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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification dated January 23, 2026 are accepted.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1–10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dosier et al., US 2016/0264463 A1 in view of Lawrence, US 4,058,375.
Regarding claim 1, Dosier teaches a method of applying a slurry onto a geological surface, such as soil around a building, to create calcium carbonate to prevent erosion. See Dosier [0037], [0023]. The method reads on the claimed “method for ground carbonate mineralization.”
The method comprises creating the slurry by mixing water, urea, a calcium source and urease or urease-producing cells in a container. See Dosier [0038]. This reads on the claimed step of “providing a first reservoir comprising a first mixture including urea and a catalyser comprising an enzymatic catalyser and/or a microorganism.”
At least some of the urea and urease will react in the slurry to create ammonia and carbon dioxide, before the slurry is applied to the geological surface, because urease catalyzes urea to form ammonia and carbon dioxide. See Dosier [0018]; Braun, US 2019/0021351 A1, [0072]. Also, the urease will form at least some calcite crystals (calcium carbonate) because the urease is in the presence of calcium and the urea (a nitrogen source) in the slurry. See Dosier [0017]. This reads on “allowing an enzymatic reaction catalysed by the catalyser to decompose urea, thereby obtaining a second mixture comprising nitrogen-containing species and carbonate-containing species.”
Dosier also teaches that the ammonia produced in the slurry forms ammonia gas that can be extracted from the liquid, with the liquid also comprising calcite. See Dosier [0049], [0051]. This reads on “converting at least some of the nitrogen-containing species into a gaseous nitrogen-containing species to obtain a third mixture comprising the gaseous nitrogen-containing species and the carbonate-containing species.”
Dosier further teaches that the ammonia gas is a by-product that can be recovered from the slurry by using an air filter, so that the ammonia can be utilized for other applications. See Dosier [0048]–[0049], [0021]. While Dosier is silent as to using the air filter to extract the ammonia produced in the slurry before the slurry is applied to the geological surface, it would have been obvious to use the air filter to extract this ammonia so that it can be reused in another application. This reads on “filtering the third mixture by a gas-permeable filter, thereby separating at least some of the gaseous nitrogen-containing species from the carbonate-containing species.”
Dosier also teaches that the slurry is held in the container that is in before the slurry is applied to the geological surface. See Dosier [0037]. This reads on “collecting the so-obtained carbonate-containing species-rich solution, which is substantially free of nitrogen-containing species, or in which the number of nitrogen species is reduced” (the number of nitrogen species is reduced because ammonia has been removed from the slurry).
Dosier further teaches that the slurry is applied to the geological surface, such as soil around a building, to create calcium carbonate to prevent erosion. See Dosier [0037], [0023]. This reads on “using the so-obtained carbonate-containing species-rich solution for carbonate mineralization in the ground.”
Dosier differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the location of the air filter (the “gas-permeable filter”) in relation to the slurry (the slurry contains the “catalyser”). See Dosier [0049]. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach “keeping the catalyser away from the gas-permeable filter,” as claimed.
But, as noted, the method of Dosier is able to extract ammonia from the gas so that the ammonia can be used in an application. See Dosier [0021].
With this in mind, Lawrence teaches an apparatus for removing ammonia from a waste air stream so that the ammonia can be recovered and used in an application. See Lawrence Fig., col. 2, ll. 50–63, col. 3, ll. 37–44. The apparatus comprises a waste gas feed line 11 that delivers the waste air stream through a filter 11 into a condenser 18 and a scrubber 18 where ammonia contacts a liquid solution to remove the ammonia from the air. Id. The liquid solution with ammonia is then collected in storage tank 44 so that it can be used for an application. Id. at Fig., col. 3, ll. 20–48. The air (with ammonia removed) exits the apparatus through vent stack 36. Id. at Fig., col. 3, ll. 10–17. The apparatus of Lawrence if beneficial because it is able to recover ammonia from a waste gas stream in an economical manner. Id. at col. 1, ll. 53–56.
PNG
media_image1.png
786
1218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lawrence as the air filter of Dosier to recover ammonia from the ammonia gas that is produced in an economical manner.
With this modification, the apparatus of Lawrence reads on the “gas-permeable filter.” The slurry of Dosier (containing the “catalyser”) would be kept away from the effluent, as claimed, because the apparatus of Lawrence receives the ammonia-contaminated waste air through line 11.
Regarding claim 2, Dosier teaches that the “catalyser” comprises a urease-producing microorganism, as claimed. See Dosier [0038], [0048].
Regarding claim 3, Dosier teaches that the “enzymatic catalyser” comprises urease, as claimed. See Dosier [0038].
Regarding claim 4, Dosier teaches that the “first, second and third” mixtures can be in a temperature between -20 and 80°C, which overlaps with the claimed range of above 20°C. See Dosier [0020]. While Dosier is silent as to the pH of the “first, second or third” mixtures, Dosier teaches that the pH of the slurry is result effective because it impacts mineral precipitation. See Dosier [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal pH of the first, second or third mixtures to control mineral precipitation. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 5, Dosier teaches that the “first, second and third mixtures” are aqueous because the slurry comprises water. See Dosier [0038].
Regarding claims 6–8, Dosier as modified teaches that the method comprises separating the urease and/or urease producing microorganisms (the “catalyser”) from the “second mixture” to keep the urease and/or urease producing microorganisms away from the gas-permeable filter, wherein the separation is carried out in the “first reservoir” by gravity, as claimed, because at least some of the urease and/or microorganisms would be expected to settle toward the bottom of the “first vessel” due to gravity.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Dosier teaches that the temperature of the “second mixture” will increase because the reaction between urea and urease is exothermic1, and the pH of the “second mixture” will change when the products react, with gaseous ammonia being a by-product that is produced. See Dosier [0018], [0049]. Further, the ammonia recovery apparatus of Lawrence will lower the pressure of the container of Dosier because the apparatus of Lawrence has a blower 13 for suctioning ammonia-containing air to the apparatus. See Lawrence Fig., col. 2, ll. 50–63. Also, the conversion of ammonia to ammonia gas occurs in an area of the container that is operatively connected to the ammonia recovery apparatus of Lawrence (this area reads on the “connection element”). This reads on “adjusting any one of temperature, pH, and pressure of the second mixture to convert at least some of the nitrogen-containing species into the gaseous nitrogen-containing species, wherein the conversion takes place in a connection element operatively connecting the first reservoir to the gas-permeable filter.”
Regarding claim 13, Dosier as modified teaches that the method comprises collecting the separated gaseous ammonia (the “separated gaseous nitrogen-containing species”) in the line 11 of Lawrence (the “second reservoir”) (see Lawrence Fig., col. 2, ll. 50–63), while the “obtained carbonate-containing specie-rich solution” is collected (at least temporarily) in a conduit to be sprayed on the geological surface (the conduit reads on the “third reservoir”) (see Dosier [0037]).
Regarding claim 14, Dosier teaches a method stabilizing a geological surface, such as the soil around a building, which reads on the claimed “method for ground consolidation.” See Dosier [0038].
The method comprises performing the method of claim 1, thereby producing the “carbonate-containing species-rich solution,” as explained above.
The method also comprises spraying the “carbonate-containing species-rich solution” onto the soil, which reads on “flushing the carbonate-containing species-rich solution into the ground.”
It would have been obvious to spray additional slurry onto the soil to increase saturation of the slurry, with this merely representing obvious duplication of steps. The slurry contains calcium. See Dosier [0038]. This reads on “providing a calcium source in the ground.”
The method also comprises creating a crust of calcium carbonate on the geological surface, which results from the components of the “carbonate containing species-rich solution” and the slurry reacting after being applied to the geological surface. See Dosier [0025], [0038]. This reads on “allowing the formation of a cementitious product in the ground as a result of mixing the calcium source with the carbonate-containing species-rich solution.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are 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.
Note that the Applicant should cancel the withdrawn claims in the next response, if claim 11 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, to advance prosecution. A notice of allowance is unlikely to be sent until the withdrawn claims are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Specification
The Examiner withdraws the previous objections to the specification.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4, in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 See Sen et al., US 2017/0065728 A1, [0075].