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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al (GB 805503) in view of Takamoto et al (JP 7-179373 A1 machine translation IDS).
Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for producing bromofluoromethane comprising: a fluorination step of reacting a fluorinating agent with a raw-material compound which is at least one of carbon tetrabromide and tribromofluoromethane for fluorination in presence of a simple substance or a salt of a metal belonging to a third period or a fourth period and belonging to any of Group III to Group XIII of a periodic table to synthesize a target compound which is at least one of tribromofluoromethane and dibromodifluoromethane, wherein the raw-material compound and the target compound are not the same.
Palmer discloses producing bromofluoromethanes (Br2F2 and CBr3F) by reacting CBr4 with a fluorinating agent using aluminum, nickel, cobalt or chromium catalysts. The current claim expands the catalyst selection to group 3-13 metals and lists CBr3F as an alternative starting material, while Palmer inherently produces and fluorinates this exact compound as an in-situ intermediate during the conversion of CBr4 to CBr2F2. See claims and examples and entire of col. 3.
Claim 1 is obvious over Palmer because utilizing the known intermediate CBr3F as a standalone starting material to control the reaction profile is a matter of routine optimization. Furthermore, expanding the catalyst selection to broader, adjacent metal periods and groups represents a predictable substitution of known catalytic materials. A person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to adjust result-effective variables like reactant ratios and temperatures to achieve the claimed process using the teaching of palmer.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Palmer discloses the primary method of producing bromofluoromethane by reacting a brominated alkane feedstock with a fluorinating agent in the presence of a metal catalyst. The present claim differ from Palmer by specifying that the fluorinated agent is an interhalogen compound containing bromide or iodine atom and three or more fluorine atoms. Takamoto bridges this gap by explicitly disclosing the use of an interhalogen compound, specifically bromine trifluoride (BrF3) as a highly effective fluorinating agent for halogenated organic compounds. See claims and abstract.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine these teachings and substitute the fluorinating agent of Palmer with the multi-fluorinated interhalogen compound taught by Takamoto. Because Takamoto establishes the BrF3 is a known, active reagent designed for exchanging heavy halogens for fluorine atoms, substituting Palmer’s fluorinating agent with this interhalogen compound represents a predictable substitution of functionally equivalent chemical components. A practitioner would make this modification with a reasonable expectation of successfully synthesizing the target bromofluoromethanes.
Regarding claims 4,10 and 11 these claims are obvious because operating parameters such as reaction temperature are result-effective variables that are routinely optimized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. While Palmer teaches the overarching process, Takamoto explicitly demonstrate that liquid phase fluorination utilizing interhalogen reagent proceed efficiently at moderate, controlled temperatures within this exact range(for example at room temperature or with mild cooling/heating). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the reaction temperature of Palmer’s method to 0 to 100 C when using active fluorinating agents like in Takamoto, balancing the exothermic nature of halogen exchange with target product selectivity. See examples and claims.
Regarding claims 5,12,13 and 14 these claims are obvious because palmer explicitly discloses three of the exact metals aluminum, nickel and cobalt for the identical fluorination reaction. Including adjacent, well known transition metals like iron and scandium represents a predictable choice of alternative catalysts from the same periods and blocks of the periodic table. See claims and examples and entire of col. 3.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have bound it obvious to select these specific metals when deploying the active interhalogen fluorinating agents taught by Takamoto, as substituting closely related transition metals to optimize catalyst stability and product yield is matter of routine, result-effective experimentation.
Regrading claims 6,15, 16 and 17 these claims are obvious because Palmer explicitly discloses aluminum fluoride for the identical fluorination reaction. Furthermore, substituting other metal compounds with their corresponding metal fluoride represents a predictable application of known catalytic materials. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that during a fluorination reaction involving a fluorinating agent, transition metals inherently form or act as active metal fluoride salts in-situ. Therefore, selecting these specific metal fluorides when using the fluorination methods of Palmer and the active reagents of Takamoto is a matter of routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of achieving the target bromofluoromethanes. See claims and examples and entire of col. 3.
Regarding claims 7, 18, 19 and 20 these claims are obvious because the relative amount of a catalyst used in a chemical process is a classic example of a result-effective variable that is routinely optimized in the art. While Palmer teaches the overarching catalytic process, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a catalytic concentration between 1 mol% and 50 mol% represents a standard, commercially viable operating window. Practitioner routinely adjust catalyst loading within these exact conventional parameters to balance reaction velocity against raw material costs. Combining the catalytic system of Palmer with the active fluorinating agents of Takamoto using this standard molar rage is nothing more than routine optimization with a predictable expectation of success. See claims and examples and entire of col. 3.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, these claims are obvious because the stoichiometry and molar ratio of reactants are standard, result-effective variables that are routinely optimized by practitioners in chemical synthesis. To achieve the targeted replacement of exactly one bromine atom (such as converting CBr4 to CBr3F), a person having ordinary skill in the art would naturally limit the available fluorine content to a near-equimolar ration relative to the starting material to prevent over fluorination. Setting the molar ratio of reactive fluorine atoms to the raw material within the conventional range of 0.7 to 1.5 (col. 3 of Palmer) is a mathematically predictable choice. Combining this stoichiometric calculation with the catalytic process of Palmer and the active agents of Takamoto is an exercise of routine optimization with an expectation of controlling the product distribution. See examples and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights