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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 31, 38, 43, 44, 45 and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/016641 A1 in view of RU 2631035C2, further in view of Abbott et al (us 3,475,153) (newly cited). WO 2009/016641 A1 discloses an apparatus for producing superphosphate using low grade phosphate rock by reacting the phosphate rock with sulfuric acid to form the superphosphate and a filter cake. (See the Abstract; Figure 1 and pages 7 and 8. The differences between the apparatus disclosed by WO 2009/016641 A1, and that recited in claims 1-3, 7, 31, 38, 43-45 and 49-52, are that WO 2009/016641 A1 does not disclose a granulation system connected to receive the product and operative to produce a phosphate-containing fertilizer product. And a crystallizer connected to receive a stream derived from a an aqueous phosphate solution derived from the phosphoric acid plant and operative to produce phosphate-containing particles, and wherein the granulation system is connected to receive the phosphate-containing particles from the crystallizer RU 2631035C2 discloses an apparatus for producing granulated superphosphate wherein a phosphate raw material and phosphoric acid are fed to a reactor, and the mixture of components are fer to a granulator to form the superphosphate. (See pages 4 and 5 of the English translation and Example 1). Abbott et al disclose the production of an ammonium phosphate-ammonium nitrate fertilizer by reacting phosphate rock with nitric acid to form phosphoric acid (see Example 1), and teach at col. 4, lines 38-50 that a substantial proportion of solids crystallized from the solution, forming a hot, thick slurry, which was hen granulated to form a fertilizer comprising ammonium nitrate and ammonium phosphate. It would have been obvious from RU 2631035C2 to provide a granulation system connected to receive the product of WO 2009/016641 A1 and operative to product superphosphate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since the processes of WO 2009/016641 A1 and RU 2631035C2 are analogous in that both are directed to the production of superphosphates from phosphate rock, and RU 2631035C2 establishes the conventionality of granulating reaction mixtures in the production of superphosphates in the first full paragraph on page 5 of the English translation. It would have been even further obvious from Abbott et al to include a crystallizer connected to receive a stream derived from an ammonium phosphate solution derived from the phosphoric acid plant of WO 2009/016641 A1 and operative to produce phosphate-containing particles, and further connecting the granulation system to receive the phosphate-containing particles from the crystallizer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Abbott et al disclose such arrangement at col. 4, lines 38-50, and the processes of WO 2009/016641 A1 and Abbott et al are analogous in that both entail the production of phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate rock with an acid.
Claims 4-6, 8-11, 34-37 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/016641 A1 in view of RU 2631035C2, further in view of Abbott et al, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of HIGGINS (US 3,579,322). It would have been even further obvious from HIGGINS to connect a pond water treatment system to the phosphoric acid plant of WO 2009/016641 A1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since HIGGINS teaches at col. 1, lines 35-42 that waste ponds are conventionally used in the production of superphosphates by reacting phosphate ores with sulfuric acid, and discloses a source 10 of waste aqueous stream from a phosphate production system which can be a settling pond. Sese FIG. 1 and the description thereof, particularly col. 2, lines 49-59.
Regarding claim 5, HIGGINS discloses a precipitation system in teaching at col. 8, lines 61-67 that lime can be admixed with the effluent of conduit 56 to precipitate the phosphate, sulfate and silicofluoride values therefrom.
Regarding claim 6, HIGGINS discloses at col. 1, lines 30-34 that the treated stream can be recycled.
Regarding claims 7-11, WO 2009/016641 A1 discloses on page 5, fourth full paragraph that the cake obtained during the filtration step is washed with fresh water or raw water.
Regarding claim 34, HIGGINNS discloses a cation exchange bed for purifying the pond water. It would be further obvious to include any other conventional separation device for purifying the pond water, such as a membrane separator.
Claims 12-17 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/016641 A1 in view of RU 2631035C2, further in view of Abbott et al, even further in view of HIGGINS, as applied to claim 4 above, still further in view of AQEL et al (US 2016/0076707). It would have been still further obvious from AQEL et al to connect an exhaust treatment system to the granulation system of RU 2631035C2 to collect exhaust gases and/or vapors released from the system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since AQEL et al establish the conventionality of including a scrubber to treat the exhaust gases from a granulator in Paragraph [0259]. It would also be obvious to include a cyclone to separate dust particles from the exhaust gas, since QAQEL discloses in Paragraph [0259] the use of cyclones to separate dust particles from the dryer and cooler gases. It would be further obvious to supply such dust particles to the granulation system of RU 2631035C2, since HIGGINS teaches at col. 1, lines 43-77 that effluents can be recycled to the phosphate production system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/016641 A1 in view of RU 2631035C2, further in view of Abbott et al, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of Nikaido (US 1,501,915). It would have been even further obvious from Nikaido to include an organics removal system in the apparatus of WO 2009/016641 A1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Nikaido discloses the problems associated with organic components when treating phosphate rock at col. 2, lines 81-85.
Claims 19-28 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/016641 A1 in view of RU 2631035C2, further in view of Abbott et al, even further in view of HIGGINS, still further in view of AQEL et al, as applied to claim 13 above, yet further in view of Nikaido. It would have been yet further obvious from Nikaido to include an organics removal system in the apparatus of WO 2009/016641 A1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Nikaido discloses the problems associated with organic components when treating phosphate rock at col. 2, lines 81-85.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that RU 2631035C2 does not describe or suggest a crystallizer connected to receive a stream derived from an aqueous phosphate solution discharged from the phosphoric acid plant and operative to produce phosphate-containing particles, is not convincing, since such feature is disclosed by Abbott et al. Applicant’s argument, that the crystallizer recited in claim 1 is not merely a granulation step but rather a distinct subsystem that recovers phosphate from aqueous discharge streams and produces phosphate-containing particles for use in the granulation system, is not convincing, since Abbott et al disclose at col. 4, lines 39-50 that phosphate crystals comprising ammonium phosphate were granulated.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights