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 .
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 16-30 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.
Claims 16–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16–30
Claim 16 recites that “the product gas mixture is allowed to ascend into itself within the condensation column.” The phrase “ascend into itself” is unclear because it does not identify a recognized process operation or ascertainable relationship between the product gas mixture and the condensation column. It is uncertain whether the product gas mixture is intended to ascend within the condensation column, ascend through the separating internals, circulate or recycle into itself, or undergo some other operation. Although the specification generally describes an ascending gaseous phase conducted countercurrently to a descending liquid phase, the claim language does not clearly recite that operation. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the particular process step required by the claim.
Claim 16 further recites that “at least one of the streams of matter fed to the condensation column comprises a source for halide ions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the streams of matter fed to the condensation column.” Before this limitation, claim 16 expressly identifies only the product gas mixture as being directed into the condensation column and does not introduce a plurality of feed streams. It is therefore unclear whether “the streams of matter” refers to the product gas mixture, a quench liquid, reflux, water, an inhibitor stream, or any other auxiliary stream supplied to the column. This uncertainty is substantive because the identity of the halide-containing stream defines the scope of the required halide-source limitation. A lack of antecedent basis supports a § 112(b) rejection when, as here, it makes the scope of the claim indeterminate. MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claims 17–30 depend directly or indirectly from claim 16 and incorporate each of the indefinite limitations discussed above. Claims 17–30 are therefore rejected under § 112(b) for the same reasons. The USPTO form-paragraph guidance expressly provides that dependent claims should be included when they remain indefinite by incorporation of the language of the rejected independent claim.
The foregoing issues may be resolved, for example, by amending claim 16 to recite that “the product gas mixture is passed upwardly through the separating internals of the condensation column and undergoes fractional condensation,” and by positively introducing the applicable feed streams, such as “wherein at least one stream of matter fed to the condensation column comprises a source of halide ions.”
Claim 30
Claim 30 recites that “the halide content in the streams of matter from the condensation column is less than 0.002% by weight, based on the stream of matter.” The limitation does not make clear whether the concentration requirement applies to:
every stream discharged from the condensation column;
at least one of the discharged streams;
only the liquid streams;
the combined outlet streams; or
an average concentration calculated across multiple streams.
The claim initially refers to plural “streams of matter,” but then defines the weight percentage “based on the stream of matter” in the singular. It is therefore uncertain which stream provides the weight basis for determining compliance with the claimed concentration. Claim 30 also does not specify whether “halide content” means the combined concentration of all halide ions or whether each individual halide ion must separately be present below 0.002% by weight. This distinction is material because claim 17 permits fluoride ions, chloride ions, or both.
Although the specification indicates that the stated concentration is determined separately “in each case” based on the respective stream of matter, that requirement is not clearly incorporated into claim 30. The specification further states that the concentration should be below the specified value in every part of the condensation column, whereas claim 30 refers more generally to streams “from” the column.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 30 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. The issue may be resolved by reciting, for example:
> “wherein each stream discharged from the condensation column has a total halide-ion content of less than 0.002% by weight, based on the total weight of the respective stream.”
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