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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 of S. Zhang et al., US 18/546,986 (Sept. 2, 2021) are under examination on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Examination requires claim terms first be construed in terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. See, MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01. Claim interpretation is updated from the previous Office action to account for the claim amendments.
Summary of Claim 1
Claim 1 recites as follows:
1. A method for continuously producing a water-soluble azo dye in a pipeline reactor, wherein,
the pipeline reactor has a tubular body having a rotary shaft disposed in an axial direction thereof, the rotary shaft is driven by a motor and has a plurality of stirring blades disposed along the rotary shaft, an outer surface of the tubular body is provided multiple pairs of ports, each pair of ports having a sampling port and a paired inlet port that is disposed adjacent to and above the sample port,
the method comprising:
at room temperature, continuously feeding a diazotization reaction mixture into at a bottom of the pipeline reactor to carry out a diazotization reaction to produce a diazonium salt, wherein the diazotization reaction progresses to complete when the diazotization reaction mixture moves upward along the axial direction of tubular body;
S2: obtaining samples of the diazotization reaction mixture from a plurality of sample ports, testing the obtained samples to identify a sampling port at which the diazotization reaction is completed;
S3 feeding a coupling component solution with a preset pH into the pipeline reactor through an inlet pairs with the identified sampling port, so that the coupling component solution mixes with the diazotization reaction mixture to form a coupling reaction mixture in the pipeline reactor under the stirring of the plurality of stirring blades to perform the coupling reaction to produce the water-soluble azo dyes dye; and
S4: discharging the coupling reaction mixture containing the water-soluble azo dye from a top of the pipeline reactor.
Specification working Embodiment 1 is exemplary of the chemical reaction that occurs in the claimed pipeline reactor.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification at page 7, lines 4-10.
The specification teaches that the structure of the pipeline reactor with a plurality of built-in micro stirring blades distributed along the axial direction provided in the embodiments of the present disclosure is shown as FIG. 1. Specification at page 6, lines 9-10. The specification teaches that
When in use, the materials [per claim 1, “a diazotization reaction mixture” e.g., per working Embodiment 1 the amine to be diazotized, HCl, NaNO2]1 enter the pipeline reactor from the inlet I [numeral 5 of Fig. 1], the rotating shaft driven by the motor drives the micro stirring blades to rotate, and the materials flow upward under the action of feed driving force in the reactor and the diazotization reaction is carried out at the same time.
Real time detection is carried out through the sampling ports during the reaction to determine a position of the pipeline reactor where the reaction solution is located when the diazotization reaction is completed.
The coupling component [compound to be coupled to the diazotized amine to form the claim 1 “dye”, e.g., 1-(4-sulfopheny)-3-methyl-5-pyrazolone solution of working Embodiment 1] is input at room temperature into the inlet adjacent to above the sampling port where the diazotization reaction is completed, and the diazonium salt and the coupling component carry out the coupling reaction and flow upward under the action of feed driving force.
The water-soluble azo dyeing solution produced in the pipeline reactor is discharged from the top of the pipeline reactor to obtain the produced dyeing solution. The remaining materials in the reactor can be discharged from the bottom discharge port after completion of the reaction.
Specification at page 6, lines 20-30 (emphasis added).
Interpretation of the Claim 1 Reactants and Products
Claim 1 requires initial amine diazotization, sampling during the reaction to determine the position of the pipeline reactor where the diazotization reaction is completed, then adding a coupling component solution into the pipeline reactor through the pipeline adjacent to where the diazotization reaction is determined to be completed.
The claim 1 term “diazotization reaction mixture” is broadly and reasonably interpreted, consistently with the specification, as a primary aryl amine and reagent(s) that convert a primary arylamine to a diazonium salt (e.g., nitrous acid, generated in situ from sodium nitrite/hydrochloric acid). See, specification at page 1, lines 10-17 (“[t]he diazotization reaction of water-soluble primary arylamines is carried out in the aqueous solution of arylamines, with nitrite as the diazotization reagent, and the nitrite is produced in situ with sodium nitrite and hydrochloric acid in the reaction system”); see also, Id. at page 3, lines 15-20. This interpretation is consistent with the art, which teaches that the diazotization reaction (in azo dye synthesis) is carried out by treating the primary aromatic amine with nitrous acid, normally generated in situ with hydrochloric acid and sodium nitrite. Kirk‐Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Dyes and Dye Intermediates, 1-66 (2009) (see page 6). Note also that a dye (as claimed) necessarily requires a conjugated system of aryl rings. Id.
The claim 1 term “a coupling component solution” is broadly and reasonably interpreted, based on its plain language and consistently with the specification, as any compound that, upon reacting with the intermediate “diazonium salt” results in “water-soluble azo dye”. Specification at page 1, lines 10-17 (“[p]rimary arylamine diazonium salt reacts with aromatic compounds containing amino or hydroxyl on equal molar equivalent in aqueous solution to produce azo compounds, namely the water-soluble azo dyes”); see also, Kirk‐Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Dyes and Dye Intermediates, 1-66 (2009) (see page 6).
The term “water-soluble azo dye” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a compound comprising two aryl groups directly linked by a diazo group (-N=N-) and which is soluble in water at room temperature. Specification at page 1, lines 10-17 (“[p]rimary arylamine diazonium salt reacts with aromatic compounds containing amino or hydroxyl on equal molar equivalent in aqueous solution to produce azo compounds, namely the water-soluble azo dyes”); see also, Kirk‐Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Dyes and Dye Intermediates, 1-66 (2009) (see page 6).
Maintained Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
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.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112, the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Indefinite Claim Language
Claims 2 (dependent upon claim 1) is rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112, as indefinite because the following bolded language is unclear:
Clam 2 . . . in S1, the diazotization reaction mixture comprises, a diazo component, sodium nitrite and a hydrochloric acid in a molar ratio of 1: 1.05: (2.10 to 2.30) . . .
Here, the bolded claim 2 text recites the four-number ratio of “1: 1.05: (2.10 to 2.30)” with respect to three components (i.e., “a diazo component, sodium nitrite and a hydrochloric acid”), where part of the ratio is in parenthesis. It is not clear to one of skill which component corresponds which ratio number or what the parentheses represent. For example, does Applicant intend “1 mol of diazo component to 1.05 mols of sodium nitrite to 2.10 – 2.30 moles of hydrochloric acid”?
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant does not address this ground of rejection.
Maintained 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 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 AIA 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H. Langfeld et al., US 5,606,034 (1997) (“Langfeld”); L. Schlafer et al., US 4,818,814 (1989) (“Schlafer”); D. Morris, WO 2021/204834 (2021) (“Morris”); and H. Qiu et al., CN 109621879 (2019) (“Qiu”).
H. Langfeld et al., US 5,606,034 (1997) (“Langfeld”)
Langfeld teaches that diazotizing aromatic amines of formula I below in simple manner by carrying out the diazotization continuously in the temperature range from about 35° to 65° C. Langfeld at col. 1, lines 44-47. Langfeld teaches that:
Diazotisation is carried out in a commercially available continuous flow reactor which is preferably fitted with a mixer for very intensive mixing of the components. The procedure comprises e.g. running in the amine, alkali metal nitrite and mineral acid e.g. through three separate feed lines synchronously in the requisite amounts. However, it is also possible to mix two of the components, conveniently amine and alkali metal nitrite, with each other before they are introduced into the flow reactor.
Langfeld at col. 2, lines 40-48 (emphasis added). Langfeld further teaches that “[c]oupling is effected in conventional manner with the customary coupling components used for the preparation of azo dyes”. Langfeld at col. 2, lines 62-64.
In working Example 1, Langfeld teaches that 4'-amino-4-nitrodiphenylamine-2-sulfonic acid and diazotizing reagent (HCl and sodium nitrite) are synchronously run into a continuous flow reactor (at 47 °C - 50 °C) fitted with a high-speed mixer for very good micromixing, in a continuous reaction, whereby the diazotized amine that exits the reactor is cooled and collected in a receiver vessel. Langfeld at col. 3, lines 45-59.
Langfeld teaches that next the resultant diazo suspension is collected in a receiver vessel and the cooled diazonium salt is then added at about pH 8.6 in alkaline medium buffered with sodium carbonate to the coupling product (obtained in known manner), to form the product dye, which is salted out in conventional manner by addition of NaCl in strongly acidic medium, isolated and dried, affording about 915 parts of dry powder that dyes leather. Langfeld at col. 3, line 59 – col. 4, line 6.
Differences between Langfeld and Claim 1
Langfeld, although teaching that the Example 1 continuous flow reactor “is fitted with a high-speed mixer for very good micromixing”, does not specifically teach the reactor shape or the mixer specifications and thus does not specifically meet the claim limitation of
Claim 1 . . . the pipeline reactor has a tubular body having a rotary shaft disposed in an axial direction thereof, the rotary shaft is driven by a motor and has a plurality of stirring blades disposed along the rotary shaft, an outer surface of the tubular body is provided multiple pairs of ports, each pair of ports having a sampling port and a paired inlet port that is disposed adjacent to and above the sample port . . .
Langfeld further differs by teaching a diazotization temperature range from about 35° to 65° C, whereas claim 1 requires room temperature. Langfeld at col. 1, lines 44-47.
Langfeld Example 1 further differs from claim 1 because Langfeld completes formation of the diazonium intermediate whereupon it is collected in a receiver vessel and then reacted with the coupling product outside of the original continuous flow reactor. That is, Langfeld teaches coupling the diazonium salt in a separate reaction (i.e., outside of the continuous flow reactor). Thus, Langfeld thus does not meet the following claim 1 steps
Clam 1 . . . S2: obtaining samples of the diazotization reaction mixture from a plurality of sample ports, testing the obtained samples to identify a sampling port at which the diazotization reaction is completed;
S3 feeding a coupling component solution with a preset pH into the pipeline reactor through an inlet pairs with the identified sampling port, so that the coupling component solution mixes with the diazotization reaction mixture to form a coupling reaction mixture in the pipeline reactor under the stirring of the plurality of stirring blades to perform the coupling reaction to produce the water-soluble azo dyes dye . . .
L. Schlafer et al., US 4,818,814 (1989) (“Schlafer”)
Schlafer teaches water soluble diazo dyes of formula (I).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schlafer at col. 1, lines 40-50.
Schlafer teaches preparation of formula (I) by coupling a monoazo compound of the general formula (4) with the diazonium compound of an aromatic amine of the general formula (5). Schlafer at col. 2, lines 46-67.
Schlafer teaches the following one-pot working Example 1.
EXAMPLE 1.
28.1 parts of 4-aminophenyl [Symbol font/0x62]-sulfatoethyl sulfone are diazotized in conventional manner in a mixture of 100 parts of ice-water and 35 parts of 31% strength aqueous hydrochloric acid with 13.1 parts by volume of an aqueous 40% strength sodium nitrite solution.
After the diazotization reaction has ended, 31.9 parts of 1-amino-8-naphthol-3,6-disulfonic acid are added, the pH value is brought to 1 to 2 and the coupling reaction is completed within this pH range at a temperature below 10 C. with about 4 hours of stirring.
Schlafer at col. 6, lines 36-47.
This reaction can be summarized as the following one-pot reaction:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See, CASREACT Indexing of L. Schlafer et al., US 4,818,814 (1989).
D. Morris, WO 2021/204834 (2021) (“Morris”)
Morris teaches dynamic mixing or agitation within reactants as they pass along the length of a reactor (preferably tubular), where the reactor may be horizontal, vertical, inclined or a combination thereof. Morris at page 2, lines 20-25.
Morris teaches a process wherein a process material comprising two or more distinct phases are fed continuously to a tubular reactor containing an agitator, wherein as the phases flow along the reactor the agitator displaces at least part of a first phase from its distinct position to within a second phase where it is distributed within the second phase by the agitator and the agitator is designed to allow the first phase that is distributed within the second phase to flow naturally back towards its original distinct position within the reactor as the phases pass through the reactor.. Morris at page 3, lines 8-15. Morris teaches that the agitator is provided inside the vessel which is capable of rotational or reciprocal movement through an arc and the agitator is shaped to capture material from a first phase in its preferred situation. Morris at page 3, lines 20-22.
Morris teaches that the sizes and shapes of the agitators used in this invention may be chosen according to the size and shape of the reactor and/or the nature of the reaction or mixing process for which the reactor is to be used and the sizes and shapes of the agitator may be varied within a tubular reactor according to the reaction or mixing that is being performed and this can increase the flexibility and use of the invention. Morris at page 5, lines 26-31.
H. Qiu et al., CN 109621879 (2019) (“Qiu”)
An English-machine language translation is attached as the second half of reference Qiu. Qiu thus consists of 14 total pages (including the English-language portion). Accordingly, this Office action references Qiu page numbers in the following format “xx of 14”.
Qiu teaches the tubular reactor show in Fig. 1, which as can be seen (and as per claim 1) comprises a plurality of stirring blades distributed along an axial direction. Qiu at page 6 or 14.
Qiu teaches that the tubular reactor is provided with a heat exchange jacket maintaining the heat exchange, with the reaction cavity; two sides of the reaction cavity is provided with a flange and the sealing connection; reaction cavity one end side is provided with a material inlet, the other end side is provided with a material outlet, the lower end is outlet. Qiu at page 11 of 14, lines 3-9. Qiu teaches that stirrer is composed of a stirring shaft 10 and the stirring shaft 10 the middle of the permanent magnetic rotor (9), two ends of the permanent magnet 20 and the permanent magnet 20 with the permanent magnetic rotor 9 of 4 stirring blade 11. Qiu at page 12 of 14, last full paragraph.
Obviousness Rationale
Claim 1 is obvious for the following reasons. One of ordinary skill is motivated to prepare water-soluble azo dyes by continuous diazotization reaction as directly taught by Langfeld (for example, any of the water-soluble azo dyes taught by Schlafer). Towards this, one of ordinary skill is motivated to employ (per claim 1) a
Claim 1 . . . the pipeline reactor has a tubular body having a rotary shaft disposed in an axial direction thereof, the rotary shaft is driven by a motor and has a plurality of stirring blades disposed along the rotary shaft, an outer surface of the tubular body is provided multiple pairs of ports, each pair of ports having a sampling port and a paired inlet port that is disposed adjacent to and above the sample port . . .
because Langfeld (although not teaching the specifics of the continuous reactor employed) does teach that that the Example 1 continuous flow reactor “is fitted with a high-speed mixer for very good micromixing”. Langfeld at col. 2, lines 40-48. For instance, one of ordinary skill is motivated to employ either a Morris stirring shaft (see Morris Figures 1-3) or the stirring shaft of Qiu (see Qiu Figure 1, at page 6 of 14), each of which meets the claim 1 limitation of “a plurality of stirring blades disposed along the rotary shaft, an outer surface of the tubular body”, in either of the Morris or Qiu tubular reactors.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to perform the claim 1 step of
Claim 1 . . . at room temperature, continuously feeding a diazotization reaction mixture into a bottom of the pipeline reactor to carry out a diazotization reaction to produce a diazonium salt, wherein the diazotization reaction progresses to complete when the diazotization reaction mixture moves upward along the axial direction of tubular body;
because Morris teaches reactor may be horizontal, vertical, inclined or a combination thereof (Morris at page 2, lines 20-25) and Qiu depicts the reactor in a vertical arrangement. It is clear to one of ordinary skill, that in a continuous process, reactants could conceivably be added at any point along the column length, where if the proposed vertical pipeline arrangement is employed, gravity dictates that the diazotization reaction mixture will start at the pipeline bottom and be fed upward through the column by action of the rotary stirring blades as it reacts to form the diazonium salt.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the above-proposed continuous diazotization reaction to room temperature (of course, depending on the requirements of the particular arylamine reactant employed) to avoid the costs of heating (as taught by the Langfeld diazotization) or cooling (as taught by the Schlafer diazotization) and thereby optimize reaction efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art to develop workable or optimum ranges for result-effective parameters, where Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality (unexpected result) of the range. MPEP § 2144.05; see also, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP § 2144.04(II)(A) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ("[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”))
Next, one of ordinary skill is further motivated to perform the claim 1 steps of:
Claim 1 . . . S2: obtaining samples of the diazotization reaction mixture from a plurality of sample ports, testing the obtained samples to identify a sampling port at which the diazotization reaction is completed;
S3. inputting, at room temperature, the coupling component with a preset pH after accurate metering into the inlet adjacent to above a sampling port where the diazotization reaction is completed, wherein a molar ratio of the coupling component to the diazo component is 1: 1, and the coupling component and the diazo component carrying out the coupling reaction and flowing upward under the action of feed driving force . . .
for the following reasons. Per claim 1, step S2, one of ordinary skill is motivated to determine at which point on the vertical column the initial diazotization reaction is complete. One of ordinary skill is clearly motivated to add the coupling component at this column location because it is the reaction between the diazonium salt and coupling reagent that is desired to form the azo dye; for example, to avoid side reactions with the subsequently added coupling agent. Further, Schlafer teaches that diazotization and coupling reaction can be accomplished in a single pot. Schlafer at col. 6, lines 36-47. One of ordinary skill is motivated to employ “a molar ratio of the coupling component to the diazo component is 1: 1, and the coupling component and the diazo component” because that is the reaction stoichiometry.
One of ordinary skill is thereafter motivated to perform the claim 1 step of:
S4: discharging the coupling reaction mixture containing the water-soluble azo dye from a top of the pipeline reactor.
in order to collect the azo dye product. The claimed order of reagent addition does not distinguish claim 1 from the cited art under § 103 because claim 1’s limitations are related to design choice for a known reaction. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C).2 One of ordinary skill thereby meets each and every limitation of claim 1 by practice of the cited art as proposed.
Claim 2 is obvious for the following reasons.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein: in S1, the diazotization reaction mixture comprises, a diazo component, sodium nitrite and a hydrochloric acid in a molar ratio of 1: 1.05: (2.10 to 2.30); and
in S3 a molar ratio of the coupling component to diazonium salt in the coupling reaction mixture is 1:1.
First, one of ordinary skill is motivated to employ sodium nitrite and hydrochloric acid in a molar ratio of 1: 1.05: (2.10 to 2.30) as the diazotization reagent because both Langfeld and Schlafer teach sodium nitrite and hydrochloric acid as the diazotization reagent and the stoichiometry for the reaction between sodium nitrite (NaNO₂) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) to produce nitrous acid (HNO₂) (the active diazotization agent) is a simple 1:1 ratio, represented by the equation NaNO₂ + HCl → HNO₂ + NaCl. See § 112(b) rejection above. The claim 2 limitation of “in S3 a molar ratio of the coupling component to diazonium salt in the coupling reaction mixture is 1:1” is obvious because the reaction stoichiometry is 1:1.
The limitations of claim 3 are clearly met by the above-proposed cited art combination.
Claim 4 recites:
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein, in S1, the diazotization reaction mixture has a concentration of the diazo component higher than 200 g/L and the coupling reaction mixture has a concentration of the coupling component higher than 200 g/L.
is obvious because one of ordinary skill is motivated to scale the pipeline reactor dimensions and reagent concentration for larger scale reactions in view of the utility taught by Schlafer. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP § 2144.05(A)(II) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))
The limitations of claims 5 and 6 are clearly met by employing the reactants of Schlafer one-pot working Example 1 in the proposed § 103 rationale.
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant argues that the one skilled in the art would have readily appreciated that the one-pot reaction process of Schlafer is a batch process. In addition, Langfeld clearly teaches that "After exiting from the flow reactor, the solution of the diazo component is cooled, if necessary, and coupled to a coupling component, preferably batchwise." Langfeld, col. 2, lines 55-57. Accordingly, the combination both Langfeld and Schlafer at most provides a continuous reaction to produce a diazo component followed by a batch to produce azo dyes. Applicant argues that the cited art does not teach the following claim 1 limitations:
Claim 1 . . . S2: obtaining samples of the diazotization reaction mixture from a plurality of sample ports, testing the obtained samples to identify a sampling port at which the diazotization reaction is completed;
S3 feeding a coupling component solution with a preset pH into the pipeline reactor through an inlet pairs with the identified sampling port, so that the coupling component solution mixes with the diazotization reaction mixture to form a coupling reaction mixture in the pipeline reactor under the stirring of the plurality of stirring blades to perform the coupling reaction to produce the water-soluble azo dyes dye; and
S4: discharging the coupling reaction mixture containing the water-soluble azo dye from a top of the pipeline reactor.
This argument is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Langfeld’s continuous diazotization reaction followed by batch coupling to a fully continuous process in view of Schlafer’s teaching that the diazotization and coupling reactions can occur in single pot. Schlafer at col. 6, lines 36-47. Per claim 1, step S2, one of ordinary skill is motivated to determine at which point on the vertical column the initial diazotization reaction is complete. One of ordinary skill is clearly motivated to add the coupling component at this column location because it is the reaction between the diazonium salt and coupling reagent that is desired to form the azo dye; for example, to avoid side reactions with the subsequently added coupling agent. The claimed order of reagent addition does not distinguish claim 1 from the cited art under § 103 because claim 1’s limitations are related to design choice for a known reaction. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C) (see footnote 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 5:00 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
ALEXANDER R. PAGANO
Examiner
Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 Text in “[ ]” added by the Examiner based to assist in understanding the gist of the claimed invention. See, also, specification at pages 6-8 (working Embodiment 1).
2 MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(C) (citing Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Prosecution Insights