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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/022153 which claims the benefit of JP 2021-093030 with an effective filing date of 02 June 2021 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 17 April 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms DIAION, Mitsubishi, Thermo Scientific, etc., which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 state “an easily polymerizable compound” which appears to be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Instant specification Para. [0017] states “the term “easily polymerizable compound” refers to an easily polymerizable compound obtainable by the production method of the present invention, and does not refer to raw materials, by-products, and solvents in the production method of the present invention.” Instant claim 8 states “wherein the easily polymerizable compound is a (meth)acrylic acid”. There appears to be no other specific definition of the relative term “easily polymerizable compound” other than (meth)acrylic acid. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, a person or ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to whether the invention is drawn to any easily polymerizable compound or solely to (meth)acrylic acid. Since the instant specification does not appear to provide support for any other easily polymerizable compound, herein the instantly claimed relative term “easily polymerizable compound” is interpreted as (meth)acrylic acid.
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuppinger et al. (US20110105791, published 05 May 2011, hereinafter Kuppinger).
Kuppinger is in the known prior art field of “the preparation of acrylic acid comprises the process steps: … (a2) dehydration of the hydroxypropionic acid, preferably the 2-hydroxypropionic acid or 3-hydroxypropionic acid, most preferably the 3-hydroxypropionic acid, to give a fluid F2 containing acrylic acid, in particular an aqueous phase P2, (a3) purification of the fluid F2 containing acrylic acid, preferably the aqueous phase P2, by a suspension crystallization or a layer crystallization, to give a purified phase”, see Paras. [0022]-[0025]; Fig. 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 11, Kuppinger teaches the process and apparatus include “a further purification” of acrylic acid “as process step iv)” by acidic or basic “ion exchange” with or after step (a2) in “further device constituents 11” comprising “a further filtration unit 111, a protonation means 112, an adsorption means 113 or a dewatering unit 114” “arranged individually or in combination in series between the dehydration stage 9” and the crystallization “purification unit 13”, see Paras. [0029]-[0032];[0055]-[0063];[0075];[0201]-[0203]; Figs. 1-2, where the devices of the filtration unit are connected within the system “by fluid-carrying lines” in which “gases or liquids, suspension included, or mixtures thereof are led through corresponding lines”, such as “[p]ipelines, pumps or the like”, Paras. [0149]-[0153];[0177]-[0186]; Figs. 1-2, i.e., devices connected by lines must inherently include some form of inner tank or container for holding volumes of liquid, see MPEP 2112, meeting a device for bringing the polymerizable compound-containing liquid solution into contact with a cation exchange resin in instant application claim 11;
The process and apparatus includes “the purification unit 13”, where “the purification is carried out in a three-stage crystallization” comprising “a first crystallization device 131, which is preferably a suspension crystallizer”, “a second crystallization device 139” “preferably a suspension crystallizer”, and “third crystallization device 1314 can likewise be a suspension crystallizer or a layer crystallizer”, which are all depicted as tanks in Fig. 3, see Paras. [0201]-[0206]; Fig. 3, meeting at least one crystallization tank in instant application claim 11; and,
In the process the “bottom product 95 which is obtained in the second reactor 93 and contains the acrylic acid” and is “fed via the discharge line 10 to the further device constituents 11”, such as a cationic exchanger, then fed “via the feed 12 into a first crystallization device 131”, see Paras. [0055]-[0063];[0075];[0201]-[0206]; Fig. 3, meeting an apparatus for purifying acrylic acid and the line for feeding the solution from the cation exchange tank to the crystallization tank in instant application claim 11.
Kuppinger does not specifically teach in one express embodiment or Example the instant application claim 11 limitation that the ion exchange resin is a cationic exchange resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ion exchange resin of Kuppinger to choose the cationic ion exchange resin as taught in a differing embodiment of Kuppinger with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of “efficiently, inexpensively, and sustainably with simple means” purifying a polymerizable product by efficiently removing impurities prior to crystallization in order to obtain a product with high purity, see Kuppinger, Abstract; Paras. [0055]-[0063];[0075];[0177]-[0186].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the ion exchange resin of Kuppinger to select the cationic ion exchange resin as taught in a differing embodiment of Kuppinger with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of “efficiently, inexpensively, and sustainably with simple means” purifying a polymerizable product by efficiently removing impurities prior to the crystallization in order to obtain a product with high purity, see Kuppinger, Abstract; Paras. [0055]-[0063];[0075];[0177]-[0186]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Selection of a known material, such as an acidic or basic ion exchange resin, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuppinger et al. (US20110105791, published 05 May 2011, hereinafter Kuppinger), as applied to claim 11 in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, in view of Oba (US20100286443, published 11 November 2010).
Kuppinger is in the known prior art field of “the preparation of acrylic acid comprises the process steps: … (a2) dehydration of the hydroxypropionic acid, preferably the 2-hydroxypropionic acid or 3-hydroxypropionic acid, most preferably the 3-hydroxypropionic acid, to give a fluid F2 containing acrylic acid, in particular an aqueous phase P2, (a3) purification of the fluid F2 containing acrylic acid, preferably the aqueous phase P2, by a suspension crystallization or a layer crystallization, to give a purified phase”, see Paras. [0022]-[0025]; Fig. 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 12, Kuppinger teaches an aqueous phase containing acrylic acid is fed “to the further device constituents 11”, such as a cationic exchanger, see Paras. [0055]-[0063];[0075];[0201]-[0203], and “the further device constituents 11”, such as a cationic exchanger, are located at a variety of positions within the apparatus, see Paras. [0022]-[0025];[0055]-[0063];[0202]; Fig. 1, meeting the polymerizable compound-containing solution brought into contact with a cation exchange resin in instant application claim 12.
Kuppinger does not teach the instant application claim 12 limitations of a bypass line for passing at least a portion of the easily polymerizable compound-containing solution therethrough without contacting the portion with a cation exchange resin; and a mixing section for mixing the portion of the easily polymerizable compound-containing solution that has been passed through the bypass line and another portion of the easily polymerizable compound-containing solution that has been brought into contact with a cation exchange resin.
Oba is in the known prior art field of a method “for producing (meth)acrylic acid-containing gas by subjecting raw material gas to a catalytic vapor phase oxidation reaction in a reactor for catalytic vapor phase oxidation”, see Abstract, where “a (meth)acrylic acid solution discharged from the separation apparatus of non-condensable gas is supplied to the purification step such as the step of distillation, diffusion, extraction or crystallization or the like”, see Para. [0041].
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 12, Oba teaches the (meth)acrylic acid flow properties are varied throughout the process “by installing a bypass line 13 between a conduit 1 from a reactor (not shown) and an absorption tower 4, to avoid passing through a waste heat recovery type heat exchanger [2], and by confirming temperature of (meth)acrylic acid-containing gas after confluence, by using a thermometer T, to vary bypassing amount”, see Paras. [0059]-[0063]; Fig. 2, meeting of a bypass line for passing at least a portion of the polymerizable compound-containing flow therethrough without contacting the portion with an exchange in instant application claim 12; and,
As depicted in Fig. 2, (meth)acrylic acid in bypass line 13 is mixed with the (meth)acrylic acid effluent from exchanger 2 before the temperature T is measured; see Paras. [0058]-[0063], meeting the mixing section for mixing the portion of the polymerizable compound-containing flow that has been passed through the bypass line and another portion of the polymerizable compound-containing flow that has been brought into contact with the exchange in instant application claim 12.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 13, Kuppinger teaches “[a]crylic acid is conventionally obtained from propylene by a gas phase oxidation which proceeds in two stages, in which propylene is first oxidized to give acrolein, which is then reacted further to give acrylic acid”, see Para. [0003], and the system has “adsorption means or absorption means”, see Para. [0191], meeting an absorption means in instant application claim 13; and,
The apparatus is designed to carry “gases or liquids, suspension included, or mixtures thereof” “through corresponding lines” to differing devices, units, reactors, and vessels, see Paras. [0149]-[0153];[0159]-[0167];[0177]-[0186]; Figs. 1-3, where an aqueous phase containing acrylic acid is fed “to the further device constituents 11”, such as a cationic exchanger, see Paras. [0055]-[0063];[0075];[0201]-[0203], and “the further device constituents 11”, such as a cationic exchanger, are located at a variety of positions within the apparatus, see Paras. [0022]-[0025];[0055]-[0062];[0075];[0202], meeting a line for sending the polymerizable compound-containing solution from an absorption means to the resin device in instant application claim 13.
Kuppinger does not specifically teach the instant application claim 13 limitations of an absorption column for collecting an easily polymerizable compound- containing gas to obtain an easily polymerizable compound-containing solution.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 13, Oba teaches in “producing (meth)acrylic acid-containing gas over a long period by subjecting a raw material for (meth)acrylic acid to catalytic vapor phase oxidation by molecular oxygen-containing gas, in the presence of an oxidation catalyst; then the step (2) for cooling said (meth)acrylic acid-containing gas; and then the step (3) for obtaining a (meth)acrylic acid solution by introducing said cooled gas to an absorption tower and contacting with an absorbing agent for acrylic acid to separate non-condensable gas, characterized in that the (meth)acrylic acid solution with a high concentration of equal to or higher than 75% by mass is obtained”, see Para. [0034]; Fig. 2, meeting an absorption column for collecting a polymerizable compound-containing gas to obtain a polymerizable compound-containing solution in instant application claim 13.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus and process of Kuppinger to include an absorption column and bypass line as taught by Oba with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and stably producing a polymerizable acrylic compound in the liquid phase at high concentration by controlling the acrylic compound solution circulation in the process in order to achieve the desired properties of the acrylic compound solution to reduce “load and work in the steps subsequent to the separation step” and “enhance production efficiency”, see Oba, Paras. [0010];[0034];[0059]-[0063];[0087]; and, MPEP 2144.04 VI.
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the apparatus and process of Kuppinger by applying the known techniques of an absorption column and bypass line as taught by Oba with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and stably producing a polymerizable acrylic compound in the liquid phase at high concentration by controlling the acrylic compound solution circulation in the process in order to achieve the desired properties of the acrylic compound solution to reduce “load and work in the steps subsequent to the separation step” and “enhance production efficiency”, see Oba, Paras. [0010];[0034];[0059]-[0063];[0087]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Kuppinger and Oba both teach the preparation and purification of acrylic acid and (meth)acrylic acid in the gas phase and liquid phase reaction tower/column industry, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Kuppinger by relying upon Oba before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the preparation and purification of acrylic acid and (meth)acrylic acid in the gas phase and liquid phase reaction tower/column industry, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently and stably producing a polymerizable acrylic compound in the liquid phase at high concentration by controlling the acrylic compound solution circulation in the process in order to achieve the desired properties of the acrylic compound solution to reduce “load and work in the steps subsequent to the separation step” and “enhance production efficiency”, see Oba, Paras. [0010];[0034];[0059]-[0063];[0087]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (US20140066652, published 06 March 2014, hereinafter Miyamoto) in view of Yada et al. (US20050171382, published 04 August 2005, hereinafter Yada).
Miyamoto is in the known prior art field of a “process for producing (meth)acrylic acid comprising the step of repeating a crystallization”, see Abstract, where the concentration of the polymerization inhibitor is controlled throughout the process “so that a concentration of the polymerization inhibitor in a (meth)acrylic acid solution subjected to a crystallizing step of the last crystallization operation is a predetermined value or higher”, such as “2 ppm by mass or higher”, see Para. [0008]; Fig. 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1, 3, 8, and 10, Miyamoto teaches a process “for producing the purified (meth)acrylic acid from the crude (meth)acrylic acid” by placing a “crude (meth)acrylic acid R” into “a collection column T”, mixing, and “adding the polymerization inhibitor PI1 to the crude (meth)acrylic acid R, the polymerization inhibitor PI1 may be added to at the collection column T, that is expressed as a line X1, and may be added to the crude (meth)acrylic acid R which has been discharged from the collection column T”, see Paras. [0058]-[0071]; Fig. 1, where the polymerization inhibitor comprises “manganese salt compounds such manganese dialkyl dithiocarbamate, manganese diphenyl dithiocarbamate, manganese formate, manganese acetate, manganese octanoate and manganese naphtenate”, see Para. [0050], meeting the mixing the polymerizable compound and the specific manganese inhibitor in instant application claim 1 and in instant application claim 10;
The concentration of the manganese inhibitor in the polymerizable compound “(meth)acrylic acid solution” is adjusted to a predetermined level and added as needed, PI1, PI2, if the predetermined level is too low in a cyclic crystallization process, see Fig. 1; Paras. [0044]-[0047];[0050];[0063]-[0064], meeting:
Adjusting a manganese concentration in an polymerizable compound-containing solution obtained through the mixing in instant application claim 1 and in instant application claim 10; and,
The “concentration of the polymerization inhibitor in the (meth)acrylic acid solution subjected to the crystallizing step of the first crystallization operation is preferably 3 ppm by mass or higher”, see Para. [0046]; Table 1. The “concentration of the polymerization inhibitor in a (meth)acrylic acid solution subjected to a crystallizing step of the last crystallization operation is a predetermined value or higher”, such as 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm, or 5 ppm of a manganese salt polymerization inhibitor, see Paras. [0008];[0039];[0045];[0050]; Table 1; Fig. 1, meeting:
The crystallization of the polymerizable compound-containing solution to produce the specific (meth)acrylic acid in instant application claim 1 and in instant application claim 8;
Within the manganese salt polymerization inhibitor concentration crystallization range fed to the crystallizer in instant application claim 1, in instant application claim 3, and in instant application claim 10; and,
Impurity residues C1, C2, and C3 are separated from the crude (meth)acrylic acid solution and crystal to produce purified (meth)acrylic acid, see Paras. [0058]-[0061]; Fig. 1, meeting the purified (meth)acrylic acid in instant application claim 8 and in instant application claim 10.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 2 and 6, Miyamoto teaches the “crude (meth)acrylic acid R is discharged from the bottom of a collection column T” has a “composition of 90.0 mass % of acrylic acid, 2.4 mass % of water, 1.9 mass % of acetic acid, 0.6 mass % of maleic acid, 1.5 mass % of acrylic acid dimer and 0.01 mass % (100 ppm by mass) of hydroquinone”, see Paras. [0015];[0053];[0060];[0067], where the introduction to the collection tank T is a cyclic process before and after the manganese inhibitor in the polymerizable compound “(meth)acrylic acid solution” is adjusted to a predetermined level and added as needed, see Fig. 1; Paras. [0044]-[0047];[0050];[0063]-[0064], meeting:
Within the water concentration range in instant application claim 2; and,
The specific crude (meth)acrylic acid solution in instant application claim 6.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 5, Miyamoto teaches in “the crystallizing step, it is preferred that all of the (meth)acrylic acid solution is not crystallized and a part of the (meth)acrylic acid solution remains uncrystallized”, where “in the crystallizing step, it is preferred that the (meth)acrylic acid solution is supplied to the crystallizer to obtain a residual mother liquid, an uncrystallized (meth)acrylic acid solution, as well as the (meth)acrylic acid crystal”, see Paras. [0022]-[0025], meeting the recovering from a mother liquor in instant application claim 5.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 7, Miyamoto teaches the “(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” then in “the collection step, the (meth)acrylic acid-containing gas obtained by the (meth)acrylic acid formation step is introduced into a collection column to be contacted with a liquid medium, thereby obtaining the crude (meth)acrylic acid”, where the “(meth)acrylic acid-containing gas introduced into the collection column is contacted with the liquid medium to be collected by the liquid medium”, see Paras. [0052]-[0055]; Claim 6, meeting the obtaining polymerizable compound-containing gas from a raw material and obtaining a polymerizable compound-containing solution in instant application claim 7.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 9, Miyamoto teaches “examples of the (meth)acrylic acid production raw material include, for example, propane, propylene, (meth)acrolein, isobutylene, and the like”, where “[m]ethacrylic acid can be obtained by, for example, oxidizing isobutylene or methacrolein in one step, or oxidizing isobutylene via methacrolein in two steps”, see Para. [0053], meeting the specific production of (meth)acrylic acid and specific raw material in instant application claim 9.
Miyamoto does not teach:
The instant application claims 1 and 10 limitations of adjusting a manganese concentration by bringing at least a portion of the easily polymerizable compound-containing solution into contact with a cation exchange resin; and an easily polymerizable compound-containing solution having a manganese concentration of 5 mass ppm or lower obtained through the adjusting; and,
The limitations of instant application claim 4.
Yada is in the known prior art field of “a process for purifying (meth)acrylic acid by efficiently removing transition metal components from crude (meth)acrylic acid containing the transition metal components as impurities”, where “the transition metal component is manganese” see Abstract, where the manganese is an added polymerization inhibitor, such as “manganese dialkyldithiocarbamates (wherein the alkyl group is methyl, ethyl, propyl or butyl and may be the same or different from each other), manganese diphenyldithiocarbamate, manganese formate, manganese acetate, manganese octanoate, manganese naphthenate, manganese permanganate and manganese salts of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid”, see Paras. [0021]-[0022], and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1 and 10, Yada teaches an “anhydrous manganese (II) acetate was added to a solution containing 99% by weight of acrylic acid and 1% by weight of distilled water such that the manganese concentration in the solution was 1,200 ppm by weight based on the weight of the solution, thereby preparing a manganese-containing acrylic acid solution”, then “[a]fter maintaining the temperature of a fixed bed packed with 40 mL of a strong acid porous-type cation exchange resin “DIAION PK-216H” produced by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, at 25° C., the above-prepared manganese-containing acrylic acid solution was flowed through the fixed bed at a flow rate of one part by volume per hour based on one part by volume of the resin”, see Paras. [0006];[0014]-[0025];[0028];[0038], where after contact with the cation exchange resin (meth)acrylic acid “contains the transition metal components in an amount of usually not more than 0.1 ppm, preferably not more than a detection limit based on the weight of the (meth)acrylic acid”, see Paras. [0030];[0038]; Table 1, meeting adjusting a manganese concentration by bringing at least a portion of the easily polymerizable compound-containing solution into contact with a cation exchange resin; and an easily polymerizable compound-containing solution having a manganese concentration of 5 mass ppm or lower obtained through the adjusting in instant application claim 1 and in instant application claim 10.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 4, Miyamoto teaches a cyclic process where “[r]esidual mother liquids and sweated liquids (that are collectively referred to as impurity residual liquids) generated in the crystallization operations S1, S2 and S3 are expressed as C1, C2 and C3, respectively” contain (meth)acrylic acid are returned to collection column T and feeds to S1 and S2 “after (meth)acrylic acid content thereof is increased by a known purification means such as distillation, diffusion and extraction”, see Paras. [0059]-[0062]; Fig. 1. New (meth)acrylic acid solution is added to the collection tank T that has not gone through the cyclic process of adjusting the manganese inhibitor in the polymerizable compound “(meth)acrylic acid solution” to a predetermined level and the recycled lines C1, C2 and C3 are in a cyclic process before and after the manganese inhibitor in the polymerizable compound “(meth)acrylic acid solution” is adjusted to a predetermined level and added as needed, see Fig. 1; Paras. [0044]-[0047];[0050];[0063]-[0064], meeting mixing portions of new (meth)acrylic acid solution that has not gone through the manganese inhibitor adjustment with portions of the recycled (meth)acrylic acid solution that has gone through the manganese inhibitor adjustment in instant application claim 4.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 4, Yada teaches bringing the easily polymerizable compound-containing solution obtained through the mixing into contact with a cation exchange resin, see Paras. [0025];[0028];[0030];[0038], meeting the adjusting by contact with a cation exchange resin in instant application claim 4.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control of the concentration of the manganese polymerization inhibitor throughout the process of Miyamoto to include the manganese polymerization inhibitor cation exchange resin removal as taught by Yada with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of obtaining purified (meth)acrylic acid by “efficiently removing transition metal components from crude (meth)acrylic acid containing the transition metal components as impurities” in order to “solve the problems such as clogging in apparatuses” in the downstream purification process and “ensure stable production of the (meth)acrylic esters for a long period of time” from the purified (meth)acrylic acid, see Yada, Paras. [0006]-[0012].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the control of the concentration of the manganese polymerization inhibitor throughout the process of Miyamoto by applying the known technique of the manganese polymerization inhibitor cation exchange resin removal as taught by Yada with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of obtaining purified (meth)acrylic acid by “efficiently removing transition metal components from crude (meth)acrylic acid containing the transition metal components as impurities” in order to “solve the problems such as clogging in apparatuses” in the downstream purification process and “ensure stable production of the (meth)acrylic esters for a long period of time” from the purified (meth)acrylic acid, see Yada, Paras. [0006]-[0012]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Miyamoto and Yada both teach the control of the concentration of the manganese polymerization inhibitor throughout the production and purification of (meth)acrylic acid in the reaction tower/column industry, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Miyamoto by relying upon Yada before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the preparation and purification of acrylic acid and (meth)acrylic acid in the reaction tower/column industry, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of obtaining purified (meth)acrylic acid by “efficiently removing transition metal components from crude (meth)acrylic acid containing the transition metal components as impurities” in order to “solve the problems such as clogging in apparatuses” in the downstream purification process and “ensure stable production of the (meth)acrylic esters for a long period of time” from the purified (meth)acrylic acid, see Yada, Paras. [0006]-[0012]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571) 270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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 Yen-Ye 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights