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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I invention (claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 09/02/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5 and 6 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2025.
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.
Claim 3 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation of “between 30 °C and 80 °C” and the claim also recites “preferably between 50 °C and 70 °C”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 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. In this case, claim 4 recites “the phosphogypsum is obtained from an attack of natural phosphate by sulfuric acid”, such recited language of “an attack of natural phosphate by sulfuric acid” is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Therefore, such limitation renders confusion for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hansen et al. (EP2149542) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof) in view of Sakharov (SU709533) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof).
Hansen et al. teaches a process of preparing obtaining calcium carbonate and ammonium sulfate comprising introducing ammonia and carbon dioxide gases into an aqueous gypsum suspension to form an aqueous ammonium sulfate solution containing calcium carbonate, separating and removing of insoluble precipitated calcium carbonate crystals via (claim 1, 4, 6, Fig. 1, para. [0006], [0026]-[0028] ) by sedimentation and/or filtration from the ammonium sulfate solution (obtaining a filtrate containing ammonium sulfate is expected), concentrating the ammonium sulfate solution to the saturation limit by heating and/or creating a vacuum, e.g. by evaporating water components in the ammonium sulfate solution (para.[0006], [0029],[0032], [0033]), drying of the separated insoluble calcium carbonate and/or insoluble ammonium sulfate to obtain ammonium sulfate and calcium carbonate product.
Hansen et al. also teaches liquid phase of organic waste from fermenter (item B1) being fed into the feed tank (item B3, Fig. 1), pumped into filter combination (item F2, F3) filtering out the residue solid, then going through heat exchanging, the liquid phase being evaporated in evaporator (item R1, R2) thus evaporated gases NH3, CO2 and water vapor together with dried phase of NH3 gas entering the reactor K1 at the bottom of the reactor which contains aqueous gypsum suspension which is pumped into the reactor from top of the reactor K1 from C1 (para. [0009]-[0021]). As for the claimed mixing the ammonia gas and carbon dioxide gas in a mixer, since Hansen et al. already teaches ammonia gas and carbon dioxide gas both being evaporated out of both evaporator R1 and evaporator R2 and such gases are combined (i.e. already mixed in the evaporator R1 and R2), before entering reactor K1, therefore, mixing the ammonia gas and carbon dioxide gas in a mixer as that of instantly claimed is expected. Additionally, adopting a mixer to mix two gases before them entering reactor only involves routine skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Since such gases of ammonia and carbon dioxide being introduced from the bottom of the reactor into a liquid suspension of gypsum and gas is less dense than the liquid, therefore, ammonia and carbon dioxide gases would rise, i.e. bubble to the surface of the liquid, i.e. sparging into the liquid suspension.
Regarding claim 1, Hansen et al. already teaches forming an aqueous gypsum suspension wherein dispersing gypsum into water thus obtaining a gypsum liquid suspension is expected. However, Hansen et al. does not expressly teach the gypsum being phosphogypsum.
Sakharov teaches gypsum or phosphogypsum can be treated with dispersed ammonia and carbon dioxide to form ammonium sulfate and calcium carbonate (para [0002], [0004], [0008], example).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute gypsum (as shown by Hansen et al.) with phosphogypsum as shown by Sakharov for producing ammonium sulfate and calcium carbonate with improved filtering properties as suggested by Sakharov because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 06).
Regarding claim 4, Sakharov already teaches a phosphogypsum obtained from sulfuric acid processing apatite (a natural phosphate) (para. [0009]). Furthermore, the claimed limitation “obtained from an attack of natural phosphate by sulfuric acid” is a product by process limitation, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See § MPEP §2113). In this case, Sakharov already teaches a same or substantially the same phosphogypsum as that of instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hansen et al. (EP2149542) in view of Sakharov (SU709533) as applied above, and further in view of Ma (CN108408751) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof).
Hansen et al already teaches using certain flow rate of ammonia gas and carbon dioxide gas.
Regarding claim 2, Hansen et al. in view of Sakharov does not expressly teach gaseous ammonia and carbon dioxide being introduced into the phosphogypsum liquid suspension at a flow rate between 0.5 and 1.5 L/min.
Ma teaches a process of preparing high-purity calcium carbonate using ammonia and carbon dioxide treating phosphogypsum comprising using flow rate of carbon dioxide gas of 150 to 300 mL/min ( i.e. 0.15 to 0.3 L/min) with certain ratio of ammonia being used thereof (page 2 3rd para., example 1-3, claim 1).
Since Hansen et al. already teaches using certain amount of ammonia gas, therefore, the flow rate of ammonia and carbon dioxide gas can be greater than 0.3 L/min, wherein such range overlaps with that of instantly claimed range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a flow rate of ammonia and carbon dioxide gas (greater than 0.3 L/min), i.e. a same flow rate of ammonia and carbon dioxide gas as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining desired high purity calcium carbonate and ammonium sulfate as suggested by Ma (page 2 3rd para., example 1-3, claim 1).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hansen et al. (EP2149542) in view of Sakharov (SU709533) as applied above, and further in view of Zhang (CN110877914) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof).
Hansen et al. already teaches drying the calcium carbonate.
Regarding claim 3, Hansen et al. in view of Sakharov does not expressly the drying temperature being between 30 °C and 80 °C.
Zhang teaches calcium carbonate obtained from using carbon dioxide treating phosphorous gypsum ( i.e. phosphogypsum) can be dried under temperature 60 °C (page 3 section “(3) preparing CaCO3 phosphorus gypsum and CO2 pressurized carbonation”, page 5 section “(3) preparing CaCO3 phosphorus gypsum and CO2 pressurized carbonation” ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known calcium carbonate drying temperature of 60 °C as shown by Zhang to practice the drying of Hansen et al. in view of Sakharov because applying a known technique of such calcium carbonate drying temperature of 60 °C to a known method of obtaining dried calcium carbonate product for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732