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 .
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano (EP 3808424).
The Kawano reference teaches an apparatus and method of crystallization , note entire reference. The apparatus as shown in the figures, in particular Figure 8 teaches the tube in tube arrangement (inner tube 21, outer tube 2). The figures also show the inlets (120, 110) and outlets (230). The inner tube 21 is a porous membrane (paragraph [0022]), whereby the pores act as openings.
With regards to claim 4, the Kawano reference teaches the openings to be evenly spaced.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (EP 3808424).
The Kawano reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the arrangement of the openings so as to create a spiral flow. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kawano apparatus to place the openings along the axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis in order to create a spiral flow mixing the solutions or fluids more uniformly.
With regards to claim 3, the Kawano reference teaches the alignment of the inner and outer tubes concerning being equal distance and off setting, note, figure 8.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (EP 3808424).
The Kawano reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the openings connected to nozzles and the angle of the nozzles with respect to the tubes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kawano apparatus to connect nozzles to the openings in order to increase control of the fluid flow and direction.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (EP 3808424) in view of Sirkar (7811381).
The Kawano reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in recirculation of the mixture from the outlet. However, the Sirkar reference teaches an apparatus for crystallization with a recirculation means of the mixture from the outlet back into the reactor, note figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kawano apparatus by the teachings of the Sirkar reference to add a recirculation system in order to increase overall yields.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (EP 3808424).
The Kawano reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the openings and placement thereof in the outer tube. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kawano apparatus to have multiple inlets and placed at angles in order to increase control of the fluid flow in the outer tube..
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (EP 3808424) in view of Sirkar (7811381).
The Kawano reference teaches a crystallization method for performing treatment of precipitating a crystal of a target substance, the method comprising: a step of continuously supplying a raw material liquid containing the target substance or a raw material substance as a raw material of the target substance so as to flow along one surface side of a porous membrane; a step of continuously supplying a treatment liquid and allowing the treatment liquid to pass through the porous membrane so as to flow along an opposite surface side opposite to one surface side of the porous membrane. The treatment liquid being a poor solvent lowering solubility of the target substance with respect to a mixed liquid obtained by mixing with the raw material liquid or a reaction liquid generating a target substance lower in solubility with respect to the raw material liquid . A step of continuously extracting a mixed liquid of a raw material liquid supplied so as to flow along one surface side of the porous membrane and a treatment liquid passed through the porous membrane from a position on a down- stream side in a flow direction along the one surface side and a step of precipitating and growing a crystal of the target substance. The solutions can be salts or brine and contain carbonates, note examples. The differences between the instant claim and the prior art are the spiral flow and recirculating. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kawano process have the openings along the axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis in order to create a spiral flow mixing the solutions or fluids more uniformly.
Further, the Sirkar reference teaches a process for crystallization with a recirculation step of the mixture from the outlet back into the reactor, note figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kawano process by the teachings of the Sirkar reference to add a recirculation step in order to increase overall yields.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (EP 3808424) in view of Sirkar (7811381).
The Kawano and Sirkar references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the pressure and flow rates. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable flows and pressures in the combined references in order to ensure a complete crystallization.
Claims 6, 7, 10 and 11 are 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.
The prior art of record does not teach nor render obvious the instantly claimed nozzles in the inner tube and the additional deflectors.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714