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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically in the instant specification applicant discloses an example in which a dried sulfur cake with sodium chloride is recovered and washed with water (see Spec pg. 16, bottom). However, there are %’s associated with the yield which do not correlate to a kind of percentage (that is, weight, volume, or molar). Accordingly, there is insufficient detail provided such that one of ordinary skill would understand or know what these values represent or how they were obtained.
As to the Wands Factors:
As to the breadth of the claim, the claim fails to define the type of percentage associated with the sodium chloride as is therefore indefinite.
As to the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, the electrolysis of sodium chloride for the producing of chlorine gas and sodium hydroxide is well known and could be easily performed with sufficient guidance.
As to the level of predictability in the art, the electrolysis of sodium chloride for the producing of chlorine gas and sodium hydroxide is well known.
As to the quantity of experimentation, it is unclear that one of ordinary skill would have any idea how the numbers were obtained, and would therefore be very burdensome to attain without further guidance.
As to the guidance presented, there is not enough guidance to understand how to achieve the percentages associated with the instant claim, given the working examples provided by applicant (see specification near bottom of page 16).
As to the working examples, there is not enough information in the specification to perform an exemplary demonstration of the present invention.
As to the state of the prior art, there are many working examples exist in the literature, but there is insufficient detail to teach to how to obtain the instant sodium chloride percentages on a molar basis, mass basis, or volume basis.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. The instant claim requires that there is a “concentration of the sodium chloride solution is 21-26%”. This is indefinite as it is unclear what kind of associated percentage (weight, molar, volume, etc.) is required.
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.
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (CN 110669560 A) in view of Zoppi (US 5391267 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Gu teaches a method for removing sulfur components of a commonly found in the coal and gas industry product streams (Abstract). Gu teaches (See Pg. 3 of provided translation Para. 3-6 for the entirety of what follows) that a chloro-alkali electrolytic cell electrolyzes a sodium chloride solution to form chlorine gas and a sodium hydroxide solution which is sent to a first and second absorption tower. In the first and second absorption tower is mixed a natural gas containing hydrogen sulfide which reacts with the sodium hydroxide solution to obtain a sodium sulfide solution. The sodium sulfide solution is then reacted with the chlorine gas generated from the chloro-alkali electrolytic cell to produce sulfur and sodium chloride. The sodium chloride solution is then sent to the chloro-alkali electrolytic cell to repeat the cycle.
However, Gu does not teach that sodium sulfate is reduced to generate a sodium sulfide solution.
Zoppi teaches a method for producing elemental sulfur from an aqueous solution of alkali sulfide (Abstract). Zoppi teaches sulfur removal is done in combustion exhaust gas (see Col 1 lines 8-25). Zoppi teaches that sodium chloride electrolysis is used to produce sodium hydroxide used to convert sulfates into value added products (Col. 1, Lines 40-46). Zoppi teaches that sodium sulfate is converted into a sodium sulfide via reaction with coal (Col. 3, lines 1-10), and that the produced sodium sulfide is made into a solution (Col. 3, Lines 15-25).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the method for forming sodium sulfide from a natural gas stream, as per Gu, with the method of forming a sodium sulfide solution by reduction of a sodium sulfate material, as per Zoppi, as the methods are known equivalents for producing alkali metal sulfide.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (CN 110669560 A) in view of Zoppi (US 5391267 A), as applied to Claim 1, Weaver (US4290873A).
Modified Gu teaches to Claim 1 as shown above. However, modified Gu does not teach a post-processing step of using the generated elemental sulfur to produce sulfuric acid.
However, modified Gu does not teach a voltage range of 5-15 V is used during the chloroalkali electrolysis.
Weaver teaches a method for forming chlorine gas from sodium chloride in water electrolysis (abstract). Weaver teaches that a transformer is used to convert a supply voltage of 112 V down to 12 V, which is the voltage used to perform the chlorine gas generation method from electrolyzing sodium chloride in water (Col 7, Lines 15-22). The voltage is then used to drive the electrochemical generation of chlorine gas (Col. 9, Lines 35-44).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the voltage range used in the chloroalkali process to generate chlorine gas, as per Weaver, could be incorporated into the chlorine gas generation step as per modified Gu with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (CN 110669560 A) in view of Zoppi (US 5391267 A), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Maurer (US3536446A).
Modified Gu teaches to Claim 1 as shown above. However, modified Gu does not teach a post-processing step of using the generated elemental sulfur to produce sulfuric acid.
Maurer teaches a method to form sulfuric acid by the combustion of sulfur (abstract). Maurer teaches the synthesis of sulfuric acid by a process which first combusts sulfur with dried air at elevated temperatures to produce an oxidized gas stream, which further processed into sulfuric acid (Col. 2, Lines 10-29).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the method for upgrading sulfur into sulfuric acid, as per Maurer, could be incorporated into the method of forming elemental sulfur by carbothermic reduction of sodium sulfate and chloroalkali processing, as per modified Gu, in order to arrive at a method of converting sodium sulfate into sulfuric acid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Broadly speaking, both the carbothermic reduction of sodium sulphate into sodium sulfide and also the reaction of dissolved sodium sulfide with the chlorine gas bubble through an alkaline solution generated by a chloroalkali electrochemical process are widely known, the combination of these two particular methods together has not appeared in a singular document. While each of these fields have a considerable list of prior art pieces, it is the convergence of these two disparate techniques that renders novelty in the instant methods. That is, the specific processing steps in the prior art of carbothermic reduction of sodium sulfate do not involve detailed dissolution steps at specific temperatures and concentrations of the components, as per claims 2-5. Similarly, applicant further incorporates a method for upgrading the produced sulfur by the above method to convert it into sulfuric acid. While this process is also well documented in the literature such that the high-pressure synthesis of sulfuric acid is known (see especially US3432263A, US3404955A, US 20230416089 A1) the requirement of compressing the smoke and increasing the pressure above 7.3 mPa is not well described or compelled in the literature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 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, 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759