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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2014/0136456 (hereafter KR’456) in view of KR 2019/0142642 (hereafter KR’642).
KR’456 discloses a method for producing an isocyanate comprising reacting an amine with phosgene at 20–180 °C, separating the reaction product into gas and liquid phases, and post-treating the liquid phase at 120–230 °C to remove solvents and low- and high-boiling components to obtain isocyanate (claim 1; paras. [0041], [0063], [0075]).
Claim 1 differs from KR’456 in that (i) the steps are performed at temperatures of 165 °C or less, including low-boiling component removal at 150–165 °C, and (ii) an amine salt is used.
With respect to (i), KR’456 discloses overlapping temperature ranges encompassing the claimed limitations. Selection of specific temperatures within or overlapping disclosed ranges constitutes routine optimization of result-effective variables and is prima facie obvious absent a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
With respect to (ii), KR’642 teaches forming an amine salt prior to phosgenation to moderate the reaction and produce isocyanate (claims 1 and 8; para. [0025]). Because both references address isocyanate production, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the amine-salt approach of KR’642 to the process of KR’456 to improve reaction control and purity, with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination represents the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 2–4 further limit the order of known reaction and purification steps. KR’456 teaches post-treatment of the liquid product to remove solvents and low- and high-boiling components. Reordering known steps for process convenience constitutes an obvious design choice involving predictable results. KSR.
Claim 5 further limits temperature and pressure conditions. KR’456 teaches maintaining the liquid product at 120–230 °C. Selection of particular temperatures and pressures within or adjacent to disclosed ranges constitutes routine optimization under In re Aller and In re Peterson.
Claims 6 and 7 specify post-treatment at defined temperatures and pressures. KR’456 explicitly teaches post-treatment at 120–230 °C and 1–1400 mbar (paras. [0063], [0075]). Selection within these ranges is prima facie obvious under In re Peterson.
Claims 8 and 9 recite specific aliphatic amines. KR’642 teaches m-, p-, and o-xylylene diamines and their hydrochloride salts for isocyanate production (claims 7–8; para. [0064]). Selection of these known amines constitutes a predictable choice under KSR.
Claim 10 recites an additional optional feature that would have been selected as a matter of routine process design and does not produce any unexpected result. KSR.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -7:00 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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691