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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 of M. Merkel, et al., US 18/569,654 (12/13/2023) are pending. Claims 1-10 and 15 are withdrawn. Claims 11-14 are under examination on merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 11-14) in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I or Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawing field on 12/13/2023 is objected to because “[W]here only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear” See MPEP 608.02 V (u).
Claim Objections
Claims 11-14 are objected to because they all depend on a withdrawn claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claims 11 are 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)(a)(2)as being anticipated by M. Jürgen, et al., US6930199B2(2005)(“Jürgen”).
Jürgen teaches a process for the preparation of diisocyanates and/or triisocyanates by phosgenation of a diamines and/or triamines in gas phase. Jürgen at col. 1, line 14-17.
Jürgen teaches that the process is carried out in a tubular reactor which has a double-walled guide tube extending centrally in the direction of the axis of rotation of the tubular reactor, a concentric annular gap being formed between the inner and the outer wall of the double-walled guide tube, and the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the tubular reactor, which area is bounded by the inner wall of the double-walled guide tube, to the cross-sectional area of the tubular reactor, which area is bounded by the wall of the tubular reactor and the outer wall of the double-walled guide tube, being 1:0.5 to 1:4. Jürgen at col. 2, line 18-27, emphasis added. Thus, the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the double-walled guide tube to the cross-sectional area of the tubular reactor is 1:1.5 to 1:5, therefore, the ratio of the diameter Dso of the double-walled guide tube to the diameter Dri of the tubular reactor is 0.447 to 0.816.
Jürgen teaches that the tubular reactor has a structure as indicated in the Fig.1. See Jürgen Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
923
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus the Jürgen tubular reactor comprises:
One inlet device that is 4 for starting material A,
One outer shell that is 2 with inner diameters Dri
One tubular inner sleeve that is 6 disposed within a segment of the outer shell 2, tubular inner sleeve 6 has a length along its longitudinal axis and outer diameter Dso, wherein the ratio between Dso and Dri (Dso/Dri) is 0.447-0.816.
Which meets each and every structural requirement of the tubular reactor recited by the withdrawn claim 1 except the range of Dso/Dri overlaps with the claimed range.
Jürgen teaches that “for carrying out the reaction according to the invention, the preheated stream containing di- and/or triamines or mixtures of di- and/or triamines and the preheated stream containing phosgene are passed continuously into the tubular reactor”. Jürgen at col. 4, line 34-38, emphasis added.
Jürgen teaches that “in the process according to the invention, the mixing of the two gaseous starting materials takes place at the annular separation surfaces of the diamine and phosgene starting material jets”. Jürgen at col. 3, line 54-57, emphasis added.
Regarding the process, Jürgen teaches that:
The stream A containing diamines and/or triamines flows through the tube section 4, the connecting pipes 5 and the double-walled guide tube 6 and finally emerges from the double-walled guide tube in the form of an annular jet. The phosgene-containing stream B flows in approximately at the height of the tube section 4 through the inlet nozzle 7 directly into the space between the cylindrical wall 2 and the tube section 4 and flows around the tube section 4, the connecting pipes 5 and the double-walled guide tube 6. The flow around the double-walled guide tube 6 is both through the free cross-sectional area which is bounded by the inner wall of the double-walled guide tube, and through the free cross-sectional area which is bounded by the cylindrical wall 2 of the tubular reactor and the outer wall of the double-walled guide tube. The flow paths of the starting materials A and B are indicated by the arrows in the form of flow lines in the figure. The stream A containing the di- and/or triamines emerges from the double-walled guide tube 6 in the form of a free annular jet and then mixes, with generally turbulent flow, with the phosgene-containing stream B, the corresponding di- and/or triisocyanates forming.
Jürgen at col. 5, line 26-46, emphasis added.
Jürgen also teaches working example 1 as below:
Example 1
An isophoronediamine/inert gas mixture, as starting material stream A, and phosgene as starting material stream B are passed continuously into a tubular reactor according to FIG. 1, comprising a downstream isocyanate condensation stage and isocyanate working-up downstream thereof. The temperatures of the two starting material streams are 300° C. The pressure in the tubular reactor is slightly above atmospheric pressure at 1400 mbar.
The velocity of the component A in the double-walled guide tube 6 is about 60 m/s and that of component B prior to mixing is about 7 m/s. The ratio of the cross-sectional area of the tubular reactor 1, which area is bounded by the inner wall of the double-walled guide tube 6, to the cross-sectional area of the tubular reactor, which area is bounded by the cylindrical wall 2 of the tubular reactor and the outer wall of the double-walled guide tube, is 1:11. The velocity of the reaction mixture at the reactor exit is about 17 m/s.
After leaving the reactor, the reaction product isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI) is condensed, separated from excess phosgene and the byproduct hydrogen chloride and then fed to a purification stage. . . . .
Jürgen at col. 5-6, example 1, emphasis added.
The Jürgen example 1 process comprises:
(i) providing a gaseous stream of isophoronediamine (also named 1-amino-3,5,5-trimethyl-5-aminomethylcyclohexane, see attached ChemSpider);
(ii) providing a gaseous stream of phosgene;
(iii) mixing the amine stream from step (i) and the phosgene stream from step (ii) and passing the resulting mixture through a reaction zone to conduct a reaction of isophoronediamine with excess phosgene and obtain a gaseous reaction product mixture;
(iv) cooling the reaction product mixture obtained in step (iii) by contacting it with a quench liquid in a quench zone (condensation stage) to obtain a quenched product mixture; and
(v) separating the product isophorone diisocyanate from the quenched product mixture obtained in step (iv).
Wherein, the process is conducted in a tubular reactor comprising:
One inlet device that is 4 for starting material A,
One outer shell that is 2 with inner diameters Dri
One tubular inner sleeve that is 6 disposed within a segment of the outer shell 2, the tubular inner sleeve 6 has a length along its longitudinal axis and outer diameter Dso, wherein the ratio between Dso and Dri (Dso/Dri) is 0.7071 that anticipates the 0.600-0.990 recited in the withdrawn claim 1.
The Jürgen example 1 process meets each and every limitation of claim 11 and 14, therefore, claims 11 and 14 are anticipated.
With regards claim 13, which recites the following limitations:
(x) defining a type of organic amine to be phosgenated and a desired throughput for a following production run and providing this information;
(xi) analyzing the information provided in step (x) to determine a sleeve size and a nozzle position to be used; and
(xii) mounting the inner sleeve and the nozzle as determined in step (xi) into the tubular reactor.
The step of x and xi in claim 13 is determination/ providing information and analysis of the information respectively, both of which are directed toward information/printed matter. MPEP § 2111.05 (‘[o]ur past cases establish a necessary condition for falling into the category of printed matter: a limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information’ (citing In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848, 117 USPQ2d 1265, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Once it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight. MEPE § 2111.05 (citing In re DiStefano at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268); see also, King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Herein, the claim step of “defining” starting materials, “providing” and “analyzing” of the information is functionally unrelated to the active steps recited in claim 13, therefore, there is no patentable weight for steps of x and xi in claim 13.
Claim 13 is anticipated because before the Jürgen example 1 process was conducted, a step of “mounting the inner sleeve 6 having a specific size and the nozzle 7 at a specific position” in the Jürgen tubular reactor has been carried out.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M. Jürgen, et al., US6930199B2(2005)(“Jürgen”) in view of the information from the Filson Filtration (2020)(“Filson”).
M. Jürgen, et al., US6930199B2(2005)(“Jürgen”)
As detail discussed in the 102 rejection above that Jürgen teaches a process meeting each and every limitation of claim 11.
Difference between Jürgen and Claim 12
Jürgen differs from claim 12 in that Jürgen does not teach to include the additional steps claimed by claim 12.
Information from the Filson Filtration (2020)(“Filson”)
Filson teaches that service lifespan of a tubular reactor can be increased by doing proper maintenance of the tubular reactor, and it is important to have a proper maintenance schedule with cleaning and changing the parts of a tubular reactor. Filson at page 13/19, 15. How do you Increase the Service Lifespan of Tubular Reactor?
Obviousness Rationales of Claim 12
One ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention before the effective filling date of the instant application in view of the teachings from Jürgen and Filson.
Claim 12 is obvious because one ordinary skill in the art who conducts the Jürgen preparation method is motivated to carry out a scheduled maintenance on the Jürgen tubular reactor by including the following steps:
(a) shutting down the phosgenation;
(b) removing the inner sleeve 6 from the reactor;
(c) inserting a new or cleaned inner sleeve 6 into the reactor; and
(d) restarting the phosgenation.
Thus arrive at a process meeting each and every limitation of claims 11-12, therefore, claims 11-12 are obvious.
One ordinary skill in the art has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Filson teaches that service lifespan of a tubular reactor can be increased by doing proper maintenance of the tubular reactor, and it is important to have a proper maintenance schedule with cleaning and changing the parts of a tubular reactor. Rationales supporting the modification is “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” MPEP2143.I.(E).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday. 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 Goon can be reached at (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the double-walled guide tube to the cross-sectional area of the tubular reactor is 1:2, therefore, the ratio of the diameter Dso of the double-walled guide tube to the diameter Dri of the tubular reactor is 0.7071.
Prosecution Insights