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 .
Preliminary claim amendments filed 12/1/2023 are acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-12 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.
With regards to claim 1, line 3 introduces “a crystallization tank or ripening tank” but line 6 just recites “the ripening tank”. It is unclear whether line 6 is trying to limit the selection of a ripening tank over a crystallization tank. A similar issue occurs with line 4-5 “solution or … slurry” while lines 12-13 refer only to the slurry option.
Claim 10 is a duplicate of claim 1 and has the same issue.
Claim 11 line 4 introduces “a crystallization tank or ripening tank” but line 7 just recites “the ripening tank”. It is unclear whether line 7 is trying to limit the selection of a ripening tank over a crystallization tank. A similar issue occurs with line 6-7 “solution or … slurry” while lines 13-14 refer only to the slurry option.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons. Prior art is applied as best as possible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff et al. (US 2005/0222459) in view of Chemical Plant Construction Manual, 1972, pages 678-679 (cited by applicant).
With regards to claims 1 and 10, Nordhoff et al. teaches a process for producing an easily polymerizable compound ((meth)acrylic acid), using a purification apparatus (fig 1) comprising a wash column (hydraulic or mechanical wash column 5) and at least one crystallization or ripening tank (suspension producer (e.g. cooling plate crystallizer, scraper cooler) 3), the crystallization tank forming easily polymerizable compound crystals from an easily polymerizable compound containing solution or a mother liquid in an easily polymerizable compound crystal containing slurry (from storage vessel 1; can be either as it includes a mother liquor return to the crystallizer via line 11), the ripening tank growing the easily polymerizable compound crystals (it is a crystallizer) (fig 1; para [0167]-[0185]). The apparatus has lines that connect at least one of the crystallization, ripening, and wash column. The method includes sending the easily polymerizable compound crystal slurry through the line.
Nordhoff et al. does not teach that the line has a bend with the claimed radius and diameter ratio. The Manual teaches connecting pipes using a special elbow with the radius of curvature set to 3 to 10 times the inner diameter (a ratio of R/D of 3 to 10) in order to prevent clogging by a solid in a slurry pipe (such as one containing easily polymerized crystals in a mother liquor etc.). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used special elbow connectors in the system of Nordhoff et al. as taught by the Manual in order to provide connections between components in the desired space while preventing clogging the curves of the lines.
With regards to claim 2, the combination results in wherein the line connects the wash column to the crystallization tank or the ripening tank, and in the sending the slurry, the easily polymerizable compound crystal- containing slurry is sent from the crystallization tank or the ripening tank to the wash column (see fig 1).
With regards to claim 5, the wash column is a hydraulic wash column (para [0173]).
With regards to claim 6, Nordhoff teaches process temperatures in overlapping ranges with the claim temperatures and teaches that the temperatures and pressure conditions allow reliable uninterrupted transport of the (meth)acrylic acid (para [0125]-[0131]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added heaters as needed in order to maintain the (meth)acrylic acid at the desired temperature for reliable transport.
With regards to claim 7, Nordhoff et al. teaches generating (meth) acrylic acid through gaseous phase oxidation from a raw material and then condensing it and forming an aqueous solution (para [0057]-[0058]).
With regards to claim 8, the compound is (meth)acrylic acid (title, abstract; see whole document).
With regards to claim 11, Nordhoff et al. teaches an apparatus for purifying an easily polymerizable compound (fig 1), the apparatus comprising: a wash column (5); and at least one of a crystallization tank or a ripening tank (3), the crystallization tank forming easily polymerizable compound crystals from an easily polymerizable compound-containing solution or a mother liquor in an easily polymerizable compound crystal-containing slurry (from storage vessel 1; can be either as it includes a mother liquor return to the crystallizer via line 11) the ripening tank growing the easily polymerizable compound crystals (it is a crystallizer) (fig 1; para [0167]-[0185]). The apparatus has lines that connect at least one of the crystallization, ripening, and wash column. The method includes sending the easily polymerizable compound crystal slurry through the line.
Nordhoff et al. does not teach that the line has a bend with the claimed radius and diameter ratio. The Manual teaches connecting pipes using a special elbow with the radius of curvature set to 3 to 10 times the inner diameter (a ratio of R/D of 3 to 10) in order to prevent clogging by a solid in a slurry pipe (such as one containing easily polymerized crystals in a mother liquor etc.). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used special elbow connectors in the system of Nordhoff et al. as taught by the Manual in order to provide connections between components in the desired space while preventing clogging the curves of the lines.
With regards to claim 12, the combination results in wherein the line connects the wash column to the crystallization tank or the ripening tank, and in the sending the slurry, the easily polymerizable compound crystal- containing slurry is sent from the crystallization tank or the ripening tank to the wash column (see fig 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff et al. (US 2005/0222459) in view of Chemical Plant Construction Manual, 1972, pages 678-679 (cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Okazaki et al. (US 2002/0169338).
With regards to claim 3, the combination is silent to flow velocity of the slurry. Okazaki et al. teaches producing a carboxylic ester (methacrylic acid is a carboxylic acid) and teaches an overlapping range of the ratio of the curvature radius to the inner diameter (greater than 3) to prevent stagnation in the pipe (para [0037]). The slurry is taught to be traveling at 0.5m/s to 3 m/s (para [0037]) which overlaps the claimed range. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sent slurry through a similar curve to diameter pipe within the taught range motivated by an expectation of successfully sending the slurry through the pipe successfully.
With regards to claim 4, the combination does not specify the crystal concentration of the slurry. Okazaki et al. teaches a relationship between a solids concentration in a slurry (resin concentration) and flow resistance and stagnation (para [0037]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the concentration of solid crystals motivated by an expectation of successfully achieving the desired flow.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff et al. (US 2005/0222459) in view of Chemical Plant Construction Manual, 1972, pages 678-679 (cited by applicant) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2011/0319661).
With regards to claim 9, Nordhoff et al. teaches generating (meth) acrylic acid through gaseous phase oxidation from a raw material and then condensing it and forming an aqueous solution (para [0057]-[0058]), but does not teach a raw material of the ones claimed. Sakamoto et al. also teaches the production of (meth)acrylic acid via gas phase oxidation (abstract and para [0059]). Sakamoto et al. teaches the raw material can be a variety of compounds including propane, propylene, methacrolein, among others (para [0059]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted one known starting material for another in a gaseous oxidation process for generating methacrylic acid motivated by an expectation of successfully generating (meth)acrylic acid as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights