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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 12/10/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/03/2023. These drawings are accepted.
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 recites the limitation "the bauxite ore, one or more reactants and water" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the “the” in front of “bauxite ore” also refers to “one or more reactants” and “water.” The claim recites “a reactant source” and “a water source” in line 9.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley et al in Encyclopedia Brittanica in view of Fulford et al (US 5,027,891) and WO 2012/079078 A2.
Staley et al teaches processing aluminum as represented below in the annotated figure:
PNG
media_image1.png
546
1078
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Staley et al teaches ship, trailer, truck, and storage (hopper), mill (crusher), digestors, precipitators (precipitation tank), and calciner (calcinator). Staley et al also teaches producing aluminum by smelting (smelter) (page 6) and using molds or holding furnaces to fabricate ingots (crucible) (page 7). The reactant source reads on crushed lime, and the water source reads on steam. Digestors use steam heat and pressure (page 2). However, Staley et al does not teach a heat exchanger is thermally coupled to the digestor, wherein the heat exchanger is configured “to heat the portion of the bauxite ore, the one or more reactants, and the water.” Staley et al also does not teach a geothermal system or heating the digestor with heated heat transfer fluid from the geothermal system.
Regarding the heat exchanger coupled to the digestor, Fulford et al teaches transferring heat between process liquor streams in the Bayer process for producing alumina from bauxite utilizing a heat pipe arrangement for heat exchange (abstract) as represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image2.png
408
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Heat exchange is represented by 40 and is coupled to a water source and reactant source. The heat exchanger is thermally coupled to the digestion unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat exchange system of Fulford et al, since Fulford et al teaches using water or other fluid that does not deposit scale, which reduces the heat transmissivity of the wall of the outer conduits (column 5, lines 33-39). Scale forms on the inner surfaces of the inner conduits that can be readily and adequately achieved by known techniques (lines 57-61).
Regarding a geothermal system and heating the digestor with heated heat transfer fluid from the geothermal system, WO 2012/079078 A2 (WO ‘078) teaches a closed-loop heat exchange system for harnessing heat energy from a subterranean zone with a passive heat transfer device (abstract) using a wellbore (page 2, line 24). A working fluid is circulated down a vertical transfer section within the vertical well to harvest the thermal energy. The working fluid is returned to the surface (page 2, line 33 to page 3, line 5). The surrounding subterranean material includes magma (page 4, lines 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat exchange system of WO ‘078 to heat the digesters in Staley et al, since WO ‘078 teaches heat energy that is cost-effective (page 2, line 15) while being environmentally friendly and renewable (page 1, lines 15 and 16).
Regarding Claim 2, Staley et al teaches using steam, which is superheated water, Fulford et al teaches using wash water and live steam, and WO ‘078 teaches a working fluid can be water (page 1, line 17).
Regarding Claim 4, Staley et al teaches a following digestion, the solution is flashed, red mud is separated, and coarse material is removed. Residue is settled in the thickener, the solution is filtered, and then the solution is clarified. Flocculants are added (page 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Staley et al teaches the clarified solution is cooled, which reads on an absorption chiller, in heat exchangers and pumped to precipitators, where seed crystals are added (page 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Staley et al teaches a calciner that is heated. Aluminum hydroxide from the precipitators is calcined. Free water and water are driven off (page 3). Regarding the heat transfer with the heated heat transfer fluid, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the calciner with the heat exchange system of WO ‘078 as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, Staley et al teaches red mud is not discarded but treated to produce leachable sodium aluminate for further use in the process. The waste lake reads on a waste collection reservoir. Calcium, iron, and silicon are separated (page 4).
Regarding Claim 9, WO ‘078 teaches the heat can be used to power turbines or a series of turbines (page 3, lines 2-5) that is connected to a generator (page 20, line 30) to convert mechanical work (page 21, lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform mechanical operations of the systems in Staley et al with the system of WO ‘078 as stated above. The process limitations of rotating the crusher, rotating the mixer, and driving a conveyor refer to intended use of the claimed system.
Regarding Claim 10, Staley et al teaches cathodes and anodes in the reduction pots (page 6). WO ‘078 teaches the heat can be used to power turbines or a series of turbines (page 3, lines 2-5) that is connected to an electric generator (page 21, line 9). TWH to use the electricity generated in WO ‘078 to generate the direct current in Staley et al as stated above.
Regarding Claim 11, WO ‘078 teaches the heat can be used for power and other purposes (page 2, line 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform use the heat exchange system of WO ‘078 to heat the system components in Staley et al as stated above. The process limitations e.g. specifically heating the digestor, calcinatory, smelter, and crucible, refer to intended use of the claimed system.
Regarding Claim 12, WO ‘078 teaches a cooling system for cooling the working fluid (page 22, lines 6-11), which reads on an absorption chiller.
Regarding Claim 13, WO ‘078 teaches a condenser or cooling the working fluid (page 22, lines 6-11). Cold working fluid is fed to the first fluid path before returning along the second fluid bath after heating by subterranean material (page 4, lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 14, Staley et al teaches alumina is formed in the calciner before going to the smelter to produce aluminum from alumina (pages 2 and 5) using cryolite (page 6). The smelter is heated (page 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat exchange system of WO ‘078 to heat the smelter in Staley et al as stated above.
Regarding Claim 15, Staley et al teaches molten aluminum is siphoned into crucibles for molds or transferring to holding furnaces (page 7). WO ‘078 teaches the heat can be used for power and other purposes (page 2, line 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat exchange system of WO ‘078 to heat the crucible before casting in Staley et al as stated above.
Regarding Claims 7, 9-11, 14, and 15, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Additionally, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley et al in view of Fulford et al and WO ‘078 as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Mejdell et al (US 4,409,773).
Staley et al in view of Fulford et al and WO ‘078 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Staley et al in view of Fulford et al and WO ‘078 does not teach a mixer in the precipitator as in Claim 6.
Mejdell et al teaches precipitating aluminum hydroxide in a turbulent suspension with agitation (column 2, lines 20-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of Mejdell et al to provide agitation or mixing the precipitation in Staley et al in view of Fulford et al and WO ‘078, since Mejdell et al teaches reduced precipitation volume and possible savings in construction (column 2, lines 48-61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Fulford et al teaches the heat exchanger is downstream of the digestor and does not suggest that the heat exchanger would be inside the digestor as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection, i.e. the combination of Staley et al in view of Fulford et al and WO ‘078, of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights