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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a system, classified in F24T 10/20.
II. Claims 16-29, drawn to a method, classified in C01F 7/06.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The apparatus can be used to recover zinc or copper.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Stephen Liu on 24 November 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-29 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-29 are as originally filed.
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 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the … reactants" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the … water via heat transfer" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 1-5, 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 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). Digestors use steam heat and pressure (page 2). However, Staley et al does not teach a geothermal system or heating the digestor with heated heat transfer fluid from the geothermal system as claimed.
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 ground bauxite is slurried with caustic soda is pumped to the digestor to produce sodium aluminate (page 2). Staley et al does not teach producing a slurry comprising alumina as claimed. This process limitation refers to intended use of the claimed system.
Regarding Claim 3, Staley et al teaches more than one digester, and WO ‘078 teaches an array of passive heat transfer devices (page 5, lines 17 and 18). The limitation to heat the crushed bauxite ore, reactants, and water to intended use of the claimed system.
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 2, 3, 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 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 WO ‘078 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Staley et al in view of 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 WO ‘078, since Mejdell et al teaches reduced precipitation volume and possible savings in construction (column 2, lines 48-61).
Conclusion
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