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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The term “rich” is interpreted throughout the claims as having a concentration of the specified compound(s) which is greater than the other streams resulting from the same unit. For example, in claim 13, “a sidestream…rich in styrene” in step (a) means that the styrene concentration of the sidestream is higher than the concentration of styrene in the streams coming from the column top and the column bottom, respectively.
The term “light” is interpreted throughout the claims as relative to styrene, i.e., light compounds boil at a temperature lower than the boiling point of styrene.
The term “heavy” is interpreted throughout the claims as relative to styrene, i.e., heavy compounds boil at a temperature higher than the boiling point of styrene.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 13-16: recitation of “the feedstock of the purification process” (emphasis added) is redundant. The office recommends amending to recite simply –the feedstock— for concision and improved clarity.
Claim 13: the office recommends amending “a column bottom” to –a bottom of the column—to make clear Applicant is referring to a location of the column already introduced.
Claim 13: the office recommends amending “a column top” to –a top of the column—to make clear Applicant is referring to a location of the column already introduced.
Claim 15: the office recommends amending “comprises at least 10% by weight of compounds, a boiling point of which is greater than styrene” to –comprises at least 10% by weight of compounds having a boiling point greater than styrene—.
Claim 19: “a vapour effluent from the condenser subsequently being cooled” is a typo of –and a vapour effluent from the condenser is subsequently cooled—
Claims 23 and 24 recite “wherein the divided wall distillation column consists of”. The office notes that “consists of” excludes any additional elements not specified in the claim. It is not readily apparent that is what Applicant intended, as the drawings and specification depict additional features of the divided wall distillation column, e.g., a reboiler and a condenser. Applicant may have intended for the interior of the column to consist of the claimed elements.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 20-24 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 20 recites the limitation "the polymerization" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The office recommends amending to recite –wherein a styrene polymerization inhibitor is fed…–
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear what is meant by “making it possible to separate” as it relates to the context of the claim and what structures or actions are required by such language. The office recommends amending to more active language reciting the steps intended to be encompassed by the claimed process. For example: --wherein the separation step (b) is performed in two successive separation sections:
(1) a first separation section which is fed with the stream rich in styrene resulting from step (a) and which separates a stream comprising predominantly ethylbenzene and a styrenic raffinate...—
Regarding claim 22, the claim refers to “a stream comprising predominantly ethylbenzene”, “a stream of heavy compounds”, and “a stream comprising predominantly styrene”, respectively. It is unclear what the relationship is between these recited streams and the same streams introduced in claim 13. The office understands them to be the same and recommends amending the recitations in claim 22 to “the (or said)” to make clear Applicant is referring back to the streams already introduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claimed process, entailing serial stages of separation of a feedstock resulting from a process for depolymerization of styrene compounds, specifically wherein the first separation step produces three streams: a top stream, a bottom stream, and a sidestream rich in styrene, and the sole heat supply to the column is the feedstock, is considered to distinguish over the prior art.
It is known in the prior art to produce three streams from a distillation column, similar to those claimed, in a first separation step of a styrene-containing stream. See, e.g., Niessner et al (WO 2020/144165), considered to be the closest prior art. Niessner discloses serial stages of separation for providing purified styrenic monomers. In the first stage, the feedstock is separated in a distillation column to produce a light stream, a heavy stream, and a styrene rich stream withdrawn as a sidestream. The styrene rich stream is fed to the second stage, where it is separated in two distillation columns into ethylbenzene, styrene, and heavy compounds. Notably, however, Niessner’s process requires the use of a reboiler to provide heat to the first distillation column (see Fig. 1; p. 17, line 10 – p. 18, line 3). Thus, Niessner fails to teach wherein the sole heat supply to the column is the feedstock. Nor is there any indication that the reboiler may be omitted or a motivation to do so.
Other prior art references exist which do not explicitly disclose a reboiler on a first distillation column of a styrene purification process, but nor do they explicitly disclose that the sole source of heat provided to the first distillation column is the feedstock, i.e., it is not clear from the disclosures whether or not a reboiler is present or some other source of heat to the distillation column is provided. See, e.g., Welch (US 6,171,449); Sardina (US 4,628,136); Ward (US 4,113,787); Higgins, Jr. et al (US 4,033,829); and King (US 3,904,484). Furthermore, in each of these cited references, only two streams are separated in the first column. Thus, they all fail to disclose separation into the three streams claimed, where the sidestream is that which is passed to the second separation stage. Therefore, they fail to remedy the deficiencies of Niessner as there is no clear motivation to omit a reboiler (or other heat source other than the feedstock) and separate three streams, where a middle stream is subsequently subjected to further purification.
Accordingly, the claimed process is considered to define a patentable invention over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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 (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772