DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from consideration due to a prior restriction request (see below).
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 02 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 will be examined within this Office action.
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 6 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 6, which depends on Claim 2, recites “wherein the adding of an acid…”; however, this limitation lacks antecedent basis. Neither Claims 1 nor 2 recite anything about the addition of an acid. Since no claim outside of Claim 6 mentions the addition of acid (leading to any implementation of prior art being speculation for the examiner), for purposes of this examination, the examiner will not give patentable weight to this claim. Applicant is advised prior art could be applied in response to any amendments that would rectify this issue.
Claim 7 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 7 requires “the organic solvent has a DI value of 20 or less”; however, this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim language is unclear what may be considered a DI value that would read on the claim. Further consultation of the specification does not give guidance. Search of the relevant prior art yields disclosures such as Randolph (US Pat Pub. 2004/0147795), Ahn (US Pat Pub. 2007/0079812) and Ament et al. (herein referred to as “Ament”, US Pat Pub. 2004/0180447), yet these references indicate DI values that regard motor fuel characteristics (Randolph, Paragraph [0076]; Ahn, Paragraph [0008]; Ament, Abstract, Paragraph [0056]). Therefore, the claim is unclear whether this value is referring to the same value as that of the above references or a different type of DI value. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will not give patentable weight to this claim. Applicant is advised prior art could be applied in response to any amendments that would rectify this issue.
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo-Welter et al. (herein referred to as “Castillo”, US Pat Pub. 2013/0098752).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Castillo discloses a method for removing a low-boiling point organic compound in a brine solution by distilling a brine solution produced in a process of preparing an aromatic compound in a distillation tower (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph [0015]; Paragraph [0016]; Paragraph [0041]; distillation of low boiling solvents that produce aromatic compounds such as cyclohexane), the method comprising:
heat-exchanging the brine solution including the low-boiling point organic compound while forcing the brine to circulate by a forced circulation heat exchanger (Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraphs [0002]-[0004]; Paragraph [0015]; Paragraph [0042]; distillation apparatus 2 with forced circulation and heat exchanger 11; see also solvents, liquid and aromatic compounds).
While Castillo is silent on the equation specifically, the equation is primarily dependent on the variables of fluid speed and fluid density with respect to the forced circulation heat exchanger—variables addressed in Castillo (velocity: Paragraph [0015]; Paragraph [0016]; Paragraph [0051]; density, which is influenced by temperature: Paragraph [0016]). Furthermore, Castillo discloses a flow speed of 1.5 m/s (Paragraph [0051]); using the formula of the instant claim, this would lead to acceptable fluid densities of 4.1 lb/ft3 to 1650 lb/ft3 with respect to the value of the empirical constant.
Considering the wide range of acceptable fluid densities with the desired flow rate of Castillo, and knowing water has a fluid density of 62.4 lb/ft3 at room temperature, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid density of the brine solution to satisfy the equation of instant Claim at 1.5 m/s because doing so allows for a plurality of liquids/solutions at different densities to undergo the forced circulation heat exchanger process (Castillo, Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraphs [0002]-[0004]; Paragraph [0015]; Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Castillo further discloses wherein the order to remove the low-boiling point organic material included in the brine solution produced during the process of preparing the aromatic compound,
extraction in which an organic solvent is added to extract the aromatic compound from a water-soluble layer into an organic solvent layer is included (Paragraph [0003]; Paragraph [0023]; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0053]; recovered organic solvent is added to mostly aqueous phase in extraction step),
the brine solution is the water-soluble layer in the extraction (Paragraph [0003]; Paragraph [0023]; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0053]; mostly aqueous solution).
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 2, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Castillo further discloses wherein the low-boiling point organic compound is the organic solvent which is added in the extraction in which the aromatic compound is extracted (Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]; Paragraph [0023]; Paragraph [0044]; Paragraph [0055]; organic solvent is part of extraction agent added from low-boiling parts).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 1, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. Castillo further discloses wherein water is sprayed from an upper portion of the distillation to the brine solution (Figure 1; Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]; Paragraph [0012]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0036]; Paragraph [0053]; flow restriction means which may be a nozzle, solvent may be water; therefore a spray would occur).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 4, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Castillo further discloses wherein a temperature of the water is the same as a distillation temperature (Figure 1; Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]; Paragraph [0012]; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0036]; Paragraph [0045]; Paragraph [0053]; evaporation is caused by expansion and not temperature change).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 2, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Castillo further discloses wherein the extraction with an organic solvent is repeated twice or more (Paragraph [0023]; solvent may be used reused as extraction agent, indicating multiple uses).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 03/05/2026