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 .
Claim Interpretation
The office notes the following definitions in the specification:
High pressure: at least 100 bara
Medium pressure: 10-60 bara
Recitations of such in the claims are interpreted accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the reactor operating with” is a typo of –wherein the reactor operates with—
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.
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 5-21 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 5 recites the limitation "the thermal stripping type" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether “thermal stripping type” applies to the entirety of the urea production plant, including the synthesis reaction zone, or whether it refers to specific aspect(s) thereof, e.g., separation and purification zones. This analysis also applies to claim 17.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the reaction mixture" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 5, 13, 15 and 16, the claims use “a gas stream” to identify multiple, distinct gas streams, thus creating ambiguity, in particular with respect to later recitation of “the (or said) gas stream”. The office recommends using different, distinct names for each of the gas streams.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the reactor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 depends from claim 5, but reintroduces components already introduced in claim 5, including: “a high pressure synthesis section”, “a reaction zone”, “a thermal stripper”, “a carbamate condenser”, “a first medium pressure recovery section”, “an outlet”, “a high pressure separator”, “a first stream”, “a second stream”, “a second medium pressure recovery section”, making the relationship between recited components unclear. Where Applicant is referring back to components already introduced, rather than introducing new components, “the” or “said” should be used.
Claim 15, like claim 14, reintroduces at least the following components: “a first MP decomposer”, “a first MP carbamate condenser”, “a medium pressure separation column”, “an ammonia condenser”, “a MP urea solution”, “a gas stream”, “a MP carbamate solution”, “an ammonia-containing gas stream”, “an ammonia condensate stream.”
Claim 16 reintroduces at least the following components: “an MP adiabatic flashing unit”, “a gaseous stream”, “a flashed MP urea solution”, “ a second MP decomposer”, “treated urea solution”, “a gas stream”, “a second MP carbamate condenser”, “carbamate solution.”
Claim 17 depends from claim 14, which depends from claim 5, but reintroduces components already introduced in claims 5 and 14, including: “a high pressure synthesis section”, “a reaction zone”, “a thermal stripper”, “a carbamate condenser”, “a first medium pressure recovery section”, “an inlet”, “an outlet”, “a high pressure separator”, “a high pressure reaction mixture”, “a first stream”, “a second stream”, “a second medium pressure recovery section”, “a first outlet”, “an inlet”, “a second outlet.”
Claim 19 reintroduces at least the following components: “an MP adiabatic flashing unit”, “a gaseous stream”, “a flashed MP urea solution”, “a second MP decomposer”, “treated urea solution”, “a gas stream”, “a second MP carbamate condenser”, “carbamate solution.”
The office requests Applicant’s assistance in resolving this matter.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the degassed second stream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 5-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,814,340.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to substantially similar/overlapping processes, entailing carrying out urea production in a production plant having a HP synthesis section with the same components, and first and second MP recovery sections. Instant independent claim 5 differs from claim 1 of ‘340 by recitation of the second MP recovery section comprising a second MP decomposer and a second MP carbamate condenser. However, these additional features are recited in dependent claim 2 of ‘340. Thus, this difference is not patentably distinguishing.
Claims 14-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,215,071.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to substantially similar/overlapping urea plants and methods of modifying an existing urea plant, having a HP synthesis section with the same components and first and second MP recovery sections. The claims of ‘071 are considered to teach and/or suggest all of the instantly claimed features.
Claims 14-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,645.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to substantially similar/overlapping urea plants and methods of modifying an existing urea plant, having a HP synthesis section with the same components and first and second MP recovery sections. The claims of ‘645 are considered to teach and/or suggest all of the instantly claimed features.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are directed to allowable subject matter, but require overcoming the numerous 112(b) rejections, as well as the NSDP rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the
claimed urea production process and plant, in particular the specific recovery steps/recovery sections downstream of synthesis, is considered to distinguish over the prior art. More specifically, the combination of separation of reaction mixture from the reaction zone in a high pressure separator into a first stream and a second stream and the first and second medium pressure recovery sections is considered to define a patentable invention over the prior art.
Mennen (US 2014/0116743) is considered to be the closest prior art. Mennen is directed the preparation of urea. Reaction effluent (urea solution) from the reactor is split into two parts, one of which is directed to a high pressure stripper and the other to a medium pressure dissociation zone of a medium pressure treatment zone. The medium pressure treatment zone comprises the medium pressure dissociation zone, a medium pressure stripping zone, and a medium pressure condensation zone (see Fig. 2; [0049]-[0050]).
Thus, while Mennen discloses splitting of the reaction effluent into two parts and different treatment of each of the parts, Mennen does not disclose splitting being accomplished by separation of the effluent in a high pressure separator, as claimed. Furthermore, Mennen only discloses one medium pressure recovery zone and not a first and a second medium pressure recovery zone, as claimed, specifically comprising all of the claimed interconnected components. Thus, downstream treatment of the reaction effluent parts differs in Mennen from that in the claimed invention.
Other relevant prior art references directed to synthesis and recovery of urea include: Bertini et al (US 2020/0190023); Mennen et al (US 2012/0302789); and Zardi et al (US 2010/0063321), none of which remedy the deficiencies of Mennen. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed urea production process and corresponding plant in its entirety. Nor does there appear to be any suggestion or motivation which would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mennen, the closest prior art, in such a way as to arrive at the claimed embodiment.
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
Prosecution Insights