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
Claims 14 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus and method 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/1/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of method 1 (claims 1-13 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 5/1/2026 is acknowledged.
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 claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 12-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al (US 20180194632) in view of Repasky et al (WO 2021062384, cited in IDS, cited herein with identical US 2022348461).
Jakobsson teaches a process for polycarbonate production (see 0003), which includes a step of phosgene synthesis (see Abstract).
The latter method includes the following steps:
a) Electrolytical production of Chlorine and Hydrogen from salt (NaCl) and water (see 0015, meeting the limitations of claim 16);
b)Obtaining carbon monoxide from purified carbon dioxide (see 0026) by electrolytic reduction process with following separation of CO and CO2 (see 0031). In addition, Jakobsson teaches that in phosgene production H2 and CO must be separated (see 0019).
c)Reacting carbon monoxide and chlorine to obtain phosgene (see claim 1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Jakobsson does not teach a step of reaction of phosgene and diol for polycarbonate production in Examples. The position is taken that the phosgene based route for polycarbonate production is a very common and well known commercial process.
Regarding claims 17-18, Jakobsson teaches that CO2 feedstock has small amount of moisture ( water ) , ammonia , oxygen , NOx , volatile hydrocarbons , acetaldehyde , benzene , carbon monoxide , methanol, hydrogen cyanide and total sulfur (see 0042).
In reference to claims 19 and 20, Jakobsson teaches carbon dioxide purification by amine scribbling and catalyst treatment and adsorption (see 0025 and 0041).
Jakobsson fails to teach carbon monoxide production by introducing carbon dioxide and hydrogen into reverse water gas shift (PWGS) reaction zone.
Repasky teaches a process for the production of syngas comprising reacting carbon dioxide with hydrogen within in RWGS reactors to produce a stream including carbon monoxide, water, unreacted carbon dioxide, and unreacted hydrogen following by water removal (see claim 31).
Unreacted carbon dioxide and hydrogen are recycled back to the RWGS reactor to ensure nearly complete conversion of the carbon dioxide reactant feed stream (see 0005).
It is suggested that the RWGS reaction can be run in recycle mode to 100 % equilibrium conversion or alternatively the reaction can be driven by removal of water (see 0006).
In addition to or in lieu of water removal, at least a portion of the hydrogen within final product stream 153 can be removed to form a hydrogen - rich stream 163. Likewise, in addition to or in lieu of separation of water and / or hydrogen , carbon dioxide can optionally be separated to produce carbon dioxide - rich stream 165 , and / or carbon monoxide - rich stream 167 (see 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use RWGS in Jakobsson’s process, since it is energy efficient and environmentally friendly procedure compare to commonly used electrolysis.
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 12, Repasky teaches that the process above can be performed using renewable energy source (see 0055 and 0071).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson in view of Repasky as applied to claims 1, 7, 9, 12-13 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Schieber et al (EP 3708698, cited in IDS cited herein with identical US 20220145006).
Jakobsson and Repasky do not teach purified sodium chloride.
Schieber discloses a process of a ) production of phosgene by reaction of chlorine with carbon monoxide and b1 ) reaction of the phosgene formed in step a ) with at least one bisphenol in the presence of sodium hydroxide solution and optionally catalyst to afford a polycarbonate and a sodium chloride - containing aqueous solution (see 0023).
Schieber teaches a purification of the sodium chloride - containing solution (see Example 1 at 0138).
The reference teaches that this purification is necessary in order to prevent a blockage of nanofiltration membrane (see Tables 1 and 2 at pages 7 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to purify NaCl containing solution in Jakobsson’s process in order to prevent a blockage of nanofiltration membrane.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Search for prior art does not result in a process, where carbon dioxide produced by recovery of polycarbonate is used for RWGS synthesis.
The closest prior art is represented by Repasky (see rejection above). The reference teaches the use of CO2 in RWGS synthesis.
However, Repasky fails to teach that carbon dioxide is produced by polycarbonate waste processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights