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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (CHINA 202210377224.9 04/12/2022) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Currently, no information disclosure statements have been filed in the instant application.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Recent Innovations) in view of Li (CN 113413752 and corresponding English language machine translation), Lv et al. (J. Cleaner Production) and Zhan et al. (IERI Procedia).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Liu et al. discloses:
A method for wet removal of sulfur dioxide by manganese ore pulp (Fig. 1), comprising the following steps:
S1, treatment of ore waste residue: providing an ore powder (page 8, “5.5. Particle Size”);
S3, preparation of pulp: mixing ore powder in step S1 with liquid (page 6, “5.2. L/S Ratio);
S4, removal of sulfur dioxide: subjecting the pulp in step S3 and flue gas containing sulfur dioxide to a contact reaction, to remove the sulfur dioxide in the flue gas (page 3, “3.1. MnSO4 Production”); and
S5, resource utilization of a desulfurization product: subjecting a reaction product (MnSO4) obtained in step S4 to solid-liquid separation (static settlement)(Fig. 1), impurity removal (removal of Fe, heavy metals, Ca and Mg)(Fig. 1), concentration (filter pressing)(Fig. 1), crystallization (Evaporative crystallization)(Fig. 1) and drying (Centrifugal separation and drying)(Fig. 1).
Claim 1 differs for the following reasons:
i) Step S1 requires crushing, griding and sieving the ore waste residue to obtain the ore powder.
ii) The method includes a step S2, activation and domestication of silicate bacteria: conducting activation on the silicate bacteria in an activation medium, and conducting domestication on activated silicate bacteria in a domestication medium.
iii) Step S3 includes mixing the ore powder obtained in step S1, activated and domesticated silicate bacteria obtained in step S2, nutrients and distilled water to obtain the pulp, conducting culture until the pulp precipitates dissolved silicon, and subjecting the pulp to solid- liquid separation to remove silicon in ore.
With respect to difference i), the reference of Li discloses that it is known in the art when preparing a pulp for desulphurization of a flue gas, to prepare the ore powder by crushing, grinding, and sieving the ore waste residue to obtain an ore powder (page 5, last paragraph, to page 6, 4th paragraph, of the machine translation).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the ore powder of the primary reference using the preparation steps disclosed by the reference of Li for the known and expected result of preparing an ore powder and pulp that are recognized as sufficient for gas/liquid contacting as evidenced by the reference of Li.
With respect to differences ii) and iii), the reference of Lv et al. discloses that it is known in the art to bioleach a manganese ore (EMR) (page 902, col. 1, 4th paragraph) using silicate bacteria. The reference of Zhan et al. discloses that when using silicate bacteria for bioleaching, it is known in the art to activate and domesticate the bacteria using a cultivating medium and bioleaching medium (page 173, “Bacteria strain and culture media).
In view of these teachings and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to active and domesticate silicate bacteria and bioleach the manganese ore of the primary reference using the silicate bacteria for the known and expected result of providing an art recognized means for removing impurities from the ore material as is conventional in the art as evidenced by the references of Lv et al. and Zhan et al. for removing impurities and collecting useful products, such as silicon for use as a fertilizer.
The steps resulting from the combination of the references as discussed above would include subjecting the treated pulp to a solid-liquid separation to remove silicon ore while the resulting pulp would be contacted with the flue gas for sulfur dioxide removal.
With respect to claim 2, the reference of Liu et al. discloses the use of manganese oxide ore (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, the reference of Liu et al. discloses particle sizes of less than 0.18mm (275um and 75um) can be used (page 8, “5.5. Particle Size”).
With respect to claim 4, the reference of Lv et al. discloses that the silicate bacteria can be Bacillus mucilaginsous (abstract).
With respect to claims 5-7, the reference of Zhan et al. discloses the activation, domestication and/or cultivation mediums required of claims 5-7 (page 173, “Bacteria strain and culture media). Any differences in the specific numbers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art while optimizing the process conditions using routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 8, the reference of Liu et al. discloses the use of a flue gas. The specific source and/or concentration of sulfur dioxide in the flue gas would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art while maintaining the efficiency of the treatment process.
With respect to claim 9, the reference of Liu et al. discloses that the contact reaction is conducted in a one-stage absorption reaction device (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 10, the reference of Liu et al. discloses that temperatures between 30 and 50 deg. C can be used (page 6, “5.1. Temperature”). With respect to the contact time, while the reference is silent with respect to the contact time, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal contact time through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references of Nie et al.(Sep. and Puri. Tech.) and Jiang et al. (CN 110102170 and corresponding English language machine translation) are cited as prior art which pertains to methods for sulfur dioxide removal using mineral waste pulp.
The reference of Jandieri et al. (J. Inst. Eng. India) is cited as prior art which pertains to bioleaching of manganese materials.
The Second Office Action of The State Intellectual Property Office of People’s Republic of China is cited of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB