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 § 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(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102815736 in view of Fortin US 8628738.
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘736 teaches a process of treating bauxite, which is a raw material containing aluminum oxide (Abstract), the bauxite is considered to contain an amorphous aluminum oxide because the alumina in bauxite is naturally occurring without any particular crystallinity and is composed of a variety of minerals (see rejection of instant claim 12 below). The bauxite may be reacted with sulfuric acid (Abstract). The reaction mixture is heated to higher than 130-140 deg. C (Claim 1) and a pressure 0.3 to 0.35 MPa, which is about 3 to 3.5 bar (Claim 1). The reaction mixture is later cooled (Background Technology). The process of forms the coagulant aluminum salt of aluminum sulfate (Abstract). The bauxite may be considered a “waste material” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
CN ‘736 does not expressly state the amount of undissolved material after the reaction occurs.
Fortin teaches a similar process of dissolving aluminum oxide, wherein the undissolved residue may have a concentration of 10mg/l, which is less than 5 weight % of the mixture (col. 3, l. 67).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the process of CN ‘736 including a dissolution amount that would leave less than 5% of the aluminum oxide in the residue after the reaction in view of Fortin. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to the provide a suitable dissolution amount to the process of CN ‘736, which was required but not disclosed.
Regarding claim 2-3, the bauxite may be reacted with 98% sulfuric acid, which inherently has a pH lower than 2 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, the material to be treated is primarily bauxite (Examples), which would result in an aluminum concentration of at least 1 weight % in the reaction mixture.
Regarding claim 6, the reaction mixture is heated to higher than 130-140 deg. C (claim 1).
Regarding claim 7-9, the pressure may be about 3 to 3.5 bars (claim 1), for 1-2 hours (Summary of Invention).
Regarding claim 10, Fortin teaches the undissolved residue may have a concentration of 10mg/l, which is less than 5 weight % of the mixture (col. 3, l. 67).
Regarding claim 11, CN ‘736 does not disclose a heating step before the reaction, which would meet low temperature conditions of instant claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the raw material of CN ‘736 may be considered a by-product from an industrial aluminum oxide production process.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102815736 in view of Fortin US 8628738 as further evidenced by Chen US 2016/0185613.
CN ‘736 and Fortin do not state that the bauxite contains, gibbsite, bayerite, boehmite, or diaspore. However, evidentiary reference Chen teaches that bauxite is made of gibbsite, boehmite, or diaspore (Paragraph [0013]). Thus, the bauxite of CN ‘736 would inherently have gibbsite, boehmite or diaspore.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments submitted on 3/5/2026 are not taught or suggested in the prior art. In response, the claim amendments are covered and addressed in the new obviousness rejection recited above over CN ‘736 in view of Fortin.
All prior anticipation rejections a have been withdrawn.
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 JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights