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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6, 11 and 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/26/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The ranges recited in these claims are different than that in claim 7. Claim 17 has a broader range, whereas claim 8 has an overlapping range, both changing the scope of claim 7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over, CN107998909A.
PNG
media_image1.png
387
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
189
337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Valve-sieve-tray column Plan view of the trays
PNG
media_image3.png
268
273
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Float/lift valves
Claim 7 recites a valve sieve tray column, and its function in counter-current extraction of hydrogen peroxide. The function of the column is not patentable in the apparatus claims.
A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). "[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)
This CN reference teaches a valve-sieve-tray (2) column (1) which has the trays with holes and valves, and the down-comer (4), and supports the counter-current flow – see the figures copied herein. Please note that the usage of the phrase “at least” includes the option of all the trays and all the holes have valves. The valve is a liftable floating valve – see the figures. The principle of operation of the valve is as claimed. This anticipates claim 7.
Regarding the effective weight of valve seat selected to have the recited expression being with 5-90% of the length of the downcomer, since there is no real value cited for this parameter, the teaching of the CN reference would support this factor for the liquid-vapor density difference of some liquid, which anticipates the claim. In addition, the factors considered in the expression are the design factors used by people of skill in the art, and the actual design of the valve tray based on these factors would have been within the capability of one of ordinary skill, and therefore, obvious.
Claims 8-10 and 17-20 recite the design considerations of the liftable flap, the hole size, and the length of the down comer, which differs from the teaching of CN, but which are within the capabilities of one of skill in the art to design for the intended use. They are also simple changes in dimensions and size.
MPEP 2144.04: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 21: CN meets the limitation – see the figures.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustaaf Goor ET AL: "Hydrogen Peroxide", "Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry", 15 April 2007 (2007-04-15), Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim, ISBN: 978-3-52-730673-2, in view of CN CN107998909A
At the outset, applicant admits that the process is well-known and taught by the Ullmann Encyclopedia. The only difference is the use of the valve-sieve tray column for the solvent extraction in place of the sieve tray extraction column taught by Ullmann, or, rather, Ullmann does not explicitly state that the sieve tray column is a valve sieve tray column. However, valve sieve tray columns are well-known in the art, such as taught by the CN reference. Ullmann teaches that any extraction column can be used in section 4.1.2.4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CN- extraction column because of its higher mixing efficiency due to the vertical pulsation of the lighter fluid in the float valve design – see the summary of invention.
In addition, the following rationales also apply, per MPEP 2143:
Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments: “… claimed feature establishes a relationship …” and “D5 does not describe any relationship…” As argued, mathematical relationships are not a structural limitations. As pointed out in the rejection, such a relationship exists between some liquid and the teaching of CN, and these are means for designing the device. Claims are for a product or a device.
Other arguments reflect that applicant has found a solution to a technical problem, but the solution is only something that is already available in the prior arts.
Arguments: “D5 relates to a gas liquid surge mixing method…” and “D5 does not make any reference to liquid-liquid extraction…” These arguments invoke a different intended use for the CN reference.
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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights