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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 18-32, in the reply filed on 5/6/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 18-32 are 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 1 requires, “wherein during standard operation mode of the continuous process” in which “standard operation mode” lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if the limitations following this phrase are required because the process could possibly not include a standard operation mode. The examiner suggests adding phrasing to the claim that requires “the continuous process comprises a standard operation mode”. For purposes of examination, the process will be interpreted as requiring the standard operation mode since this interpretation is consistent with the specification. Claims 19-32 are rendered indefinite because they depend on claim 18 and do not cure the indefiniteness.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the recycle ratio" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-20, 26, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walsdorff et al., US 2004/0052718.
Regarding claims 18-19, Walsdorff teaches:
providing a gas stream in a reactor, corresponding to claimed gas stream G1, which contains oxygen and hydrogen chloride. See (5) and (2) in Figures 1 and 2 and [0044]. The reference teaches the gas streams are mixed in the reactotor to form a mixed gas, corresponding to the claimed gas stream G1, which meets the limitation requiring “providing a gas stream G1 comprising oxygen (O2) and hydrogen chloride (HCl)”.
The gas stream in Walsdorff is passed into a reaction zone (3) and is contacted with a catalyst. See [0020]. A stream 6 (corresponding to the claimed stream GP) is produced and removed from the reaction zone. The stream 6 (GP) contains oxygen, water, and HCl. See [0044].
Gas stream 6 (GP) is divided into two streams (6a) and (6b) (corresponding to GR and G2, in no particular order) which have the same chemical composition as each other. The recycling ratio in Walsdorff is preferably 0.2:1 to 1.5:1, which falls completely in the claimed range. See [0016].
Walsdorff teaches preparing a stream corresponding to G1 in the reactor from at least 2 streams, meaning j=1, see stream (5) which contains oxygen (and HCl from the recycle stream) and stream (2) which contains HCl.
Regarding claim 20, Walsdorff teaches an adiabatic reactor. See [0022].
Regarding claim 26, Walsdorff teaches a ratio of streams 6a and 6b of 0.4 to 1. From this, the ratio as required by the claim can be calculated since the product stream, before dividing, is the sum of the two gas streams. Thus, Walsdorff teaches a ratio of stream 6a to stream 6 (corresponding to the claimed f(GR):f(GP)) of 0.4 : (0.4 + 1) to 1 : (1 + 1) or about 0.3:1 to 0.5:1, which anticipates the claimed range. Further Walsdorff teaches a temperature of the reactor, and thus the product gas, of preferably 200-400°C and most preferably 220-350°C. See [0022].
Regarding claim 31, Walsdorff teaches using a jet nozzle which is considered to be an ejector. See [0017].
Regarding claim 32, Walsdorff teaches ruthenium as a catalyst. See [0020]. Walsdorff also teaches cerium. See [0028].
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 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsdorff et al., US2004/0052718.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the claims require a ratio of f(GR):f(G2) of 1:1 to 10:1 and 3.2:1 to 5:1, respectively. Walsdorf teaches a ratio of the two streams of 0.005:1 to 3:1, since the claims do not require either stream to be either the recycle stream or the product stream, the ratio can also be expressed as 1:3 to 1:0.005 or 0.33 – 200. The range of Walsdorff presents an overlapping range with the instantly claimed ratios and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Walsdorff teaches the ratio is important as the recycle stream counters the effect of hot spots ([0015]), thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the proper ratio in the claimed range(s) in order to achieve this end.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsdorff et al., US2004/0052718 in view of Koshino, US 2009/0068087.
Regarding claim 23, Walsdorff does not teach the sequence required to prepare the gas stream G1 which requires first mixing G0(1) (oxygen containing) with G0(2) (HCl containing) followed by mixing with stream GR (one of the streams produced from the split of product stream GP).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Walsdorff with Koshino which teaches, in a process of producing chlorine from HCl and oxygen, first mixing HCl gas and O2 followed by the introduction of a recycle stream. See Figures 1 and 2 of Koshino. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Waldorff with Koshino, by combining the input streams in the apparatus of Koshino before introduction into the reactor of Waldorff, in order to preheat the reactants together instead of separately (requiring less equipment) and in order to mix the gases without generating corrosion on the gas contact surfaces. See [0006] of Koshino.
Regarding claim 24, the connecting portions of transfer piping disclosed by Koshino in [0018]-[0019] are considered to be static mixers, meeting the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 25, Walsdorff teaches there is pressure drop in the oxidation reactor, which would cause the recycle gas to be at lower pressure than that of the pressurized feed streams, a phenomenon that would also occur when modifying Walsdorff with Koshino. See [0017] of Walsdorff. Koshino also teaches pressurizing the feed gases. See [0024] of Koshino.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 27, the claim requires the product stream, before the dividing step, is passed through a heat exchanger to obtain a gas having a temperature of 200-350°C. The closest prior art references, Walsdorff et al., US2004/0052718 and Koshino, US 2009/0068087, do not teach or suggest cooling the entire product stream before dividing the product stream into a second product stream and a recycle stream.
Walsdorff teaches the heat present in the recycle gas is important to avoid hot spots in the reactor. See [0015]. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the gas before returning it to the reactor as this would remove the heat disclosed as being necessary to achieve the advantage of avoiding hotspots disclosed by Walsdorff.
Koshino teaches preheating the gases when combining them before introduction into the reactor. See [0017]. It would not have been obvious to first cool the recycle stream followed by heating the stream in the introduction piping as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a waste of heat, which would increase costs and unnecessarily require more equipment (e.g., a heat exchanger).
Claim 28 requires all of the limitations of claim 27 and thus would be allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 29, the claim requires preparing G1 as a mixture comprising liquid stream L and three gas streams, wherein the liquid stream comprises HCl. Walsdorff and Koshino do not teach or suggest the limitation and instead both teach only gaseous streams. See [0008], [0011], [0044], and claim 1 of Walsdorff and Figures 1 and 2 of Koshino.
Claim 30 depends on claim 29 and is allowable since it requires all of the allowable limitations of claim 30.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
ANTHONY J. ZIMMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights