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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1-3. Claims 1-3 are pending.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. However, following further consideration, the amendments to the claims have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new prior art rejections. See 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/21/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments to the claims have been found to necessitate new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/21/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot, as they do not apply to the new 103 rejections (necessitated by amendment) set forth below over Qu et al. (CN 204897799 U) in view of Ii et al. (US 2017/0342017).
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites “one end of the second feeding pipe is connected to an upper portion of one side of the heavy component removal column” in lines 11-13.
The scope of “an upper portion of [a distillation] column” is quite broad, and it is not clear how one could reasonably determine whether or not a portion of a distillation column can be considered an “upper portion” thereof. While breadth does not necessarily lead to indefiniteness, it does here because Applicant is seeking allowability on the basis of the second feeding pipe being connected to an upper portion of one side of the heavy component removal column, but there is nothing in Applicant’s disclosure or Remarks which allows one to reasonably ascertain what does and does not qualify as “an upper portion” of a distillation column.
The only support for the second feeding pipe being connected to an upper portion of the heavy component removal column comes from Applciant’s Figure 1. While said Figure clearly supports such a requirement, as it shows the second feeding pipe being connected to a top half of the distillation column as illustrated, it does not provide sufficient detail to allow one to ascertain what can and cannot be considered to be an upper portion.
However, Applciant’s specification as filed 12/5/2023 contains the following discussion pertaining to the word “upper” “In the description of the present disclosure, it needs to be noted that the indicative direction or position relations of the terms such as ‘vertical’, ‘upper’, ‘lower’ and ‘horizontal’ are direction or position relations illustrated based on the accompanying figures, just for facilitating the description of the present disclosure and simplifying the description, rather than indicating or hinting that the indicated apparatus or element must be in a specific direction and constructed and operated in the specific direction, thus the terms cannot be understood as the restriction of the present disclosure,” (paragraph [0012]; emphasis added). This disclosure at least suggests that there is no particular limitation imposed by the term “upper portion”.
One can reasonably construe portions of a distillation column below 50% of a column’s height as being upper portions. More to the point, Examiner respectfully holds that, in the absence of a clear definition of “upper portion”, one can reasonably consider a location that is about 30% of the height of the distillation column as being in an “upper portion” of a distillation column on the basis that said location is above a portion of the column which can be called a “lower portion”. Given the contents of paragraph [0012] in Applicant’s specification, Examiner sees little reason why this would be unreasonable in the context of Applicant’s claims. Thus, Examiner believes that the second feed pipe in Chen (US 2021/0387937) can be fairly considered to be connected to an upper portion of one side of the heavy component removal column 8 when, for example, it is positioned at a location which is about 30% of the height of the column as disclosed in paragraph [0060] of Chen Applicant seemingly disagrees with Examiner on this matter (see pages 6-8 of Remarks filed 4/12/2026), but does not clearly define what is required for a portion of a distillation column to be considered an “upper portion” thereof. On the contrary, in the 4/12/2026 Remarks, despite citing paragraph [0060] of Chen which indicates that the second feed pipe therein can be positioned at a location which is “at most about 30%” of the height of the second column 8, Applicant merely argues that “it appears that the inlet is positioned at a lower portion of one side of second distillation column 8” (page 6 of Remarks; emphasis added). The phrasing here suggests that Applicant believes that said inlet is not necessarily positioned at a “lower portion” of the second distillation. Applicant’s apparent uncertainty regarding this matter further affirms Examiner’s position that the scope of an “upper portion” of a distillation column is unclear.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should clarify what exactly is required for part of a distillation column to qualify as an “upper portion” thereof. No new matter may be added.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (CN 204897799 U), hereafter referred to as Qu, in view of Ii et al. (US 2017/0342017), hereafter referred to as Ii.
With regard to claim 1: Qu teaches a continuous rectification apparatus for producing propylene carbonate (Figure 1, paragraphs [0008], [0012], and [0018] of Espacenet translation), the apparatus comprising:
A light component removal column (propylene glycol separation tower) 4 and a heavy component removal column (propylene carbonate refining tower) 13, wherein one side of the light component removal column 4 is connected to a first feeding pipe (the pipe fitted with “feed flow meter valve group” 3), a top of the light component removal column is connected to a first condensing box (separation tower condenser) 8 via a first pipeline, one side of the first condensing box 8 is connected to a first reflux pipe, one end of the first reflux pipe is connected to another side of the light component removal column 8 (Figure 1, paragraph [0018] of Espacenet translation). A bottom of the light component removal column 4 is connected to a feeding pump (separation tower discharge pump) 7 via a fourth pipeline, one end of the feeding pump 7 is connected to a second feeding pipe (the pipe fitted with “separation tower bottom discharge valve group” 12), one end of the second feeding pipe is connected to an upper portion of one side of the heavy component removal 13 (Figure 1, paragraph [0018] of Espacenet translation).
A top of the heavy component removal column 13 is connected to a second condensing box (refining tower condenser) 17 via a fifth pipeline, one side of the second condensing box 17 is connected a second reflux pipe, one end of the second reflux pipe is connected to the another side of the heavy component removal column 13, and the second reflux pipe is connected to a second extraction pipe (the pipe fitted with valve groups 18 and 19) (Figure 1, paragraph [0018] of Espacenet translation).
Qu is silent to one side of the first condensing box being connected to a first reflux tank via a second pipeline, one side of the first reflux tank being connected to a first conveying pump via a third pipeline, and one end of the first conveying pump being connected to the first reflux pipe. Qu is also silent to one side of the second condensing box being connected to one side of a second reflux tank via a sixth pipeline, another side of the second reflux tank being connected to one end of a second conveying pump via a seventh pipeline, and another end of the second conveying pump being connected to the second reflux pipe.
However, it is well-known in the art to provide distillation columns with such arrangements of reflux tanks, reflux pumps, and associated pipes. For example, Ii teaches a distillation system similar to that of Qu at least in terms of structure/layout (Figure 1). The system of Ii comprises reflux tanks 24 and 44 and reflux pumps 27 and 47 arranged in the claimed manner (Figure 1, paragraphs [0041], [0045], [0047], [0053], [0061], and [0110]).
The reflux tanks 24 and 44 store liquid condensed by condensers 22 and 42 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0041] and [0053]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reflux tanks 24 and 44, by storing condensed liquids, act as surge drums.
The reflux pumps 27 and 47 serve to discharge liquid from the respective tanks 24 and 44 and supply said liquid to respective reflux pipes (Figure 1, paragraphs [0041], [0047], [0053], and [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qu in view of Ii by configuring the system such that: 1) one side of the first condensing box is connected to a first reflux tank via a second pipeline, one side of the first reflux tank is connected to a first conveying pump via a third pipeline, and one end of the first conveying pump is connected to the first reflux pipe; and 2) one side of the second condensing box is connected to one side of a second reflux tank via a sixth pipeline, another side of the second reflux tank is connected to one end of a second conveying pump via a seventh pipeline, and another end of the second conveying pump is connected to the second reflux pipe, in order to provide the system of Qu with reflux tanks which serve as surge tanks storing liquid condensed by the condensing boxes, and in order to provide the system of Qu with reflux pumps for discharging liquid from the reflux tanks and supplying said liquid to respective reflux pipes.
With regard to claim 2: In Modified Qu, the first reflux pipe is connected to a first extraction pipe (the pipe fitted with valve groups 9 and 10), and one end of the first extraction pipe is connected to a first collecting tank (separation tower product tank) 11 (Qu: Figure 1, paragraph [0018] of Espacenet translation).
With regard to claim 3: In modified Qu, one end of the second extraction pipe is connected to a second collecting tank (propylene carbonate product tank) 20, and both the second extraction pipe and the first extraction pipe are provided with valves, i.e. the valves of valve groups 18 & 19 and 9 & 10 respectively (Qu: Figure 1, paragraph [0018] of Espacenet translation).
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights