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.
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) 13-17, 19-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2012-106202), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, in view of Kamino (US 2016/0018170), Gannett et al (US 2009/0028696), and Hino et al (JP2012-246263), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
Inoue teaches heat exchanger configured to handle a solution or crystal-containing slurry, the heat exchanger comprising a scraper 65 for scraping off a substance adhered to an inner wall surface thereof, a shaft 6 connected to the scraper 65, and the rotary shafts 62/63 at both ends are rotatably supported by bearing (Figs 1-7; CT [0024]-[0035]). Inoue teaches rotary shafts 62 and 63 at both ends are rotatably supported by bearings in a mechanically sealed state (CT [0024]).
Inoue teaches rotary shaft is supported by a bearing. Inoue does not explicitly teach a bushing on the shaft, the bushing being to be in contact with the solution or slurry when the heat exchanger is used and being made of an aromatic polyetherketone-containing material.
In a scrape-off type heat exchanger, Kamino teaches scrape-off type heat exchanger 1; a rotating shaft 23, a thrust bearing 25, is connected to the drive shaft of a motor M, and at another end part of a heat transfer tube 20, there is disposed a bushing-type rotational bearing 26, which supports one end part of the rotating shaft 23 (Fig 1; [0045]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Inoue by using a bushing type rotational bearing, as taught by Kamino, to support the rotating shaft using conventionally known bushings for rotational.
The combination of Inoue and Kamino does not teach the bushing being made of an aromatic polyetherketone-containing material.
In a bushing apparatus, Gannett et al teaches a bushing made from a thermoplastic polymer and circumferentially-oriented continuous high tensile modulus fibers may be useful at high temperatures and/or in very corrosive environments, often lengthen the time between required maintenance checks, and usually perform better than metal bushings under nonstandard operating conditions (abstract). Gannett et al teaches useful thermoplastics include poly(ether-ether-ketones) and poly(ether-ketones) ([0027]). Gannett et al teaches bushings are useful in many types of equipment especially where there are rotating shafts, and where there is an interface between those shafts and another piece of the equipment that must be sealed against leakage of liquid and/or gas ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Inoue and Kamino by making the bushing from an aromatic polyetherketone-containing material, such as poly(ether-ether-ketones) and poly(ether-ketones), as taught by Gannett et al, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) and the materials are useful at high temperatures and/or in very corrosive environments.
The combination of Inoue, Kamino and Gannett et al does not teach forming an easily-polymerizable compound of an acrylic acid.
In a scraper unit for a crystallizer, Hino et al teaches a scraper unit for a crystallizer for crystallizing methacrylic acid from a raw material containing methacrylic acid by indirect cooling crystallization to obtain a crystal slurry (CT2 [0001]), which clearly suggests the easily polymerizable compound is an acrylic acid. Hino et al teaches the material of the scraper blade can be selected appropriately, and specific examples include PEEK (Polyether ether ketone) (CT2 [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Inoue, Kamino and Gannett et al by using the apparatus to obtain a desirable crystalline methacrylic acid, as taught by Hino et al.
Referring to claims 14 and 20, the combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al teaches the scraper and the bushing made of Polyether ether ketone, as discussed above.
Referring to claims 19, 21, and 26, the combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al teaches using a crystallizer with an inlet, rotating shaft, a bushing, a scraper for crystallizing methacrylic acid from a raw material containing methacrylic acid by indirect cooling crystallization to obtain a crystal slurry (Inoue Fig 1-7; Hino CT2 [0001]), which clearly suggests an easily-polymerizable compound is an acrylic acid. The combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al also teaches bushings are useful in many types of equipment especially where there are rotating shafts, and where there is an interface between those shafts and another piece of the equipment that must be sealed against leakage of liquid and/or gas (Gannett [0030]).
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al teaches solution has a high melting point than the easily-polymerizable compound (methacrylic acid) because the easily-polymerizable compound is cooled and crystallizer walls and scraped off, while the solution stays a liquid (Hino CT2 [0001]-[0030]).
Referring to claim 16 and 22, the combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al does not explicitly teach the claimed temperature. Temperature is a well known result effective variable in heat exchanger crystallization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al by optimizing the temperature by conducting routine experimentation to obtain the claimed range of 1-15°C to improve yield (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 17 and 23, the combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al teaches rotating the scraping unit at 26 rpm (Hino CT2 [0122]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al by optimizing the rotating speed of the scraper by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2012-106202), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, in view of Kamino (US 2016/0018170), Gannett et al (US 2009/0028696), and Hino et al (JP2012-246263), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided, as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Miyamoto et al (US 2014/0066652).
The combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 25, as discussed above, except the (meth)acrylic acid is produced from at least one raw material selected from the group consisting of propane, propylene, acrolein, acetic acid, lactic acid, isopropanol, 1,3-propanediol, glycerol, and 3-hydroxypropionic acid. The combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al teaches methacrolein was catalytically oxidized with molecular oxygen in a gas phase, and the resulting reaction product gas was condensed, extracted, and then distilled to obtain crude methacrylic acid A as a raw material containing methacrylic acid (Hino CT2 [0115]).
In a method of producing (meth)acrylic acid, Miyamoto et al teaches (meth)acrylic acid production raw material used in the (meth)acrylic acid formation step is not restricted as long as it forms (meth)acrylic acid by reaction, and examples of the (meth)acrylic acid production raw material include, for example, propane, propylene, (meth)acrolein, isobutylene, and the like (abstract; [0050]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Inoue, Kamino, Gannett et al and Hino et al by producing (meth)acrylic acid from at least one raw material selected from the group consisting of propane or propylene, as taught by Miyamoto et al, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07) and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-17, 19-23 and 25-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach the use of an acrylic acid is noted but not found persuasive. Hino et al teaches a scraper unit for a crystallizer for crystallizing methacrylic acid from a raw material containing methacrylic acid by indirect cooling crystallization to obtain a crystal slurry (CT2 [0001]), which clearly suggests the easily polymerizable compound is an acrylic acid. The examiner maintains that using the apparatus taught by the prior art to produce methacrylic acid would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to produce a purified crystalline methacrylic acid.
Applicant’s argument that using bushings of PEEK to prevent polymerization caused by frictional heat was not conceived by the prior art is noted but not found persuasive. First, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Second, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Applicant uses Applicant’s comparative example 1 using PTFE and Applicant’s example 1 using PEEK to show polymerization was prevented. Applicant’s example 1 was stable for 50 hours and comparative example 1 was stable for about 5 hours, however there is no time component recited in the claims; therefore, even with a PTFE bushing the process of claim 13 would be expected to perform as well as a PEEK bushing for at least 4 hours, thus there would not an unexpected result. Furthermore, the polymerization induced by frictional heat would be expected to dependent on the RPM of the shaft; therefore, less RPM would be expected to produce less heat and also for a stable process for a longer period of time. The examiner maintains that the claim is so broadly claimed that unexpected results commensurate in the scope for using PEEK are not show, and using PEEK bushing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Gannett et al; therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salatka (US 2008/0083862) teaches construction of the axle or other components for rotatably securing the axial shaft or cylinder 20 may include bearings, bushings, sleeves, spindles, hinges or other components known in the art for securing the shaft or cylinder and permitting axial rotation of the shaft along its axis between the support members ([0017]).
Nordhoff et al (US 2005/0222459) teaches (meth)acrylic acid using propane, isobutene, isobutane, tert.-butanol, iso-butyraldehyde, methacrolein using a crystallizer comprising a slurry containing crystals of a compound ([0110]-[0111], [0267]-[0275]).
JP2011-219376 teaches a purification method of (meth)acrylic acid using a heat transfer surface of a crystallization tank; and temperature of the slurry in a second crystallization tank 2 is lower than the slurry temperature in the first crystallization tank 1, and 4.5 to 6.0° C. improves the yield in the subsequent purification process (Abstract; computer translation [0028]).
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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights