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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “120” has been used to designate both decomposition reactor and calcination reactor (see Specification, page 8, lines 14-17). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Specification makes reference to claims which have been cancelled. See page 3, last line; page 6, last two lines.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 and 18 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. The claims are rejected for the following reasons.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the partially decomposed aluminum chloride hydrate" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “characterized by a mixer with knifes and/or ploughshares and/or paddles” which renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear from the claim language where the mixer is in relation to the decomposition reactor and the calcination reactor. It is unclear whether the mixer is arranged within the decomposition reactor, upstream of the decomposition reactor, or at a position downstream of the decomposition reactor and upstream of the calcination reactor.
Claim 17 also recites the limitation “wherein the aluminum chloride hydrate is mixed with aluminum oxide.” It is unclear from the claim language where the aluminum chloride hydrate is intended to be mixed with aluminum oxide. It is unclear whether aluminum chloride hydrate is intended to be mixed with aluminum oxide within each of the decomposition reactor, the calcination reactor, and the mixer.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the material" in line 2. 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.
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charitos et al. (WO 2019/114922) in view of Mercier et al. (GB 1 565 408) and Van Der Wel (US 2001/0024400).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Charitos et al. (WO 2019/114922) in view of Mercier et al. (GB 1 565 408) and Van Der Wel (US 2001/0024400).
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 17, the reference Charitos et al. teaches a plant for thermal conversion of aluminum chloride hydrate into aluminum oxide and gaseous hydrogen chloride, the plant comprising: a decomposition reactor (110) for partially decomposing the aluminum chloride hydrate by heating the aluminum chloride hydrate to a temperature between 600 and 800 oC; and a calcination reactor for calcining the partially decomposed aluminum chloride hydrate to aluminum oxide by heating the partially decomposed aluminum chloride hydrate to a temperature between 850 and 1200 oC (see Abstract; page 2, lines 8-15; page 6, line 19 to page 7, line 16; Fig. 1). The reference Charitos et al. further teaches that the decomposition reactor (110) and the calcination reactor (120) can be two separate fluidized bed reactors (see page 2, lines 8-15; page 3, lines 6-11). The reference Charitos et al. further teaches that the heat needed for partially decomposing the aluminum chloride hydrate in the decomposition reactor (110) can be attained by passing a portion of aluminum oxide (121) obtained from the calcination reactor (120) into the decomposition reactor (110) where it is used as a heat transfer medium for the thermal decomposition of the aluminum chloride hydrate into aluminum oxide and gaseous hydrogen chloride (see page 5, lines 9-17; page 7, lines 13-16; Fig. 1). Thus, the reference Charitos et al. teaches mixing aluminum chloride hydrate with heated aluminum oxide within the decomposition reactor (110) (see page 5, lines 9-17; page 7, lines 13-16; Fig. 1).
The reference Charitos et al. is, however, silent with respect to the plant including a mixer with knifes and/or ploughshares and/or paddles as recited in claim 17.
The reference Mercier et al. teaches that alumina agglomerates with high mechanical strength and predeterminable particle size can be obtained by compacting an intermediate product, preferably in the dry state, that results from incomplete decomposition of aluminum chloride hexahydrate, and then granulating the compacted product, selecting particles of the desired size from the granulated product and calcining those particles of the granulated product to produce alumina agglomerates with the desired particle size (see page 2, lines 24-35). The reference Mercier et al. teaches that the agglomerating process may involve mixing an intermediate product containing partially decomposed aluminum chloride hexahydrate (PI) with granulated aluminum oxide products having smaller size than the desired dimensions in a mixer (B), passing the mixed product from the mixer (A) to a compacting press (C) where the mixed product is compacted, passing the compacted product to a granulator (D) where the compacted product combined with granules having larger dimensions is fragmented to the desired dimensions, passing the granules discharged from the granulator (D) to a size selection zone (E) where the granules discharged from the granulator (D) are divided into at least three different grades of granules to obtain particles having the desired dimensions, and passing the granules having the desired dimensions to a furnace (F) for calcinating the granules to produce alumina agglomerates having superior resistance to attrition, a lower chlorine content, and larger BET surface area than alumina obtained from aluminum chloride hydrate which has not followed the agglomerating cycle (see page 2, line 36 to page 3, line 34; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Charitos et al. and Mercier et al., and modified the plant of Charitos et al. to include a mixer or a granulator upstream of the decomposition reactor (110) or the calcination reactor (120) of Charitos et al. for preparing a feed mixture containing an intermediate product resulting from incomplete thermal decomposition of aluminum chloride hexahydrate for feed into the decomposition reactor or the calcination reactor so as to produce alumina agglomerates having superior resistance to attrition and a predeterminable particle size as taught by Mercier et al. (see page 2, line 36 to page 3, line 34; Example 1; Fig. 1).
The reference Mercier et al. is, however, silent with respect to the mixer or granulator having knifes and/or ploughshares and/or paddles. The reference Van Der Wel teaches an intensive mixer (1) having knifes (60) and ploughshares and/or paddles (4) for mixing of particulate material (see paras. [0005]; [0033]-[0035]; Figs. 1-5). The reference Van Der Wel teaches that the intensive mixer (1) can be used in an industrial application for mixing, cooling, heating, drying, and/or granulating granular materials (see paras. [0002]; [0005]; Figs. 1-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of Charitos et al. and Mercier et al., and utilized the intensive mixer taught by Van Der Wel for preparing granules having desired dimensions for feed into the decomposition reactor or the calcination reactor of Charitos et al. and Mercier et al., as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 18, the reference Charitos et al. teaches that the decomposition reactor is designed such that it is able to heat aluminum chloride hydrate contained in the decomposition reactor to a first temperature while the calcination reactor is designed to heat the partially decomposed aluminum chloride hydrate to a second temperature higher than the first temperature (see page 2, lines 8-15; page 5, lines 9-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774