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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, lines 4-8 of Remarks, filed February 2nd, 2026, with respect to claims 1-2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to claim amendments, the rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd Paragraph dated November 6th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, line, filed February 2nd, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to claim amendments, the rejection of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) dated November 6th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, lines 6-16, filed February 2nd, 2026, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Yang teaches the claimed three-step process as discussed on Page 4, line 13 - Page 5, line 6 of the Office Action dated November 6th, 2025, contrary to Applicant’s allegation that Yang’s process only teaches two steps. Extraction with tributyl phosphate removes organic compounds and creates two phases: an organic phase and an aqueous phase containing hydrobromic acid. Removing the organic phase from the resulting two-phase system constitutes separating hydrobromic acid. Additionally, the extraction of organics and separation of hydrobromic acid is repeated (Yang, [0015], [0016]). The rejection of November 6th, 2025 is maintained.
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 2 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN 1049157 C) (the machine translation of record is referenced below).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches a process (Yang, [0015]-[0016]) comprising:
first supplying a waste bromide liquid generated from flame retardants manufacture containing hydrobromic acid (Yang, [0015], includes HBr 47%, from decabromodiphenyl oxide production; [0012]);
second removing an organic compound from the waste bromide liquid to form a stream containing hydrobromic acid (Yang, [0004], [0015], organic impurity is removed);
wherein removing the organic compound from the bromide brine includes performing steam distillation of the bromide brine (Yang, [0015]) and performing liquid-liquid extraction using a solvent on the bromide brine (Yang, [0015], tributyl phosphate); and
third separating the hydrobromic acid from the stream containing hydrobromic acid (Yang, [0015], [0016], HBr is repeatedly purified).
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches the process of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the step of removing an organic compound from the bromide brine is adjusting the temperature of the bromide brine to create phase separated organic compounds (Yang, [0015], “Heat up in a steamer and remove impurity at, having impurity of dark brown red that distils off in the whole distillation process.” Distillation creates gas phase separated organic compounds which are phase-separated from the starting liquid.).
Regarding claim 16, Yang teaches the process of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the step of removing an organic compound from the bromide brine is performing liquid-liquid extraction using the solvent on the bromide brine (Yang, [0015], extraction with acidified tributyl phosphate into two layers).
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches the process of claim 16, as discussed above, wherein prior to performing liquid-liquid extraction on the bromide brine, adjusting the temperature of the bromide brine to create phase separated organic compounds is performed (Yang, [0015], “Heat up in a steamer and remove impurity at, having impurity of dark brown red that distils off in the whole distillation process.” Distillation creates gas phase separated organic compounds which are phase-separated from the starting liquid.).
Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches the process of claim 2, wherein the step of removing an organic compound from the bromide brine is performing steam distillation of the bromide brine (Yang, [0015], “Heat up in a steamer and remove impurity at, having impurity of dark brown red that distils off in the whole distillation process.”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,071,353 (“’353”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conducting the process of ‘353 in the order in which they are presented in claim 1 in combination with the dependent claims meets all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 3-4 and 6-11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12-14 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the respective base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-11 are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art and would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Leduc (U.S. 2004/0062705), Yang (CN 1049157 C, 2000) (the machine translation of record is referenced below), Zhu (CN 108751232 A) (the attached machine translation is referenced below), and Chen (CN 113307289 A, 2021) (the attached machine translation is referenced below) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-11, none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest performing the claimed steps on a bromide brine in the order in which they are required by the claim. Where the steps are performed in the prior art, acidification is performed prior to removing an organic compound from the bromide brine (Leduc, [0080]-[0093]). Where removing an organic compound from the bromide compound is performed prior to acidification in the prior art, the stream forming hydrobromic acid is not separated, but converted to bromine by oxidation prior to separation (Zhu, [0038]-[0042]) — it cannot be said that hydrobromic acid is separated from the stream.
Regarding claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-14, Yang teaches the process of claim 2, as discussed above, but none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest that the step of removing the organic compound from the bromide brine is adjusting the pH of the bromide brine to phase separate organic compounds. Chen teaches adjusting the pH of organic bromide-containing waste liquid to phase separate organic compounds (Chen, [0083]-[0086], producing an insoluble residue and an alcoholic sodium bromide solution), but in doing so, Chen is not performing a separation of hydrobromic acid as required by claim 2 — the HBr is neutralized and therefore not separated.
Regarding claims 19-20, Yang teaches the process of claim 2, as discussed above, but none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest adsorbing/extracting organic compounds on resin or activated carbon. While activated carbon is used in the prior art to adsorb organic compounds from bromide waste, it is done on a neutralized waste liquid (e.g., Chen, [0053], [0089]) and not on an acidic HBr solution. There would be not be a reasonable expectation of success when applying adsorption on activated carbon to Yang’s acidic waste solution to remove organic impurities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736