogged.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff (US 20050222459).
The Nordhoff reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the centrifuge. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Nordhoff reference to include a centrifuge in separator in order to increase the speed of separation.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in crystallization using n tanks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714