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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
In claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by “based on the top 0% of the stripping column”. For the purposes of examination, the “height of 0 to 20% based on the top 0% of the stripping column” is interpreted as referring to the top 20% of the stripping column.
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.
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 1, 4-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 10-2021-0035433 A) in view of Blommel (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0037523).
An English-language machine translation of Yoon, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation.
In paragraph 1 Yoon discloses a method for treating exhaust gas generated in a synthetic rubber manufacturing process. In paragraph 8 Yoon discloses a method for recovering unreacted monomers from the exhaust gas. In paragraphs 36 and 46 Yoon discloses that the upper discharge stream of the polymerization reactor contains unreacted conjugated diene monomers and is fed to a condenser. Yoon discloses in paragraph 46 that some unreacted conjugated diene monomers may not be condensed, producing a stream including an uncondensed conjugated diene-based monomer. The “may exist” disclose of Yoon implies that there is also some condensed conjugated diene-based monomer, and in paragraph 40 Yoon indicates that a portion of the condenser discharge can be fed to the polymerization reactor. Yoon therefore meets the limitations of the first step (“supplying a feed stream…) and second step (“recovering the conjugated diene-based monomer…), of claim 1, where obtaining the condensed conjugated diene-based monomer and sending condenser discharge to the polymerization reactor both imply recovery of condensed conjugated diene-based monomer. In paragraph 47 Yoon further discloses a condenser at the top of a third distillation monomer which performs a similar function as the condenser at the top of the polymerization reactor.
In at the bottom of paragraph 46 and paragraph 47 Yoon discloses supplying a stream comprising uncondensed conjugated diene-based monomer to an absorption tower . Yoon discloses that unreacted monomers in the stream (exhaust gas in the terminology of Yoon) can be dissolved in the liquid stream, meeting the limitations of the third step of claim 1 (“supplying the stream including…), where the liquid stream of Yoon is the sorbent of claim 1.
In paragraph 53 Yoon discusses the composition of this stream (exhaust gas in the terminology of Yoon). In paragraph 54 Yoon discloses that the exhaust gas comprises 70 to 95 parts by weight of the unreacted conjugated diene monomer per 100 parts by weight of the total, corresponding to a diene monomer concentration of 70 to 95% by weight, encompassing the range recited in claim 4. In paragraph 51 Yoon discloses that the liquid stream used as the sorbent comprises a solvent and a vinyl aromatic monomer. In paragraph 27 Yoon discloses that the solvent can be various solvents meeting the limitations of claim 5, such as n-hexane, heptane, octane, isooctane, and various cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon solvents.
In paragraph 54 Yoon discloses that the flow rate ratio of the liquid stream to the exhaust gas ranges from 3:1 to 5:1, overlapping the range recited in claim 6. It is noted that the tables supplied with the examples of Yoon indicate that the flow rates are mass flow rates (kg/hr). In paragraph 61 Yoon discloses that the lower discharge stream of the absorption tower, which corresponds to the absorbed solution of claims 1 and 7, can contain 10 to 25%, or 12 to 20%, by weight of the conjugated diene monomer, overlapping or falling within the range recited in claim 7.
In the tables of Examples 1-2, Yoon indicates that the pressure of the exhaust gas supplied to the absorption tower and the upper and lower discharge streams of the absorption tower is 2.4. Yoon does not specifically disclose the units of pressure. Throughout the reference, Yoon expresses pressure in barg units. Since 1 bar is equal to about 1.02 kgf/cm2, the pressure of the absorption tower kgf/cm2(g) units, where both barg and kgf/cm2(g) are both expressed as gauge units, in will fall within the range recited in claim 11. If the pressure in the tables of Yoon is already in kgf/cm2(g) units, then it also falls within the range recited in claim 11.
The differences between Yoon and the currently presented claims are:
i) Yoon does not disclose a step of stripping the bottom discharge stream (corresponding to the absorbed solution of claim 1) to recover sorbent and monomer streams, as recited in the fourth step of claim 1.
ii) Some of the ranges of Yoon overlap or encompass the claimed ranges rather than falling within them. This relates to claims 4 and 6-7.
With respect to i), Blommel, in the figure of the reference and paragraph 30, discloses an apparatus and method where an absorption oil stream 146 comprising C4 compounds including butadiene is passed from an absorber column 144 to a degasser 150 to remove non-C4 volatiles, and then to a C4 stripper column 156 where butadiene is stripped from the absorption oil to provide a crude butadiene product stream, as recited in the fourth step of claim 1 (supplying the absorbed solution…) which is sent for further purification to obtain butadiene product. Blommel discloses in paragraph 30 that the absorption oil stream 160 is recovered from the stripper column and recycled to the absorber column, corresponding to the limitation in the fourth step of claim 1 regarding circulating the lower discharge stream from the stripping column to the absorption tower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the bottom discharge stream from the absorption tower of Yoon to the stripping column of Blommel in order to isolate the monomer from the solvent in the discharge stream and prepare the monomer for further use. While Blommel does not specifically disclose passing the diene (butadiene) back to a condenser, as recited in the fourth step of claim 1, Blommel does disclose sending the diene for further purification, and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to return the diene to the condenser in the apparatus and method of Yoon in order to further purify it and collect the fraction of diene that condenses in the condenser.
With respect to ii), See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In light of the above, claims 1, 4-7, and 11 are rendered obvious by Yoon in view of Blommel.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Blommel as applied to claims 1, 4-7, and 11 above, and further in view of Cho (KR 10-2022-034428 A).
The discussion of Yoon and Blommel in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference. Yoon and Blommel disclose a method meeting the limitations of claim 1, where the feed stream is an exhaust gas comprising unreacted monomer from a polymerization monomer. Yoon and Blommel do not disclose a feed stream from the specific polymerization process of claims 2-3.
An English-language machine translation of Cho, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation. The machine translation may differ slightly from the version supplied by applicant on 10/2/24.
In paragraph 19 Cho discloses a method for recovering conjugated diene monomers, comprising a step of supplying a gaseous feed stream comprising a nitrile monomer, a conjugated diene monomer, and water to a first condenser, and then supplying an upper discharge stream of the condenser, comprising nitrile monomer and a conjugated diene monomer to an absorption tower where the nitrile monomer and conjugated diene monomer are separated into separate streams. In paragraphs 21 and 29 Cho discloses that the gaseous feed stream may be discharged from a reactor that polymerized nitrile-based monomers and conjugated diene-based monomers, and that the polymer produced can be a copolymer latex, as recited in claim 2 (nitrile butadiene rubber latex, bottom of paragraph 29 of Cho). Cho further discloses in paragraph 19 that the discharge stream comprising the conjugated diene monomer is sent to a purification unit for further purification.
The use of the conjugated diene monomer-containing stream of Cho as the exhaust gas feed for the method of Yoon and Blommel therefore meets the limitations of claims 2-3, where in the absorption tower of Cho corresponds to the second absorption tower of claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the conjugated diene monomer-containing stream of Cho as the exhaust gas feed for the method of Yoon and Blommel, since Cho produces a conjugated diene monomer-containing stream in need of further purification, and Yoon and Blommel teach a method of purifying and recovering unreacted conjugated diene monomer from a polymerization reaction.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Blommel as applied to claims 1, 4-7, and 11 above, and further in view of Takagaki (U.S. Pat. No. 10,329,224).
The discussion of Yoon and Blommel in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference. Yoon and Blommel disclose a method meeting the limitations of claim 1, comprising passing a diene-containing stream from an absorption tower to a stripping column, but do not disclose the specific features of the stripping column.
In column 2 lines 51-57 Takagaki discloses a method of producing a high purity conjugated diolefin such as butadiene. In column 3 lines 19-22 Takagaki discloses that the method comprises a step of allowing a gas comprising a conjugated diolefin to be absorbed in a solvent, and subsequently stripping the gas containing the conjugated diolefin, followed by a step of compressing the gas to contain a liquefied gas.
In column 13 lines 40-44 Takagaki discloses that the stripping column has a lower column-top temperature than column-bottom temperature, meeting the limitations of the cooling part in a top stage of claim 8. Takagaki discloses that the column-top temperature is preferably 0° to 90° C, encompassing the range recited in claim 9, and in column 20 lines 29-44 discloses a column-top temperature of 25° C, within the range recited in claim 9. While Takagaki does not specifically disclose the height range of the column that is in the column-top temperature range, the disclosure of the lower temperature as a column-top temperature indicates that the percentage of the height of the column in the temperature range has to fall within or encompass the range recited in claim 9. The compressing step of Takagaki meets the limitations of claim 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the stripping column in the method of Yoon and Blommel to have the temperatures taught by Takagaki, including the cooler column-top temperature, since Takagaki teaches that they are preferable temperatures for a stripping column used to separate a conjugated diene from a solvent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pass the diene-containing stream from the stripping column of Yoon, Blommel, and Takagaki to the compressor of Takagaki, since Takagaki indicates in column 14 lines 1-36 that it allows for more efficient removal of water-soluble impurities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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 base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed in the above rejections, does not disclose or render obvious operating the stripping column under the negative gauge pressures recited in claim 12. Blommel is silent regarding the pressure under which the stripping column is operated and Takagaki explicitly teaches the use of positive gauge pressures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to instead operate the stripping column at the negative gauge pressures recited in claim 12. Oldengott (DE 102016224063 A1), listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 2/6/26 and cited as an X reference in the European search report, mentions stripping as a method of desorbing C4 hydrocarbons from an absorbent, but gives no details regarding a suitable apparatus or operating conditions such as the negative gauge pressure range of claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights