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 § 102
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 181, 182 and 184 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rau (US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0183462).
Regarding claim 181, Rau discloses a method comprising:
dissolving a material comprising calcium and a silicate in an acid (paragraphs 14; 47 - an acid is produced at the anode 104) to produce a dissolved calcium ions (111, figure 2; paragraphs 30, 43, 49);
forming at least one precipitate comprising calcium hydroxide from the dissolved calcium ions using a base (the calcium ions (111) are treated to produce calcium hydroxide - 118; paragraphs 49-50);
and using the at least one precipitate to perform a downstream process, i.e. producing a cement (the calcium hydroxide can be used for other purposes, i.e. the production of cement; paragraphs 5, 54).
Regarding claim 182, Rau further teaches wherein the acid is produced in a system of reactors (as shown in figure 2), while the dissolution and/or precipitation occur in a separate reactor or system of reactors (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 184, the precipitate from the precipitation reaction of Rau is used is to make cement (paragraphs 5, 54).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 165-169, 174, and 176 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaczur (US Patent Application Publication no. 2016/0017503) in view of Rau (US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0183462).
Regarding claim 165, Kaczur discloses a method, comprising:
producing a base (stream 530 - Na-formate and sodium bicarbonate) and a dihalide (stream 510 – many other reaction co-products made with the chlorine gas, i.e. dichlorides, may be envisioned) in a first reactor (502; paragraphs 74, 78, 94);
producing an acid in a second reactor (electrochemical acidification unit 576 is provided to generate acidified streams; paragraphs 78-80, 83);
collecting the acid (figure 5 - the oxalic acid in stream 580 is inherently collected);
collecting the base (stream 530 is collected in 550; figure 5; paragraphs 78, 81);
performing a chemical dissolution reaction (alkali metal bicarbonate flows into reactor-dissolver 561; paragraph 83); and
performing a precipitation reaction (an evaporator-crystallizer evaporates water from the alkali metal bicarbonate and alkali metal formate to form a precipitate; paragraph 81).
Kaczur fails to teach performing a chemical dissolution of a material comprising calcium and a silicate with the acid to produce dissolved calcium ions; and performing a precipitation reaction with the base and the dissolved calcium ions to form a precipitate comprising calcium hydroxide.
Rau discloses a method for the production of metal hydroxides using metal silicates, the method comprising the steps of producing an acid (paragraphs 14; 47 - an acid is produced at the anode 104); dissolving a material comprising calcium and a metal silicate with the acid to produce calcium ions (111, figure 2; paragraphs 30, 43, 49); and treating the calcium ions (111) to produce calcium hydroxide (118; paragraphs 5, 49-50).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to dissolve a material comprising calcium and a metal silicate with the acid of Kaczur because as taught by Rau, this is well-known in the art to be effective for the production of calcium hydroxide, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 166, Kaczur further teaches producing hydrogen gas in the first reactor (stream 526; figure 5; paragraphs 77, 84).
Regarding claim 167, Kaczur discloses feeding byproducts from the precipitation reactor (550) into the first reactor (502 – as shown in figure 5 products from 550 recycles into the electrochemical cell 502; paragraph 78).
Regarding claim 168, the first reactor (502) of Kaczur comprises a first electrode and a second electrode configured to produce the dihalide (paragraphs 74, 76, 78, 94).
Regarding claim 169, the second reactor (576) of Kaczur is a chemical reactor (540, 576; paragraphs 78-80, 83).
Regarding claim 174, the precipitate of Rau comprises KOH, NaOH, or CaOH2 (paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 176, the precipitate from the precipitation reaction of Rau is used is to make cement (paragraphs 5, 54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 165-169, 174, 176, 181-182 and 184 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues that the prior art made of record fails to teach “performing a chemical dissolution with the acid and performing a precipitation reaction with a base to form calcium hydroxide”, as amended. Therefore, after further search and consideration, new grounds of rejections have been presented in view of Rau.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights