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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 28 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claim under 35 USC§112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 1-2, 4, 9-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 9-15 under 35 USC§103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2019-0142642 (hereafter KR’642) in view of KR 10-2018-0127517 (hereafter KR’517) in further view of KR 10-2014-0136456 (hereafter KR’456).
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 and 9 and corresponding arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite specific operating conditions, including:
compression of the gas phase to 16 bar or more, and
distillation column top temperature of −15°C or more.
Applicant further argues that these limitations distinguish the claimed process from the cited prior art.
These arguments are not persuasive because the amended limitations merely recite optimization of known process variables. KR’642 and KR’517 both disclose integrated phosgene recovery systems involving gas-liquid separation, condensation, and distillation, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize pressure and temperature conditions to achieve efficient condensation and separation of phosgene and hydrogen chloride.
Gas compression pressure and column temperature are recognized result-effective variables in gas recovery and distillation systems. Selection of a pressure sufficient to achieve condensation of phosgene, and adjustment of column temperature to maintain efficient separation while minimizing energy consumption, represent routine process optimization well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the recited ranges do not patentably distinguish over the combination of KR’642 and KR’517, as modified by KR’456, because the prior art teaches the same process steps and the claimed parameters represent routine optimization of known conditions.
Claim 9
Applicant has amended Claim 9 to further define:
removal of low boiling materials having a boiling point lower than that of the isocyanate compound, and
removal of high boiling materials having a boiling point higher than that of the isocyanate compound.
These amendments are not persuasive because KR’456 expressly teaches removal of low boilers and high boilers in the purification of isocyanate compounds, including separation of solvent, light ends, and heavy ends based on boiling point differences.
The recitation of boiling point relative to the isocyanate product does not impart patentable distinction, as KR’456 already employs boiling point-based separation in substantially the same manner. Selection of specific classification criteria for low and high boiling fractions is an inherent and routine aspect of distillation design and does not alter the fundamental operation of the process.
Therefore, Claim 9 remains unpatentable over KR’642 in view of KR’517 and KR’456.
Conclusion
The amendments to Claims 1 and 9 do not overcome the outstanding §103 rejection. The prior art continues to collectively disclose all claimed process steps, and the remaining differences relate only to routine optimization of known process parameters and conventional classification of distillation fractions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -6:30 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, 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
Prosecution Insights