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 § 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 (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 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.
Claims 14-18 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagata et al (US 5,616,806).
Regarding claim 14, Nagata explicitly discloses reacting nitrobenzene and hydrogen over a palladium/platinum/iron catalyst (step A), cooling and separating it to get 99.99% pure aniline (step B) and drawing out samples to analyze them for nitrobenzene and by-product to monitor for a reaction breakthrough scenario. Crucially, Nagata satisfies the analytical limitations by disclosing that the reaction solutions are drawn out at various times and analyzed via gas chromatography before final work-up to determine the presence of N-cyclohexylaniline and other specific by-products.
Finaly, Nagata describes keeping the unreacted nitrobenzene at a strict threshold of 0.01 or less and explicitly sets forth the exact corrective measures to be executed in the event of an operational upset (i.e., decreasing the feed rate of nitrobenzene or increasing the catalyst feed) to actively prevent a nitrobenzene breakthrough. Because Nagata discloses every single element of the claimed process within a single prior art embodiment, claim 1 lacks novelty. See Example 1.
Regarding claim 15, because the claim states it comprises at least one of the options, Nagata’s explicit text at the end of Example 1stating the them would decrease the feed of nitrobenzene to fix a breakthrough satisfies the option of reducing the plant load to delay catalyst deactivation.
Regarding claim 16, Nagata explicitly teaches that the water and aniline are removed from the system in a vapor state (gas phase). See Example 1.
Regarding claim 17, Nagata details that the vapor state product is introduced into the condenser connected to the autoclave and cooled therein, whereby water and aniline were condensed. See Example 1.
Regarding claim 18, Nagata explicitly notes that the resulting condensate was separated into two layers and that this aniline layer was then analyzed by means of gas chromatography and polarography. See Example 1.
Regarding claim 23, Nagata discloses that the solution was physically drawn out from the reactor at various times and then filtered and then analyzed. Drawing out a solution is the exact physical definition of collecting a sample. See Example 1.
Regarding claim 24, Nagata feeds nitrobenzene at 130g/hr. into a 500-gram fluid bed, the reactor’s total chemical contents fully run over roughly every 3.8 hours. Nagata explicitly states they draw out samples at various times and discontinuously analyzed the solution during the run to maintain this fast-moving steady state, which inherently satisfies testing intervals much shorter than 24 hours. See Example 1.
Regarding claim 25, Nagata’s Example 1and col. 3, lines 25-28 explicitly state that they test the mixture to track nitrobenzene levels and catch heavy, high boiling point impurities.
Regarding claim 26, Nagata discloses analyzing the crude reaction product by gas chromatography and polarography. See Example 1.
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.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al (US 5,616,806) as applied to claims 14-18 and 23-26 above, and further in view of Steffens et al (US 20220348533 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Nagata teaches that you must analyze the raw chemical mixture before it gets purified to keep the plant safe (Example 1). Meanwhile Steffens explicitly teaches (paragraph 0104) that running an aniline cooling system in a two-stage condensation train is the best way to catch different chemical compositions at different temperatures. It would be completely obvious to a plant engineer, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merge these ideas and place Nagata’s testing equipment right after Steffens’ first cooling stage. The clear motivation is to catch dangerous unreacted materials at the earliest physical checkpoint before they flow deeper into downstream distillation and purification equipment.
Regarding claims 21 and 22 cover setting an automated, real time alert loop that sounds like an alarm if by products spike by more than 10%, using high tech online sensors. These features are simple, routine engineering upgrades rather than brand new inventions. Nagata already requires taking quick safety measures if impurities rise. Upgrading Nagata’s manual, offline laboratory sampling to an online analysis method is a standard industry upgrade that removes human error and provides instant data. Furthermore, choosing a 10% increase trigger is a textbook process control rule of thumb. Engineers routinely program a 5% to 15% safety buffer into plant control system to filter out normal background noise from an imminent reactant breakthrough, making this specific threshold a matter of routine optimization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights