DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-34 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application claims priority to and the benefit of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0144775 filed on October 26, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 01/30/2024 and 06/03/2025, have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (i.e. claims 1-28) in the reply filed by Applicant’s representative Jinchul Hong on 09/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 29-34 are withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) due to the restriction requirement. Claims 1-28 are under examination on the merits.
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 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 18 contains the terms “CTF-Ph, CTF-Th, CTF-BPh”, which are not defined nor described by Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, claim 18 is indefinite. Claims 19-20 depending on rejected claim 18 are rejected accordingly.
The term “CTF-Ph” is interpreted as a specialized covalent triazine-based framework based on Examiner’s Google search. Applicant needs to provide definitions of the terms “CTF-Ph, CTF-Th, CTF-BPh” for the record and examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN114671407 A (“the `407 publication”) to Li et al. in view of US8,158,100 B2 (“the `100 patent”) to Yang et al., US5,725,837 A (“the `837 patent”) to Iikka Turunen, US 2017/0113932 A1 (“the `932 publication”) to Zydowicz et al., Gao et al., J. of Colloid and Interface Sci., (2023), v.650, p.40-46 (pub 28 June 2023), and US2009/0018013 A1 (“the `013 publication”) to Hasegawa et al.
Applicants’ claim 1 is drawn to a hydrogen peroxide manufacturing process based on a photochemical reaction comprising: a production step of generating hydrogen peroxide by supplying oxygen and irradiating light to an organic reaction solution; an extraction step of separating the hydrogen peroxide into an aqueous solution by mixing the organic reaction solution in which the hydrogen peroxide is generated and water; and a purification step of filtering the extracted hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution using a reverse osmosis membrane, wherein the organic reaction solution includes a hydrophobic organic solvent in the range of 50 volume% or more based on the total volume of the organic reaction solution.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] discloses a method for production of hydrogen peroxide by supplying oxygen and irradiating light (300 W xenon lamp light source using a visible light filter with a cutoff wavelength of 420 nm) to an organic reaction solution (4 mL of toluene, 2 mL of deionized water, 1 mL of benzyl alcohol, and 0.2 mL of oleylamine). Therefore, Example 1 of the `407 publication teaches the production step of generating hydrogen peroxide of Applicant’s claim 1. In terms of the limitation “wherein the organic reaction solution includes a hydrophobic organic solvent in the range of 50 volume% or more based on the total volume of the organic reaction solution”, the `407 publication [0103-0104] discloses a method for production of hydrogen peroxide in the organic reaction solution containing 4 mL of toluene, 2 mL of deionized water, 1 mL of benzyl alcohol, and 0.2 mL of oleylamine, wherein the hydrophobic organic solvent is 4 mL of toluene, which is in the range of 50 volume% more (4mL/7.2mL = 5 volume%) based on the total volume (7.2 mL) of the organic reaction solution.
The `100 patent (Abstract) discloses a method for the preparation of hydrogen peroxide through a continuous process, extracting hydrogen peroxide produced from reduction and oxidation of a working solution. The `100 patent (col. 1, Lns. 41-43) discloses the produced hydrogen peroxide is extracted with water, separated, and then purified. Therefore, the `100 patent teaches the extraction step of generating hydrogen peroxide of Applicant’s claim 1.
The `837 patent (Abstract) discloses a method for the preparation of hydrogen peroxide through a continuous process comprising the step of extraction of the hydrogen peroxide into an aqueous phase. The `837 patent (col. 4, lns. 12-13, and FIGs. 2-3) discloses the aqueous extraction solvent referred to above is preferably water.
The `932 publication (Abstract) discloses a hydrogen peroxide purification process by reverse osmosis membrane. The `932 publication [0006-0007] discloses U.S. Pat. No. 4,879,043 describes the use of reverse osmosis for purifying a hydrogen peroxide stream having a strength from 5 to 50 wt %; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,333,018 describes the use of reverse osmosis for purifying a hydrogen peroxide stream having a strength from 60 to 70 wt %, in the absence of stabilizers. Therefore, `932 publication teaches the purification step of generating hydrogen peroxide of Applicant’s claim 1.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between claim 1 and the `407 publication is that the prior art only teaches the 1st production step of claim 1. The `407 publication does not teach the extraction step nor the purification step of claim 1.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, claim 1 would have been obvious over the `407 publication because the difference of the missed extraction step and the purification step of claim 1 are further taught and/or suggested by the `100 patent and the `932 publication as being described above. The motivation for combining the three prior art references is that all the three cited references are drawn to methods for manufacturing hydrogen peroxide. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the steps disclosed in the three references to prepare a higher purity hydrogen peroxide product.
In terms of claim 2 wherein in the production step, the organic reaction solution is a mixture of aromatic alcohol and an organic solvent, and the aromatic alcohol includes 0.1 wt% to 0.2 wt% of an aromatic carbonyl compound (e.g. BzCHO) based on the total weight of the aromatic alcohol, the aromatic carbonyl compound is a by-product of oxidation of the aromatic alcohol from the production of hydrogen peroxide through applying irradiating light to the organic reaction solution comprising the aromatic alcohol in the presence of oxygen based on FIG. 2 of Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the limitation of “the aromatic alcohol includes 0.1 wt% to 0.2 wt% of an aromatic carbonyl compound based on the total weight of the aromatic alcohol” is considered to be an inherited property or an inevitably obtained result of the production step of the `407 publication.
In terms of claims 3-8, Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] discloses a method for production of hydrogen peroxide by supplying oxygen and irradiating light (300 W xenon lamp light source using a visible light filter with a cutoff wavelength of 420 nm) to an organic reaction solution (4 mL of toluene, 2 mL of deionized water, 1 mL of benzyl alcohol, and 0.2 mL of oleylamine), wherein the aromatic alcohol is benzyl alcohol, and the aromatic carbonyl compound of benzaldehyde (BzCHO) is a by-product of oxidation of the aromatic alcohol from the production of hydrogen peroxide through applying irradiating light to the organic reaction solution comprising the aromatic alcohol in the presence of oxygen based on FIG. 2 of Applicant’s specification.
In terms of claim 9 wherein the aromatic alcohol is mixed and included in a volume ratio of 1:99 to 99:1 based on the volume of the organic solvent mixed in the organic reaction solution, see Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104].
In terms of claims 10-11, because Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] using an organic reaction solution (4 mL of toluene, 2 mL of deionized water, 1 mL of benzyl alcohol, and 0.2 mL of oleylamine) reads on the organic solvent, the solubility of oxygen in the production step is either an inherited property or an obvious optimization of the practice.
In terms of claim 12, Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] uses an organic reaction solution comprising toluene.
In terms of claim 13, Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] teaches the oxygen supply rate is 3 mL/min for a small-scale production reaction of H2O2. However, it would have been routine optimization by increasing the oxygen supply rate to the range of 10 mL/min to 50 mL/min when the production scale is increased as more oxygen is needed. Therefore, it is an obvious optimization.
In terms of claim 14, Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] teaches the oxygen supply time is 30 min, which reads on the oxygen supply time is in the range of 15 min to 60 min.
In terms of claim 15, Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] teaches the irradiating light is 300 W xenon lamp light source using a visible light filter with a cutoff wavelength of 420 nm, which reads on the irradiated light wavelength includes a bandwidth of 200 nm to 500 nm.
In terms of claim 16, Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] teaches the light irradiation time is 3 hours, which reads on the light irradiation time in the range of more than 0 and 60 hours or less.
In terms of claim 17, wherein the production step comprises irradiating light with an irradiance of 10 W/m² to 1000 W/m², Example 1 of the `407 publication [0103-0104] teaches irradiating light with an irradiance of 300 W/m².
In terms of claims 18-20, Gao et al. teaches efficient photosynthesis of hydrogen peroxide by triazole-modified covalent triazine framework (CTF-ph) nanosheets, a polymer photocatalyst, and the use of CTF-ph for photocatalytic H2O2 production, see “2.4. Photocatalytic H2O2 production” at p.41-42.
In terms of claims 21-25, the `100 patent (Abstract) discloses a method for the preparation of hydrogen peroxide through a continuous process, extracting hydrogen peroxide produced from reduction and oxidation of a working solution. The `100 patent (col. 1, Lns. 41-43) discloses the produced hydrogen peroxide is extracted with water, separated, and then purified. In addition, the `837 patent (col. 4, lns. 12-13, and FIGs. 2-3) also teaches the produced hydrogen peroxide comprising an extraction step of extracting the crude hydrogen peroxide with water. The detain extraction steps of claims 21-25 are not inventive steps, but routine experimentation and at grasp of one ordinary skilled in the art.
In terms of claim 26, the `932 publication (Abstract) discloses a hydrogen peroxide purification process by reverse osmosis membrane. The `932 publication [0006-0007] discloses U.S. Pat. No. 4,879,043 describes the use of reverse osmosis for purifying a hydrogen peroxide stream having a strength from 5 to 50 wt %; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,333,018 describes the use of reverse osmosis for purifying a hydrogen peroxide stream having a strength from 60 to 70 wt %, in the absence of stabilizers. The detain purification step of claim 26 is not an inventive step, but routine experimentation and at grasp of one ordinary skilled in the art.
In terms of claim 27, it would have been obvious because the combined references teach all the claimed steps. Accordingly, the limitation “the mass ratio of total organic carbon (TOC) contained in the hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution finally obtained through the hydrogen peroxide manufacturing process of claim 1 is 0.01% to 1% based on the total mass of the hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution” becomes an obvious result from the teachings of the combined references.
In terms of claim 28, the `013 publication [0005 and Abstract] discloses a method for producing a regeneration catalyst for a working solution usable for producing hydrogen peroxide by an anthraquinone method. In addition, the same catalyst regeneration method can be used for regeneration of the photocatalyst CTF-ph disclosed by Gao et al. in order to reduce production costs and environmental negative impact.
Conclusions
Claims 1-28 are rejected.
Claims 29-34 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
