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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BATTEGAY (US 1,756,532) in view of FULDA (US 1,048,953), further in view of GB 413828, still further in view of KACHKAROFF ET AL (US 2,053,834)). BATTEGAY discloses a process for producing nitric acid comprising the introduction of an oxidizing agent into a mixture of nitrosyl sulfuric acid and sulfuric acid. (See page 1, lines 15=101. The differences between the process disclosed by BATTEGAY, and that recited in claims are that BATTEGAY does not disclose that nitric acid should be used as the oxidizing agent, and that steam should be added to the sulfuric acid and nitric acid-containing liquid phase. FULDA discloses nitric acid as an oxidizing agent on page 3, lines 6-10. GB 413828 discloses a method for the recovery of nitrogen oxides from a mixture of nitric acid and sulfuric acid by contacting the mixture of acids with steam (See the entire document.). KACHKAROFF ET AL disclose a method for treating a mixture of nitrous vapors and nitric acid by passing the vapors into a condenser where the nitric acid fumes are condensed by cooling. It would have been obvious from FULDA to utilize nitric acid in the process of BATTEGAY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since BATTEGAY teaches on page 2, lines 66-68 that the oxidation can be carried out by the use of any other oxidizing agents (other than oxygen), and FULDA discloses nitric acid as an oxidizing agent on page 2, lines 6-9. It would have been further obvious from GB 413828 to contact the mixture of nitric acid and sulfuric acid formed in the process of BATTEGAY with steam to separate the sulfuric acid from nitrogen oxides. It would have been still further obvious from KACHKAROFF ET AL to cool the gas phase formed from the contact with steam to form a nitric acid condensate since one would have appreciated that the cooling and condensing steps disclosed KACHKAROFF ET AL would be suitable to recover the nitric acid formed in the process of GB413,828. It would have been even further obvious to absorb the nitrogen oxides in water to obtain nitric acid, since this is a conventional method for forming nitric acid (See the reactions on page 2, lines 35038 of BATTEGAY).
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 5, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine suitable concentrations and ratios of the various components.
Regarding claim 3, BATTEGAY discloses on page 2, lines 8-25 that the reaction is carried out in a vertical column provided with Raschig rings.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, GB 413,828 discloses on page 2, liners 52-62 that the denitration can be carried out at reduced pressure, which would imply that it could also be carried out at atmospheric or greater.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been further obvious to reintroduce part of the nitric acid to the process of BATTEGAY for economic and technical reasons.
Regarding claim 9, BATTEGAY suggests on page 2, lines 35-52 that the oxygen would oxidize in nitric oxide to nitrogen peroxide.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable ratio of oxygen to the nitrogen content of mixed acid in the process of BATTEGAY.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable concentration of nitric acid used as the oxidizing agent in the process of BATTEGAY.
Regarding claim 18, GB 413828 discloses on page 2, lines 35-51 that the denitration can be carried out ion a columnar apparatus of known construction, and the steam would typically be passed in countercurrent to the flow of the liquid phase in the column.
Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to carry out the condensation step disclosed on page 2, column 2, lines 51-64 by surface condensing at corrosion resistant plates, since it is well-known that nitric acid is corrosive,
Regarding claims 11 and 14, the apparatus limitations recited therein would be the obvious or conventional means to carry out the process.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BATTEGAY in view of FULDA, further in view of GB 413828, still further in view of KACHKAROFF ET AL, as applied to claim 11 above, yet further in view of DE 102007059802. It would have been yet further obvious from DE 102007059802 to provide the reactor of BATTEGAY with a fluoropolymer lining. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since DE 102007059802 discloses in Paragraph [0013] of the English translation that steel lined with perfluoroalkoxy copolymer is a suitable corrosion -resistant material with resistance to sulfuric acid.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BATTEGAY in view of FULDA, further in view of GB 413828, still further in view of KACHKAROFF ET AL, as applied to claim 11 above, yet further in view of DE 102007059802, even further in view of DE 19545843. It would have been yet further obvious from DE 19545843. It would have been yet further obvious from DE 102007059802 to provide the stripping column of BATTEGAY with a fluoropolymer lining. One of ordinary skill in the art It would have been motivated to do so, since DE 102007059802 discloses in Paragraph [0013] of the English translation that steel lined with perfluoroalkoxy copolymer is a suitable corrosion -resistant material with resistance to sulfuric acid. It would have been yet further obvious from DE 19545843 to provide the stripping column with a borosilicate glass packing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since DE 19545843 discloses borosilicate glass as a suitable packing material on page 3 of the English translation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BATTEGAY in view of FULDA, further in view of GB 413828, still further in view of KACHKAROFF ET AL, as applied to claim 11 above, yet further in view of Jewell et al (US 2002/0098133). It would have been yet further obvious from Jewell et al to provide a liquid ring compressor to compress the nitrogen oxides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Jewell et al establish the conventionality of the use of liquid ring compressors to compress dry acids in Paragraph [0084].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BATTEGAY in view of FULDA, further in view of GB 413828, still further in view of KACHKAROFF ET AL, as applied to claim 11 above, yet further in view of DE 102007059802, even further in view of WAYCULIS (US 2022/0009775). It would have been further obvious to cool condense the gases using a shell-and- tube heat exchanger, and from DE 102007059802 to provide the shell with a fluoropolymer lining. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since DE 102007059802 discloses in Paragraph [0013] of the English translation that steel lined with perfluoroalkoxy copolymer is a suitable corrosion -resistant material with resistance to sulfuric acid. It would have been yet further obvious from WAYCULIS to provide the tube bundle made of tantalum. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since WAYCULIS discloses tantalum as a corrosion-resistant tube for heat exchangers in Paragraph [0020].
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 3, 12, 13 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 3, the word “suitable” renders the scope of the claim vague and indefinite, since it would not be ascertainable as to whether a given part of a packed or tray column would be “suitable”.
In claims 12, 13 and 20, is is indefinite as to whether the phrases in parentheses ( ) are positive limitations, or are merely examples of the roader genus.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 112 (d) in failing to further limit claim 1.
O’Brien (US 2008/00254910) is made of record for disclosing a method for using a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acid to form a solution of nitrosyl ion. (See claim 12.)
LInguenheld (US 3,374,059) is made of record for disclosing the preparation of nitrosyl acid sulfate by reacting sulfur dioxide with nitric acid.
MOORE et al (US 3,533,732) is made of record for disclosing an apparatus which includes an absorber, stripper, heater and condenser. (See the Drawing and it description.)
BLOCH et al (US 2,781,863) is made of record for disclosing a gas purification process and apparatus for treating acidic gases.
SCHMIEDEL et al (US 1,399,526) is made of record for disclosing the production of sulfuric acid by reacting sulfur dioxide with a solution of nitrosyl sulfuric acid in sulfuric acid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights