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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 2-3, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kim et al (KR 20180137206 A, machine translation used for citations) in view of Takehara (JP 2014014801 A, machine translation used for citations) and Abeywardena et al (“Surfactant assisted synthesis of precipitated calcium carbonate nanoparticles using dolomite: Effect of pH on morphology and particle size”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 and 5 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the vaterite crystal" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the vaterite crystal" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20180137206 A, machine translation used for citations) in view of Takehara (JP 2014014801 A, machine translation used for citations) and Abeywardena et al (“Surfactant assisted synthesis of precipitated calcium carbonate nanoparticles using dolomite: Effect of pH on morphology and particle size”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for producing high-purity calcium carbonate ([0012] meeting limitation “a method for producing calcium carbonate”) according to the present invention uses seawater as a solvent to extract calcium from alkaline industrial by-products using magnesium contained in seawater ([0012] meeting limitation “the method comprising: a first step of eluting calcium by mixing…seawater”). Kim further discloses a step of injecting carbon dioxide into the eluted solution from which the precipitated magnesium has been removed to obtain calcium carbonate ([0017] meeting limitation “and a second step of producing calcium carbonate by injecting carbon dioxide into the calcium eluate produced in the first step”).
While Kim discloses calcium is eluted by seawater ([0017]), Kim does not disclose the source of the calcium is calcined shells.
Takehara discloses calcined shell calcium powder (calcined CaO) is a calcium oxide powder obtained by calcining shells of shellfish… and the calcium oxide content ranges from 0.01 to 30% by weight depending on the application ([0028]). The shells are usually discarded as industrial waste ([0006]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use calcined shells as the source of calcium in the method of Kim in order to reduce industrial waste as taught by Takehara since reducing waste has economic and environmental benefits.
Kim does not disclose mixing sugar with the calcined shells and seawater.
Abeywardena discloses an effective sucrose solution based method was employed for the extraction of calcium from dolomite to synthesize precipitated calcium carbonate nanostructures with different morphologies and sizes (abstract). It was found that 30% (w/v) sucrose solution extracted approximately 91% of calcium from dolomite forming a calcium-sucrate complex (abstract). Carbonation was achieved by CO2 bubbling and aqueous sodium carbonate addition (abstract). Abeywardena further discloses ground dolomite was calcined at 1000 °C to convert it into calcined dolomite (Pg. 271 par. 2.3) Then, 5% (w/v) of calcined dolomite was added into 30% (w/v) sucrose solution to obtain calcium-sucrate solution (Pg. 271 par. 2.3). Abeywardena further discloses sucrose is commercially available, nontoxic and low-cost material that can be used to extract calcium from dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 effectively (Pg. 270 right col. par. 3).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix sugar with the calcium oxide and seawater in the method of Kim since sucrose is commercially available, nontoxic, low-cost and effectively extracts calcium from dolomite as taught by Abeywardena.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses a step of adding an alkaline industrial by-product at a ratio of 1.0 to 10.0 g per 100 mL of seawater, thereby causing magnesium present in the sweater to precipitate and calcium present in the alkaline industrial by-product to be eluted ([0017] meeting limitation “wherein the amount of elution of calcium is increased in the first step”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Abeywardena discloses a 30% (w/v) sucrose solution (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Kim further discloses before performing a carbonation reaction by injecting carbon dioxide into the effluent from which the magnesium precipitate has been removed, i.e. after the completion of the first step, the pH of the effluent may be adjusted to have a value of preferably 12.70 or higher ([0050]). When the pH of the above-mentioned eluate has a value of 12.70 or higher, carbon dioxide can be sufficiently supplied until the reaction termination pH is reached, so there is an advantage in that calcium carbonate is sufficiently formed ([0051]). 12.70 or higher is within the claimed range of 12.5 or higher.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Abeywardena further discloses precipitation was done by… bubbling CO2 gas through the solution of 100 mL of calcium precursor (Pg. 271 par. 2.5). The process was performed while stirring using magnetic stirrer until a white thick formation was visible (Pg. 271 par. 2.5) The constant stirring was continued for 1 h (Pg. 271 par. 2.5). The entire synthesis procedure was performed under ambient temperature (Pg. 271 par. 2.5 meeting limitation “wherein the production method further comprises a step of stirring the produced calcium carbonate at room temperature after the carbonation reaction of the second step”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Abeywardena discloses the constant stirring was continued for 1 h (Pg. 271 par. 2.5). 1 h is equivalent to 60 minutes which is within the claimed range of 60 minutes or less.
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Abeywardena further discloses in Table 1 Sample No (c) uses CO2 bubbling as the precipitation method and has a particle size of 250-300 x 550-650 nm (Pg. 271). At the pH 10.5 Sample c, it is seen to promote a blend of tiny spherical particles and rod-like formations with 250-300 nm of width and 550-650 nm of length (Pg. 272 left column).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Abeywardena (550-650 nm of length) overlaps with the claimed range (600 nm to 800 nm). Therefore, the range in Abeywardena renders obvious the claimed range.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20180137206 A, machine translation used for citations) in view of Takehara (JP 2014014801 A, machine translation used for citations) and Abeywardena et al (“Surfactant assisted synthesis of precipitated calcium carbonate nanoparticles using dolomite: Effect of pH on morphology and particle size”) and in further view of Tong et al (CN 110589866 A, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the second step comprises applying ultrasonic waves to the solution into which carbon dioxide has been injected.
Tong discloses an invention related to the field of calcium carbonate preparation technology ([0002]). A method for preparing ultrafine powder spheroidal aragonite using steel slag comprising the following steps ([0010]): 1) Add ammonium chloride solution to steel slag to react and obtain a leachate of CaCl2-NH4Cl-NH2-H2O ([0011]). 2) Add sucrose to the leachate obtained in step 1), then introduce carbon dioxide into the leachate and simultaneously turn on an ultrasonic wave with a power of 1080-1800W ([0012]). In the CaCl2-NH4Cl-NH2-H2O solution system, ultrasound and sucrose prolong the induction period in the early stage of calcium carbonate preparation, which is conducive to the rapid and uniform formation of calcium carbonate crystal nuclei, thereby reducing the particle size of calcium carbonate particles ([0019]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to applying ultrasonic waves to the solution into which carbon dioxide has been injected during the second step in the method of Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena in order to reduce the particle size of calcium carbonate particles as taught by Tong.
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the calcium carbonate produced by the production method has porosity.
Tong discloses compared to dense calcium carbonate like calcite, aragonite consists of porous or hollow micron-sized particles with a surface composed of aggregated nano-sized particles ([0005]). It has a large specific surface area, hydrophilicity and good biocompatibility ([0005]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the calcium carbonate produced by the production method to have porosity in the method of Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena in order for the calcium carbonate to have a large specific surface area as taught by Tong.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 5 have allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Kim et al (KR 20180137206 A, machine translation used for citations) in view of Takehara (JP 2014014801 A, machine translation used for citations) and Abeywardena et al (“Surfactant assisted synthesis of precipitated calcium carbonate nanoparticles using dolomite: Effect of pH on morphology and particle size”).
Kim in view of Takehara and Abeywardena discloses the limitations as discussed above, but does not disclose “solid-liquid ratio of the sugar and seawater” of claim 2 and 5, “the vaterite content of calcium carbonate is 100%” of claim 2 or “the vaterite crystal has a particle size of 600 to 800 nm” of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738