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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordhoff et al (US 2005/0222459) in view of Nishio et al (JP 2004315456), an English computer translation (CT) is provided.
Nordhoff et al teaches a purification apparatus for purifying a compound, the purification apparatus comprising: a tank for use in the purification apparatus ([0060], [0160] teaches a stirred tank reactor); and a hydraulic wash column ([0010], [0061], [0146], [0173], [0182], [0192], [0202], [0214], [0222], [0231]) , the tank (suspension generator) being at least one of a crystallization tank 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, the tank comprising an agitator (See Fig 1-5, [0060], [0160], [0167]-[0285]) teaches a stirred tank crystallizer/reactor). Nordhoff et al also teaches the purification apparatus further comprising: a line for discharging the slurry containing crystals of a compound from the tank and feeding the slurry to the hydraulic wash column (feed line from suspension generator to the wash column); and a line for flowing in the tank at least one of a mother liquor derived from the slurry fed to the hydraulic wash column, the slurry containing crystals of a compound, or a melt obtained by melting the crystals (suspension generator (tank) with feed line to wash column, a mother liquor from the wash column returned to the suspension generator (See Fig 1-5; [0167]-[0285]).
Nordhoff et al teaches a stirred tank reactor. However, Nordhoff et al does not explicitly teach the tank comprising an agitator having an agitator shaft and a bearing; and a line for between the agitator shaft and the bearing.
In an apparatus for crystallization, Nishio et al teaches crystallization tanks ½ equipped with agitator shafts 3/4 rotated by a motor, and bearings 5/6 at the bottom of the tanks for supporting the agitator shafts 3/4; each of the crystallization tanks 1/2 has a slurry withdrawal line fitted with a control valve 10 for maintaining a constant liquid level in the crystallization tank; and a liquid is also supplied to the stirring bearing 5 from the liquid supply line 8 (CT pg 7-8 Fig 1), which clearly suggests a tank comprising an agitator shaft and bearing with a line between the shaft and bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Nordoff et al by using the stirred tank reactor taught by Nishio et al comprising an agitator having an agitator shaft and a bearing; and a line for between the agitator shaft and the bearing, to stir the content of the reactor using a conventionally known stirred tank reactor.
Referring to claims 2 and 5, see the remarks above. The combination of Nordoff et al and Nishio et al teaches feeding a slurry from the suspension generator tank to the hydraulic wash column and returning a mother liquor from the wash column to the suspension tank generator, wherein the suspension tank generator having an agitator shaft and bearing with a liquid supply line.
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Nordoff et al and Nishio et al teaches (meth)acrylic acid. (Nordoff [0267]-[0275]).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Nordoff et al and Nishio et al teaches propane, isobutene, isobutane, tert.-butanol, iso-butyraldehyde, methacrolein ([0110]-[0111]).
Response to Arguments
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 a line for flowing between the agitator and the bearing in the tank at least one of a mother liquor derived from the slurry fed to the hydraulic wash column, the slurry containing crystals of a compound or a melt obtained by melting the crystals is noted but not found persuasive. The examiner has enlarged the portion of Fig 1 of JP 2004315456 which shows the fluid inlet to supply fluid to the area between the shaft and the bearing; therefore, meets the claimed limitation. It is noted that applicant’s Fig 4 includes additional features and possible limitations which would distinguish the Examiner’s interpretation of the prior art from applicant’s invention, such as having the shaft extend through the bearing and having gap, and providing a line for flowing between the gap formed by agitator and the bearing.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
1372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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