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 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 1-4 and 7 are 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 1 recites “a dedicated gas mixer”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what “a dedicated gas mixer” is, such as a specific mixer with certain structure or any mixer used for mixing gases? The instant specification does not give an explanation what is “a dedicated gas mixer”, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bound of such claimed limitation. For examination on merit, any mixer would be considered meet this limitation. All claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
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 the attack of natural phosphate by sulfuric acid, known as wet sulfuric acid attack”, such recited language of “the attack of natural phosphate by sulfuric acid, known as wet sulfuric acid attack” 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. One of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what does such “attack” refer to, such as specific chemical reaction or natural phosphate being in physically contact with sulfuric acid. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (EP2149542) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof) in view of Papouchado (US2020/0239325) and 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]). Hansen et al also teaches dry phase of organic waste containing NH3 gases (out from screw dryer T1) being introduced into bottom of reactor K1 (Fig. 1) . Hansen et al. also teaches the streams NH3 + H2O (gaseous reads onto the claimed first gas source) from dry and liquid phase and preferably additional CO2 from the exhaust gas of internal combustion engines (reads onto the claimed second gas source) both being fed into reactor K1 (Fig. 1), to react aqueous gypsum suspension which is pumped into the reactor from top of the reactor K1 from C1 (para.[0022]- [0026], Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 using a mixer mixing ammonia gas and CO2 gas, or the gypsum being phosphogypsum.
However, adopting a mixer to mix two gases before them entering reactor only involves routine skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Papouchado teaches using a mixer (item 108) to mix ammonia (NH3) gas and CO2 gas before they entering the reactor (Fig. 1, para. [0046]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known mixer as shown by Papouchado to mix ammonia gas and additional CO2 gas of Hansen et a. before introduction into the reactor because adopting such well-known technique of a mixer to mixing two different gases to a known method of using such gases to react with gypsum slurry obtaining ammonium sulfate and calcium carbonate product for improved would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
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 the attack of natural phosphate by sulfuric acid, known as wet sulfuric acid attack” 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.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (EP2149542) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof) in view of Papouchado (US2020/0239325) and Sakharov (SU709533) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof) 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.
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).
Papouchado teaches NH3 gas and CO2 gas can be supplied at stoichiometric ratio of 2:1 (para [0046]), which suggests NH3 gas flow rate can be from 0.3L/min to 0.6 L/min based on Ma disclosed CO2 gas flow rate.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known NH3 gas and CO2 gas stoichiometric ratio of 2:1 as shown by Papouchado to modify the supplying of NH3 gas and CO2 gas in Hansen et because adopting such well-known NH3 gas and CO2 gas stoichiometric ratio to a known method of using such gases to react with gypsum slurry obtaining ammonium sulfate and calcium carbonate product for improved would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Since Ma discloses CO2 gas flow rate being 0.15 to 0.3 L/min, while Papouchado teaches NH3 gas and CO2 gas can be supplied at stoichiometric ratio of 2:1 (para [0046]), which suggests NH3 gas flow rate can be from 0.3L/min to 0.6 L/min based on Ma disclosed CO2 gas flow rate. Hence, the mixed gaseous CO2 and NH3 being from 0.45 L/min to 0.9 L/min, which overlaps with that range of instantly claimed mixed gaseous range thus renders a prima facia 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).
3. Claim 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (EP2149542) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof) in view of Papouchado (US2020/0239325) and Sakharov (SU709533) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations hereof) 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 and 7, Hansen et al. in view of Papouchado and Sakharov does not expressly the drying temperature being between 30 °C and 80 °C, or between 50 to 70 °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 Papouchado and 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 04/17/2026 have been acknowledged and thus previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/17/2026 have been considered but they are moot in view of current rejections. In response to applicant’s arguments about Hansen not teaching using a mixer mixing a NH3 gas and a CO2 gas, Hansen et al. already teaches a NH3 gas and a CO2 gas can be supplied into a reactor (Fig. 1, para. [0026]). And using a mixer to mixing two different gases before supplying them to reactor is just conventional skill in the art.
In response to applicant’s arguments about pre-mixing the gas having unexpected results, the examiner would like to remind the applicant that evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (see MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e)). In this case, Hansen already teaches a NH3 gas and a CO2 gas can be supplied into the reactor combinedly (para. [0009]-[0026], Fig 1, claims), but does not discloses such gases being sequentially supplied into reactor as applicant demonstrated in example 1 and 3 as comparison basis. Therefore, such improved results of example 2 and 4 using pre-mixed NH3 gas and a CO2 gas compared to sequentially supplied gas of example 1 (1.1 L/min NH3 gas supplied for 15 min, then stopped, supplying 1.5 hr CO2 gas at 1.1 L/min) and example 3 (1.4 L/min NH3 gas supplied for 15 min, then stopped, supplying 1.5 hr CO2 gas at 1.4 L/min), is not even against the closest prior art Hansen disclosed both gases being combined and supplied to reactor at all. In other words, such examples do not demonstrate using a mixer mixing both gases before entering reactor as compared to Hansen disclosed both NH3 gas and a CO2 gas being supplied at the same time to reactor being superior. Secondly, even if assuming such example showing improved results, it is noted that such reaction being performed under specific conditions, such as 1.1 L/min NH3 gas and 1.1 L/min CO2 gas with specific pH value of 6.24, or 1.4 L/min NH3 gas and 1.4 L/min CO2 gas with specific pH value of 7.99, drying solid residue under 60 °C, but such data does not show that such claimed improved results would occur over the entire claimed range, like for any combined gas stream with any NH3 gas flow rate and any flow rate CO2 gas, any pH range , or drying the solid residue under any temperature. Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Zhang disclosing a high-pressure carbonation process, it is noted that Zhang is applied as secondary reference to show that obtained calcium carbonate can be dried under 60 °C. Zhang disclosed drying calcium carbonate is pertinent to instant method disclosed drying method, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to adopt such well-known calcium carbonate drying technique to make the modification for help obtaining a dried calcium carbonate at such temperature as desired final product for intended applications.
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 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
Prosecution Insights