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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/082221 which claims the benefit of EP 21210408.7 with an effective filing date of 25 November 2021 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 04 October 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently cancelled.
Claims 17-32 are new.
Specification
The use of the terms Mellapak, Flexipac, and trademarked industry names, etc., which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24, line 4 states “withdrawnfrom”, which appears to include a typographical mistake.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 21, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 21, 28, and 30, the phrases “preferably …”, and “in particular …” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention, see MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-20 and 22-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aichinger et al. (US6353130, patented 05 March 2002, hereinafter Aichinger) in view of Gerhard et al. (DE10154714, published 07 November 2002, see machine translation, hereinafter Gerhard) and Horstmann et al. (US20160289159, published 06 October 2016, hereinafter Horstmann).
Aichinger is in the known prior art field of a “method for continuous production of (meth)acrylic alkyl esters by reacting (meth)acrylic acid with alkanols containing 1-8 C-atoms, whereby raw (meth)acrylic acid containing acetic acid is used as a starting compound and the alkyl acetate that is formed as a by-product is evacuated in an appropriate area”, see Abstract.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 17, Aichinger teaches “[a] process for the continuous preparation of alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid by reacting (meth)acrylic acid with alkanols of 1 to 8 carbon atoms … in the presence of an acidic esterification catalyst, in which the (meth)acrylic acid, the alkanol and the acid catalyst are fed to a reaction zone”, see Claim 1; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 42, i.e., reacting with C1 to C8 alkanols will inherently produce C1 to C8 alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid, see MPEP 2112; Col. 5, Lns. 9-14, where the process is “suitable for the direct esterification of a crude (meth)acrylic acid which contains” “0.1 to 3% by weight or from 0.2 to 1% by weight”, “based on its weight, of acetic acid”, see Col. 4, Ln. 47-Col. 5, Ln. 3, meeting,
The process for production of C6 to C8 alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid by esterification of (meth)acrylic acid with trace amounts of acetic acid with a C6 to C8 alcohol in instant application claim 17;
After the esterification reaction, the crude alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid are purified. The purification includes “the resulting water as part of a mixture comprising starting alkanol is removed from the reaction mixture by rectification, during the residence time in the reaction zone, in a rectification unit I mounted on the reaction zone”, where the rectification unit is mounted on top of the reactor, see Claim 1; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 42; Col. 5, Lns. 23-58, “wherein alkanol contained in the aqueous phase of the distillate of the rectification unit I is separated from the aqueous phase by stripping and is recycled to the reaction zone” and “alkanol stripping of the waste waters obtained at various points in the process”, see Claim 13; Col. 10, Lns. 8-26. The “reaction mixture containing the desired ester”, i.e., “the residual reaction mixture I”, “is passed from the reaction zone into a separation zone comprising further rectification units and the resulting alkyl ester of (meth)acrylic acid is isolated in said separation zone”, see Claim 1; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 42, where “the residual reaction mixture I is fed to a rectification unit II and is separated therein by rectification into a low-boiler product containing desired ester and components boiling at a lower temperature than the desired ester and into a residual reaction mixture II comprising the desired ester and components boiling at a higher temperature than the desired ester”, see Claim 1; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 42, and the “resulting, essentially acid-free, organic phase was fed (at the 30th tray) to a rectification unit II which was formed by a rectification column having 40 bubble trays and which had been supplemented by a circulation evaporator, a condenser and a phase separation vessel”, see Col. 17, Lns. 12-58; Col. 5, Lns. 23-30, i.e. a feed into the side of the low boiler rectification unit II, meeting:
Purifying the C6 to C8 alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid by introducing the C6 to C8 alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid into the side of a low boiler column rectification unit II with a rectifying section disposed above the feed point and separating further purified C6 to C8 alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid in instant application claim 17;
After rectification unit lower boiler separation II, “the residual reaction mixture II is fed to a rectification unit III and the desired ester is separated therein from the components boiling at a higher temperature than the desired ester,” see Claim 1; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 42, where “the residual reaction mixture II is removed as bottom product from rectification unit II and fed to a further rectification unit III”, see Col. 9, Ln. 39-Col. 10, Ln. 7, the process “permits an essentially quantitative separation of the lower-boiling alkyl acetate”, “which was removed at the top of the column”, “from higher-boiling alkyl (meth)acrylate by rectification in the rectification unit II”, the low boiling components removed from the top of the column have an organic phase and an aqueous phase with the top products have “lower boiling points than the desired ester (residual amounts of water, alkanol, alkyl acetate, dialkyl ether)”, see Col. 8, Lns. 47-55, and the distillate from the top of rectification tower II is conducted “without there being any loss at all of desired product at this point as the distillate separated off in the rectification unit II and if any desired ester is contained it is “completely recycled to the reaction zone”, see Col. 4, Lns. 15-46; Col. 8, Lns. 47-55, i.e., close to 0% C6 to C8 alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid from the top of the low boiler, meeting:
Withdrawing the further purified alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid from the low boiler in instant application claim 17;
Withdrawing a fraction from the top of the low boiler comprising alcohol, acetic acid ester, and within the range of the alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid in instant application claim 17;
“The conditions in the reaction region and in the rectification units used for separating off the desired ester can therefore be established in a very flexible manner”, see Col. 5, Ln. 23-Col. 6, Ln. 14, where the alkyl acetate top effluent “is separated by rectification into a top product comprising mainly alkyl acetate and alkanol and a bottom product comprising mainly alkyl (meth)acrylate and alkanol, and the bottom product is recycled to the reaction zone”, see Claim 17; Col. 2, Lns. 12-21; Col. 7, Lns. 4-34, meeting:
Directing the low boiler fraction to an acetate column, separating the fraction into an alcohol fraction and an acetate ester fraction, and no recycle from the acetate column to the low boiler rectification II in instant application claim 17; and,
Recycling the alcohol fraction at least partially to the esterification step in instant application claim 17.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 18, Aichinger teaches “the (meth)acrylic acid content of the crude (meth)acrylic acid which may be used according to the invention is ≧95% by weight, in many cases ≧97 or ≧98 or ≧99% by weight”, see Col. 5, Lns. 4-14, i.e., less than or equal to at most 1% water, meeting:
Within the essentially anhydrous range in instant application claim 18.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 20, Aichinger teaches the “resulting, essentially acid-free, organic phase was fed (at the 30th tray) to a rectification unit II which was formed by a rectification column having 40 bubble trays and which had been supplemented by a circulation evaporator, a condenser and a phase separation vessel”, see Col. 17, Lns. 12-58; Col. 5, Lns. 23-30, where “such alkyl acetate-free alkyl (meth)acrylates, the high separation efficiency (i.e. a high reflux ratio and/or a large number of theoretical plates), which promotes both separation of alkyl (meth)acrylates and alkyl acetates by rectification”, see Col. 2, Lns. 12-33, i.e., over 40 physical trays and a large number of theoretical plates, obviously meeting,
Within the theoretical plate range in instant application claim 20.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 22, Aichinger teaches the operating conditions of rectification unit II are a top pressure of 150-190 mbar and a bottom temperature of 100 to 120 ◦C, see Col. 10, Lns. 27-33, meeting:
Within the pressure and temperature range in instant application claim 22.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 24, Aichinger teaches “the residual reaction mixture II is fed to a rectification unit III and the desired ester is separated therein from the components boiling at a higher temperature than the desired ester”, see Claim 1, where “the residual reaction mixture II is removed as bottom product from rectification unit II and fed to a further rectification unit III (usually into the lower half of a conventional rectification column)”, the desired ester is “separated off as top product in high purity and essentially free of alkyl acetates” and the “high-boiling residue (bottom product) remaining in the rectification unit III, essentially still containing desired ester and composed of oxyester, polymerization inhibitor and alkyl (meth)acrylates oligomerized and/or polymerized by means of free radicals can, in order to increase the yield further, advantageously be subjected to a process for cleavage of the Michael oxyester”, see Col. 9, Ln. 51-Col. 10, Ln. 50, meeting:
Purified alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid with drawn from the bottom of the low boiler rectification unit II sent to further purification in to rectification unit III where purified alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid is withdrawn from the top and high boilers are withdrawn from the bottom in instant application claim 24.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 26, Aichinger teaches “process for the continuous preparation of alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid by reacting (meth)acrylic acid with alkanols of 1 to 8 carbon atoms … in the presence of an acidic esterification catalyst … the acidic esterification catalyst is separated from the reaction mixture containing the desired ester before said reaction mixture is passed on into the separation zone comprising further rectification units”, see Claim 1; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 42, meeting,
The esterification catalyst and removal step after esterification in instant application claim 26.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 27, Aichinger teaches after the esterification reaction “unreacted (meth)acrylic acid and any process polymerization inhibitor can expediently be recycled directly to the reaction zone, disposed of and/or combined with the alkaline aqueous phase mentioned in the next section, for the purpose of back-extraction” before being sent to the separation zone, see Col. 8, Lns. 14-38, meeting:
Removing methacrylic acid before the final separation step in instant application claim 27.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 28 and 30, Aichinger teaches “the novel process is suitable for the preparation of both acrylates and methacrylates of all C1 to C8-alkanols, among which methanol, ethanol, 2-ethylhexanol and n-butanol”, see Col. 5, Lns. 4-14; Claim 1; Col. 15, Ln. 51-Col. 16, Ln. 11, meeting:
The C8 alkanol, 2-ethylhexanol, in instant application claim 28 and in instant application claim 30.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 29, Aichinger teaches the “novel process is to be described in more detail below with reference to an exemplary esterification of n-butanol with acrylic acid”, see Col. 16, Ln. 15-Col. 17, Ln. 59, meeting:
The acrylic acid esterification in instant application claim 29.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 31 and 32, Aichinger teaches “[i]n the case of esterification of 2-ethylhexanol, the alkyl acetate-containing organic phase removed is expediently simultaneously the purge for octene formed as a byproduct (dehydration of 2-ethylhexanol), see Col. 7, Lns. 31-34; Col. 15, Ln. 51-Col. 16, Ln. 11, i.e., esterification of 2-ethylhexanol inherently leads to the dehydration of 2-ethylhexanol entrainer octene byproduct in the esterification reaction, see MPEP 2112, meeting:
The esterification step in the presence of the by-product entrainer generated by the dehydration of the alcohol in instant application claim 31 and in instant application claim 32.
Aichinger does not teach:
The instant application claim 17 limitations of the acetate column being operated at a pressure at least 50 mbar higher than the low boiler column pressure, and separating the low boiler fraction into an alcohol fraction withdrawn at the top of the acetate column and an acetic ester fraction withdrawn at the bottom of the acetate column;
The limitations of instant application claims 19, 23, and 25.
Gerhard is in the known prior art field of the production “of (meth)acrylic acid esters comprises acid catalyzed esterification of (meth)acrylic acid with the corresponding alcohol in a reaction zone equipped with a distillation unit followed by separation of the catalyst and distillation of (meth)acrylic acid product”, see Abstract, where the alcohol contains “6 to 12 carbon atoms”, such as “2-ethylhexanol”, see Paras. [0029]-[0031], and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 17, 19, and 23, Gerhard teaches after esterification the crude (meth)acrylic acid ester product stream is subjected to “condensation and separation into an aqueous and organic phase”, “a catalyst separation step with separation into a esterification catalyst containing sump product and a (meth)acrylic acid containing head product”, “distillation of (meth)acrylic acid from the head product; and, (D) transfer of the remaining (meth)acrylic acid ester to a low boiling separation process to remove acetic acid ester”, see Abstract, where the low boiling point removal step (D) is performed in a variety of stages of 4, 5, 5a, and 5b, see Paras. [0023]-[0027];[0067]-[0091]. In these stages, the desired acrylic ester product from the separation distillation, stage 3, is fed to the middle area of a low boiling point column, stage 4, operated a sump/bottom temperature of “preferably 120-140°C and the pressure at the column head is 20-150, preferably 30 to 120 mbar”, see Paras. [0067]-[0070]. The top discharge from the low boiler column of stage 4 “is directed to the light boilings processing stage (stage 5)”, see Paras. [0070]-[0091]; Claims 1, 2, and 6, where in stages 5a and 5b the feed from the top of the low boiler stage 4 is processed in stages 5a and 5b to a head/top product containing “essentially ethylhexanol (approx. 85-90%) and ethylhexyl acetate (approx. 10-15%)” and a swamp/bottom product containing mostly ethylhexyl acetate, see Paras. [0075]-[0089], and the “levels 5a and 5b can also be combined in one column” with the feed entering the columns at the side upper half or bottom half and the column(s) operated at the sump/bottom temperature of “110-130°C” or “150-170°C”, “the head pressure is 50-200 mbar”, and/or “the top pressure is 200-400 mbar”, see Paras. [0077];[0083];[0090], meeting:
The directing the low boiler fraction to the acetate removal column, operated at a pressure within the higher pressure range, separating alcohol from the top and an acetic ester from the bottom in instant application claim 17 and in instant application claim 19; and,
Within the pressure and temperature range in instant application claim 23.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 25, Gerhard teaches “it is also possible to combine the distillation units of the low-boiling-point separation (stage 4) and the pure distillation (stage 6) … the pure target ester can be taken off via a side vent, preferably in gaseous form, and the top distillate is condensed in one or preferably, as described above, in two stages … The swamp fraction can be directed to residue distillation and/or residue splitting”, see Paras. [0096]-[0098], meeting:
The purified target ester withdrawn from the side of the low boiler column and the residue from the swamp/bottom in instant application claim 25.
Aichinger and Gerhard do not teach:
The instant application claim 17 limitations of introducing crude (meth)acrylic ester into a column with a rectifying section disposed above the feed point of the crude (meth)acrylic ester and a stripping section disposed below the feed point.
Horstmann is in the known prior art field of a “process for continuously preparing the tert-butyl ester of an aliphatic C1-C4 carboxylic acid”, see Abstract, by esterifying “acrylic acid or methacrylic acid”, see Para. [0015], with purification of the esterification product through rectification and stripping distillation, see Paras. [0052]-[0078], and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 17, Horstmann teaches the stream with esterification product is sent “from the distillation column D1” “to the side of the distillation column D2”, see Para. [0118], where the bottom of the second distillation column D2 has a “stripping section” and the top of column D2 has a “rectifying section”, see Para. [0105]; Claim 16; Fig. 1, meeting:
Introducing crude (meth)acrylic ester into a column with a rectifying section disposed above the feed point of the crude (meth)acrylic ester and a stripping section disposed below the feed point in instant application claim 17.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the acetate removal operating conditions of Aichinger to remove alcohol from the top and acetate from the bottom of the column as taught by Gerhard, to have modified the rectifying columns of Aichinger to incorporate a stripping section as taught by Horstmann, and to have modified the purification steps and columns by rearranging the purification method feed lines and purification columns, see MPEP 2144.04 VI., as taught throughout all of Aichinger, Gerhard, and Horstmann with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing the desired ester that is separated in high purity with as little acetic acid esters as possible, see Gerhard, Paras. [0003];[0023]; Horstmann, Paras. [0052];[0078].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the separations and the columns of Aichinger by applying the known technique of the separations and the columns as taught by Gerhard and Horstmann with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing the desired ester that is separated in high purity with as little acetic acid esters as possible, see Gerhard, Paras. [0003];[0023]; Horstmann, Paras. [0052];[0078]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Aichinger, Gerhard, and Horstmann all teach the purification of esterification (meth)acrylic alkyl ester streams, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Aichinger by relying upon Gerhard and Horstmann before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the purification of esterification (meth)acrylic alkyl ester streams art regarding the arrangement of the purification devices and operating conditions, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently producing the desired ester that is separated in high purity with as little acetic acid esters as possible, see Gerhard, Paras. [0003];[0023]; Horstmann, Paras. [0052];[0078]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as distillation pressures, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aichinger et al. (US6353130, patented 05 March 2002, hereinafter Aichinger) in view of Gerhard et al. (DE10154714, published 07 November 2002, see machine translation, hereinafter Gerhard) and Horstmann et al. (US20160289159, published 06 October 2016, hereinafter Horstmann ), as applied to claims 17-20 and 22-32 in the 35 USC rejection above, in further view of Sunder et al. (US20180087835, published 29 March 2018, hereinafter Sunder).
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 21, Aichinger teaches “rectification columns which contain baffles for ensuring intimate contact between liquid and vapor. Such baffles are trays such as bubble trays, perforated trays, in particular dual-flow trays, and beds, packings and the like.”, see Col. 5, Lns. 23-30, meeting:
The rectifying section of the low boiler column comprises internals selected from trays, random packing, or one or more structured packing elements in instant application claim 21.
Aichinger, Horstmann, and Gerhard do not teach:
The limitations of instant application claim 21 of the structured packing elements surface area density and the total height.
Sunder is in the known prior art field of structured packing for “a distillation or fractionation column, i.e. a column wherein liquid and vapor phases are countercurrently contacted to effect separation of a fluid mixture, such as by contacting of the vapor and liquid phases on packing elements or on a series of vertically-spaced trays or plates mounted within the column”, where the “separation performance of structured packing is often given in terms of height equivalent to a theoretical plate (HETP), which is the height of packing over which a composition change is achieved that is equivalent to the composition change achieved by a theoretical plate”, see Abstract; Paras. [0003]-[0012], and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 21, Sunder teaches a structured packing with at least two layers, where the “first layer of structured packing may have a surface area density ranging from 250 m2/m3 to 800 m2/m3 or ranging from 500 m2/m3 to 675 m2/m3”, the “second layer of structured packing may have a surface area density ranging from 250 m2/m3 to 800 m2/m3 or ranging from 500 m2/m3 to 675 m2/m3, see Paras. [0032]-[0041];[0146];[0156], and the first layer is a “first set of corrugated plates 111 comprises a plurality of corrugated plates. The first set of corrugated plates 111 may comprise a plurality of from 50 to 5,000 corrugated plates or from 75 to 4000 corrugated plates”, where each plate may have a vertical height of greater than 350 mm to as high as 1000 mm, see Paras. [0139]-[0140], as calculated by the examiner, 50 x 350 = 17500 mm height aka 17.5 m to 5000 x 1000 = 5000000 mm aka 5000 m, meeting:
Within the surface area density and height of the structured packing in instant application claim 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the column packing of Aichinger to use the column packing configurations as taught by Sunder with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently separating a mixed product stream by maximize the “separation performance of structured packing” “in terms of height equivalent to a theoretical plate (HETP)” in order to increase the “efficiency for heat and/or mass transfer with lower pressure drop” within the separation column, see Sunder, Paras. [0007]-[0012].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the column packing of Aichinger by applying the known technique of the column packing as taught by Sunder with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently separating a mixed product stream by maximize the “separation performance of structured packing” “in terms of height equivalent to a theoretical plate (HETP)” in order to increase the “efficiency for heat and/or mass transfer with lower pressure drop” within the separation column, see Sunder, Paras. [0007]-[0012]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Aichinger and Sunder both teach separation of a mixed product stream through use of column packing, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Aichinger by relying upon Sunder before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the column packing art regarding the structured packing configurations, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently separating a mixed product stream by maximize the “separation performance of structured packing” “in terms of height equivalent to a theoretical plate (HETP)” in order to increase the “efficiency for heat and/or mass transfer with lower pressure drop” within the separation column, see Sunder, Paras. [0007]-[0012]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as structured packing density or height, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571) 270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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 Yen-Ye 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights