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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-11, is/are filed on 7/13/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 7-11 is/are withdrawn without traverse, 1-6 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hitachi (JPS 48113770).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Partition)]
PNG
media_image1.png
692
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hitachi teaches a tank (1) for use in a purification apparatus, the tank being at least one of a crystallization tank (intended use) [0002] that forms a slurry containing crystals of a compound or a ripening tank that is capable of keeping crystals of a compound suspended in the ripening tank (intended use),the tank including: an agitator (8); anda baffle (4 or 13) for generating an upward flow from a swirling flow, the tank being capable of forming a supernatant part consisting of a supernatant and a suspension part where the crystals of a compound are suspended (intended use) [0001-0002] "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).“The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Id.at 580.
Regarding claim 2, Hitachi teaches further comprising, above a top of the baffle: a feed port (10) for feeding a slurry containing crystals of a compound to the tank (intended use);
a withdrawal port (7) for withdrawing a mother liquor from the tank ; and a partition (see fig above) provided between the feed port and the withdrawal port along a direction from a top-roof side to a bottom side of the tank (i.e. thickness of the partition).
Regarding claim 3, Hitachi teaches further comprising, above a top of the baffle: a withdrawal port (7) for withdrawing a mother liquor from the tank; and a separation mechanism including a weir (6) for overflowing the supernatant and flows the supernatant into the withdrawal port so as to prevent the crystals of a compound from mixing into the mother liquor.
Regarding claim 4, Hitachi teaches further comprising, below the top of the baffle: a withdrawal port (11) for withdrawing the slurry containing crystals of a compound from the tank, the withdrawal port being provided so as to withdraw the slurry containing crystals of a compound along a tangential direction of a contour line corresponding to an inner wall surface of the tank (i.e. the inner surface of the bottom tank) when the tank is viewed from an upper side.
Regarding claim 6, Hitachi teaches wherein the baffle is provided in the vicinity of the inner wall surface of the tank (see fig. 1 or fig. 2).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hitachi (JPS 48113770) in view of INVENTORB (DE 3605727 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hitachi teaches a withdrawal port (7) for withdrawing mother liquor and a separation mechanism including a crystal-contaminant removal box (6) that operates as a weir such that, when the supernatant liquid is drained, "only the upper part of the box is drained," thereby preventing crystals from mixing into the withdrawn mother liquor. Hitachi does not expressly disclose an extra withdrawal port for withdrawing the mother liquor from the tank, provided above the withdrawal port (7), the extra withdrawal port being provided such that the height of the lower end of its opening is equal to or lower than the height of the top of the weir of the separation mechanism.
Oles, however, teaches a decanting apparatus for separating liquid-solid mixtures within a settling vessel (1) by withdrawing the clarified supernatant liquid from above the settled/floating solids. Oles teaches providing, in the single vessel, an additional (i.e., plural) clarified-liquor withdrawal port above a lower one: a plurality of discharge pipes (2) is arranged in the reactor vessel (1), the lower pipe ends (4) ending in steps at different heights, each connected to a wall outlet opening (6) having an individual shut-off valve (8) (Oles, claim 1; Fig. 1). Oles further teaches the recited height relationship of the extra port's opening relative to the overflow/weir level: the withdrawal openings are located below the liquid surface, with each lower pipe end (4) ending a predetermined amount below the sill (7) of its associated outlet opening (6), so that floating material and sludge are retained in the vessel and only clarified supernatant is withdrawn. Oles additionally teaches that the outlet openings (6) can be opened or closed individually by means of shut-off elements (8), so that clarified-liquid withdrawal can be maintained from a selected port.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the tank of Hitachi to include an extra mother-liquor withdrawal port above the withdrawal port (7), positioned such that the lower end of its opening is at or below the top of the weir (removal box 6), as taught by Oles. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a redundant, independently valved clarified-liquor withdrawal point, so that withdrawal of crystal-free mother liquor can continue if the primary port (7) becomes blocked and can track the clarified-liquid interface, while retaining the settled crystals in the tank. This amounts to applying a known technique (plural, height-staggered, individually valved supernatant take-off ports) to a known device (Hitachi's settling-section crystallization tank) ready for the improvement, to yield the predictable result of reliable, uninterrupted crystal-free mother-liquor withdrawal (see MPEP 2143(C), (D)). It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights