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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/004557 (02/04/2022)
and claims foreign priority to JAPAN 2021-033869 (03/03/2021).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged.
Applicant also elected the following species:
PNG
media_image1.png
190
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
As detailed in the following rejections, the generic claim encompassing the elected species was not found patentable. Therefore, the provisional election of species is given effect, the examination is restricted to the elected species only, and claims not reading on the elected species are held withdrawn. MPEP 803.02; Ex parte Ohsaka, 2 USPQ2d 1460, 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. lnt. 1987).
Should applicant, in response to this rejection of the Markush-type claim, overcome the rejection through amendment, the amended Markush-type claim will be reexamined to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. See MPEP 803.02.
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 has “the flow rate of R1OH” which lacks an antecedent basis and renders the claim ambiguous as to whether R1OH is a different flow rate that the first hydroxy flow rate recited in claim 1. Thus, the claim and those that depend therefrom including claims 10-12 are indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (US6299887) in view of Morodo et al. (Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2020, 5236–5277), and Mao et al. (ACS Omega 2020, 5, 9503−9509).
Regarding claims 1-3, Yano teaches methods for preparing asymmetric phosphoric triesters
PNG
media_image2.png
170
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
wherein R1, R2, and R3 are different and the alcohols are sequentially added to phosphorus oxyhalide (col 5, line4: “R1, R2, and R3 in the target phosphoric triester are different from one another, three different alcohols of R1—OH, R2—OH, and R3—OH, each in an equivalent amount by mol of phosphorus oxyhalide, are sequentially added and reacted.”).
Yano’s reaction differs from the claims in that it starts with phosphorus oxyhalide (POCl3) instead of phosphorus trihalide (PCl3). Yano also does not teach using a flow reactor.
Morodo reviews continuous flow organophosphorus chemistry including well-known essential phorphorus-derived building blocks including organophosphites (Eq 11) and the oxidized organophosphates (Eq 12):
PNG
media_image3.png
189
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Morodo reviews numerous successful examples of utilization of flow chemistry for control of organophosphorus reactions, including examples such as paraoxon:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.and the reactions showed high yields (p. 5272-74).
Mao teaches a continuous flow microreactor for synthesis of triphenylphosphites as in Scheme 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
258
543
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mao teaches that the use of the continuous flow microreactor provided advantages of simplified operation, short reaction time, excellent yields, and reaction conditions at 70C with flow rates of the reactants as 7.5 mL/min (p. 9506-07).
Regarding claim 4-5, Yano teaches the addition of a base including examples of pyridine (col 5, line 1-35). Regarding claim 6, Mao teaches success with imidazole (p. 9504, Table 2).
Regarding claim 7, Yano teaches stoichiometric ratios (Examples) as does Mao (Table 2).
Regarding claim 8, Mao teaches success with reaction temperatures of 40C (Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, Mao teaches optimization of residence time by altering the flow rate and provides examples (p. 9305, Table 3). Regarding claims 10-12, one of ordinary skill in the art would similarly consider optimization of the reaction residence time to improve yield as done by Mao including where the rates are different.
One of ordinary skill in the art following the teaching of Yano would have recognized that the improvements achieved with flow microreactors would be readily applicable to Yano’s reaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also readily considered the alternate reaction process of oxidizing the phosphite to obtain a asymmetric phosphoric triester because it was a well-known reaction step and is taught by Morodo (right side of Eqs 11-12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve yields as taught by Mao and Morodo. The level of skill in the art is very high such that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider routine the combination of elements from the teaching of the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination would be predictable due to the well-known nature and optimizations routinely performed in the art. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the invention as claimed before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H HAVLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9066. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 6pm.
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at (571) 270-5293. 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.
/ROBERT H HAVLIN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights