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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection using the same references.
On pages 7-9 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the top of each page, Applicant argues against the previous 103 prior art rejection, specifically secondary reference Shimamura, (US 2006/0196835). Applicant argues that the newly added limitation “further comprising adding an acid directly to the hydrated slurry before introducing the hydrated slurry into the reactor such that the acidified slurry enters the reactor as a single combined feed stream, wherein the acidification of the slurry enhances magnesium ion availability and suppresses fine crystal formation to increase the yield of larger crystals” allegedly distinguishes the present claimed invention of independent Claim 1 over Shimamura. Applicant observes that Shimamura introduces a magnesium source and an acid into “treated water” in a circulating loop which is then introduced into the crystallization reactor. Applicant asserts that the present invention does not add acid to treated water in a circulated line, but rather adds acid directly to a hydrated slurry of a magnesium source before introduction into the reactor, which is fed into the reactor as acidified slurry in a single combined feed stream. Applicant argues that Shimamura does not disclose this feature and that Shimamura adds its acid to a “treated water stream” which is different from a “concentrated magnesium slurry”. The Examiner finds this remark unpersuasive because Shimamura directly adds acid to a water stream that has magnesium added, thus creating an acidified slurry that is then directed to the crystallization reactor in one single stream. The Examiner does not find a distinction between the claimed “slurry” stream that has magnesium and acid added before introducing into the reactor and a water stream that is branched off from a treated water stream that has magnesium added to create a magnesium slurry and has acid also added before this stream is added to the reactor as in Shimumura. The Examiner notes there is no evidence provided that the claimed slurry stream is “fundamentally different chemical and hydrodynamically” as asserted by Applicant, when both Shimamura and the claimed invention list the same exact components as required in this stream.
Applicant also argues that unexpected results occur in the claimed invention regarding higher yield of larger crystals at higher reactor loading rates, “contrary to expectations from Shimamura’s approach” as asserted. However, the Examiner points to multiple excerpts in Shimamura that demonstrate a high loading rate and selective removal of larger crystals (higher yield) rather than fine crystals, (See paragraph [0149], paragraph [0019], and paragraphs [0145] & [0146], Shimamura; and See Abstract and See paragraphs [0118] & [0119], Shimamura). Thus, it is known in the art to perform the claimed limitations to achieve the claimed results as in the passages in Shimamura before, thus they are expected, not unexpected.
Finally, Applicant asserts that there is no motivation in Shimamura to combine the limitations in question. However, the Examiner notes that there is a motivation as stated here and in the prior art rejection below: “an acid is added thereto to suppress the rise in pH, whereby undissolved magnesium compound and fine MAP crystals are prevented from floating in the circulating water” so “it becomes possible to carry out treatment stably”, (See paragraph [0145], Shimamura). By doing so, “the water to be treated and the chemical agent can be mixed together and uniformly, and thus the recovery rate of the ions to be removed can be greatly increased”, (See paragraph [0019], Shimamura), as demonstrated in paragraph [0133] of Shimamura. Thus, the Examiner finds these remarks unpersuasive.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 13, 17, 19, 24, 33 & 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel et al., (“Angel”, CA 2,138,259), in view of Shimamura et al., (“Shimamura”, US 2006/0196835), in further view of Bowers et al., (“Bowers”, US 2005/0051495), and as evidenced by Andrew Mayer, Jr. and George C. Whipple, (“Mayer”, “The Solubility of Calcium Carbonate and of Magnesium Hydroxide and the Precipitation of These Salts with Lime Water”, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 3, published 1906, 15 total pages).
Claims 1, 3, 5- 7, 10, 13, 17, 19, 24, 33 & 37 are directed to a method for precipitating dissolved materials from an aqueous solution, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 13, 17, 19, 24, 33 & 37, Angel discloses a method for precipitating dissolved materials from an aqueous solution, the method comprising: introducing the aqueous solution containing the dissolved materials into a reactor, (Phosphorus containing stream 10 into Reaction Vessel 22, See Figure 1, See page 16-22); and introducing a source of magnesium (Mg) into the reactor in a quantity sufficient to cause the dissolved materials in the aqueous solution to precipitate into crystals, (Magnesia 24 into Vessel 22, See Figure 1, See page 7, lines 26-31, page 8, lines 2-7; See page 11, lines 32-33, Angel; Particles of magnesia (magnesium oxide or MgO), are introduced into a reaction vessel), wherein the source of Mg is introduced into the reactor in the form of particles of a Mg- containing material, (Magnesia 24 into Vessel 22, See Figure 1, See page 7, lines 26-31, page 8, lines 2-7; See page 11, lines 32-33, Angel; Particles of magnesia (magnesium oxide or MgO), are introduced into a reaction vessel), and wherein the source of Mg has a solubility in the aqueous solution of less than about 1 g/L, or the concentration of available Mg in the reactor is less than about 0.03 mol/L, (Magnesia 24 into Vessel 22, See Figure 1, See page 1, lines 6-7, See page 7, lines 26-31, page 8, lines 2-7, and See page 9, lines 24-30, See page 11, lines 32-33, Angel; Particles of magnesia (magnesium oxide), are introduced in hydrated form into a reaction vessel, such that it is magnesium hydroxide; and See page 156, Mayer; The values for the solubility of magnesium hydroxide in water range from 9 to 20 ppm which converts to 9 to 20 mg/L which is 0.009 to 0.02 g/L, anticipating the claimed range at that value), wherein the source of Mg is introduced as a hydrated slurry, (Magnesia 24 into Vessel 22, See Figure 1, See page 1, lines 6-7, See page 7, lines 26-31, page 8, lines 2-7, and See page 9, lines 24-30, See page 11, lines 32-33, Angel; Particles of magnesia (magnesium oxide), are introduced in hydrated form into a reaction vessel), adding an acid to the hydrated slurry, (See paragraph [0025], [0015] & [0018]).
Angel does not disclose further comprising adding an acid directly to the hydrated slurry before introducing the hydrated slurry into the reactor such that the acidified slurry enters the reactor as a single combined feed stream, wherein the acidification of the slurry enhances magnesium ion availability and suppresses fine crystal formation to increase the yield of larger crystals, and in which the concentration of available Mg in the reactor is less than about 0.03 mol/L.
Shimamura discloses further comprising adding an acid directly to the hydrated slurry before introducing the hydrated slurry into the reactor such that the acidified slurry enters the reactor as a single combined feed stream, (Supply Pipe 13, Magnesium Supply Pipe 84, Acid Supply Pipe 86, join and enter into Circulating Water 3 as one stream into Reaction Tank 1, See paragraph [0138], [0141], Shimamura; The acid and magnesium hydroxide are added to the water outside of the reactor before being returned to the reactor), wherein the acidification of the slurry enhances magnesium ion availability and suppresses fine crystal formation, (See paragraph [0149], paragraph [0019], and paragraphs [0145] & [0146], Shimamura), to increase the yield of larger crystals, (See Abstract and See paragraphs [0118] & [0119], Shimamura).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Angel by incorporating further comprising adding an acid directly to the hydrated slurry before introducing the hydrated slurry into the reactor such that the acidified slurry enters the reactor as a single combined feed stream, wherein the acidification of the slurry enhances magnesium ion availability and suppresses fine crystal formation to increase the yield of larger crystals as in Shimamura in which “an acid is added thereto to suppress the rise in pH, whereby undissolved magnesium compound and fine MAP crystals are prevented from floating in the circulating water” so “it becomes possible to carry out treatment stably”, (See paragraph [0145], Shimamura). By doing so, “the water to be treated and the chemical agent can be mixed together and uniformly, and thus the recovery rate of the ions to be removed can be greatly increased”, (See paragraph [0019], Shimamura), as demonstrated in paragraph [0133] of Shimamura.
Bowers discloses a method, (See Abstract, Bowers), wherein the source of Mg has a solubility in the aqueous solution of less than about 1 g/L and/or any concentration of available Mg in the reactor is less than about 0.03 mol/L, (Examiner interprets selecting “and” in the conjunction “and/or” as discussed above, See paragraph [0310], Bowers; 800 ppm MgO in water converts to 800 / (40.32 molar mass) / 1000 = ~0.02 mol/L MgO, anticipating the claimed range at that value; in the event that “and” is selected). Additional features from this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures Included section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Angel by incorporating and alternatively and any concentration of available Mg in the reactor is less than about 0.03 mol/L as in Bowers because “there must be enough Mg…present in comparison with the phosphorus that, as the precipitation occurs, the solubility product will continue to be exceeded until the phosphorus reduction goal has been met”, (See paragraph [0113], Bowers), to then provide an “improved apparatus and method for reducing phosphorus content” by providing “a suitable magnesium supplementation which does not introduce new ions that would be problematic to the environment when the cleansed wastewater stream is returned to the environment”, (See paragraph [0181], Bowers).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: A method according to claim 1, further comprising making the hydrated slurry by adding water to the source of Mg and soaking the source of Mg for a hydration time before introducing the hydrated slurry into the reactor, (See page 7, lines 26-31, page 8, lines 2-7, Angel; Particles of magnesia (magnesium oxide), are introduced into a reaction vessel; and See paragraph [0265], Bowers).
Claim 5: A method according to claim 1, wherein the source of Mg has a solubility in aqueous solvent of about 5 mg/L to about 150 mg/L, (See page 156, Mayer; The values for the solubility of magnesium hydroxide in water range from 9 to 20 ppm which converts to 9 to 20 mg/L, anticipating the claimed range in this range).
Claim 6: A method according to claim 1, comprising maintaining the concentration of available Mg in the reactor in the range of about 0.1 mmol/L to about 0.03 mol/L, (See paragraph [0310], Bowers; 800 ppm MgO in water converts to 800 / (40.32 molar mass) / 1000 = 0.02 mol/L MgO, anticipating the claimed range at that value).
Claim 7: A method according to claim 1, wherein the source of Mg has a particle size of less than about 50 µm, (See page 8, lines 27-28, Angel; The magnesia particles anticipate the claimed range at around 10 µm).
Claim 10: A method according to claim 1, further comprising maintaining a pH of the aqueous solution at a pH greater than about 7, (See page 16, lines 2-7, Angel; the pH ranges from 8-12, anticipating the claimed range at this range).
Claim 13: A method according to claim 1, wherein the pH of the aqueous solution is maintained by controlling an amount of the source of Mg present in the aqueous solution, (See paragraphs [0509] & [0510], Bowers; Mg pump, flowmeter, regulator and pH meter are all used and controlled to add source of Mg and achieve a certain pH rise), and the amount of the source of Mg present in the aqueous solution is controlled by: measuring the pH of the aqueous solution in real-time, (See paragraph [0510], Bowers; the pH is measured at different places and points in time); comparing a measured pH with a target pH, (See paragraph [0510], Bowers; the pH is compared to a target pH rise); adjusting the pH by introducing the source of Mg to the aqueous solution such that the pH of the aqueous solution is altered toward the target pH, (See paragraph [0509] & [0506] which are applied towards paragraph [0510], Bowers; the addition of source of Mg is set to achieve said target pH rise).
Claim 17: A method according to claim 1, wherein the source of Mg comprises a low solubility source of Mg, the low solubility source of Mg comprises one or more of: MgO, Mg(OH)2, and a magnesium carbonate, (See page 7, lines 26-31, page 8, lines 2-7, Angel; Particles of magnesia (magnesium oxide or MgO), are introduced into a reaction vessel).
Claim 19: A method according to claim 17, wherein the low solubility source of Mg comprises MgO, (See page 7, lines 26-31, page 8, lines 2-7, See page 11, lines 32-33, Angel; Particles of magnesia (magnesium oxide or MgO), are introduced into a reaction vessel).
Claim 24: A method according to claim 1 wherein about 0.4:1 molar equivalents of the acid is added to the hydrated slurry, (See paragraph [0309], Bowers; 38.5 wt% HCl in water which assuming 100 total g, and 38.5 g of acid versus 61.5 g of water, a molar mass of 36.4 g/mol HCl and 18.05 g/mol water leads to dividing the weight of each of acid and water by their molar mass, yielding 1.057 mol HCl and 3.407 mol water, which converts to 31% molar equivalent of HCl to water, reading on “about” 0.4:1 molar equivalents as claimed which converts to 0.4/(0.4+ 1) = 28.6% HCL in water by molar equivalents).
Claim 33: A method according to claim 1 comprising loading the reactor at about 5 g PO4-P/min/m3 or more, (See paragraph [0454], Bowers, for volumetric flow of the total wastewater = 117 gal/h which converts to 0.0074 g/min; See paragraph [0456], Bowers, for dimensions and volume of conical reactor, which are 10 inch for diameter and 60 inch for height, volume converts to 0.025 m3; and See Table 16, Bowers, for raw orthophosphate, Run 1 yields 29.4 ppm which converts to 29.4 g/m3. Multiplying the values for raw orthophosphate and total volumetric flow rate together yields the mass flow rate of raw orthophosphate. Dividing by the volume of the reactor yields the overall load of PO4-P which is (29.4 x 0.0074)/(0.025) = 8.6 g/min/m3, anticipating the claimed range at this value).
Claim 37: A method according to claim 1, wherein the source of Mg comprises a high solubility source of Mg and a low solubility source of Mg, the high solubility source of Mg comprises MgCl2 or MgSO4 (See paragraph [0463], Bowers), and the low solubility source of Mg comprises one or more of: MgO, Mg(OH)2, and a magnesium carbonate, (See page 7, lines 26-31, page 8, lines 2-7, See page 11, lines 23-31; Particles of magnesia (magnesium oxide or MgO), are introduced into a reaction vessel).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel et al., (“Angel”, CA 2,138,259), in view of Shimamura et al., (“Shimamura”, US 2006/0196835), in further view of Bowers et al., (“Bowers”, US 2005/0051495), in further view of Vohra et al., (“Vohra”, US 2003/0080066).
Claim 20 is directed to a method for precipitating dissolved materials from an aqueous solution, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Angel discloses a method according to claim 19, wherein the MgO is prepared at a calcination temperature for a period of time sufficient to produce MgO particles, (See paragraph [0246], Bowers), but does not disclose the calcination temperature is in the range of about 600oC to about 1,200oC.
Vohra discloses a method where the calcination temperature is in the range of about 600oC to about 1,200oC, (See paragraph [0025] & [0052], Vohra; Vohra discloses the calcination temperature from 600 to 800 oC, anticipating the claimed range in this range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Angel by incorporating the calcination temperature is in the range of about 600oC to about 1,200oC as in Vohra in order to “produce high purity magnesia”, (See paragraph [0025], Vohra), while it can “maximize the cost-effectiveness of the process”, (See paragraph [0069], Vohra).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779