DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group II is directly prepared by the method of Group I and the claimed method is neither non-obvious process for making the product nor can it be used to make another materially different product. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because Group II, claim 7 is a product by process method and as such is not limited by process limitations per MPEP §2113. Applicant then argues the system of Group III is an integrated apparatus specifically designed for practicing the method of Group I. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because as stated by Gu et al. (CN102351590B ) nitric acid decomposing phosphate rock, and to produce nitrophosphate fertilizer by cold method or mixed acid process be well-known technology and therefore the Office maintains the claimed process and apparatus are distinct.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein the concentration of the nitrate ions in the third solution A and the third solution B is below 0.1%”, and the claim also recites “more preferably, the concentration of the nitrate ions in the third solution is below 0.05%; more preferably, the concentration of the nitrate ions in the third solution is below 0.01%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (CN102351590).
Regarding claim 1, Gu et al. teaches provide a method for producing highly water-soluble nitrate phosphate fertilizer by nitrate decomposition of phosphate rock and calcium nitrate freezing method which meets the limitation of acid-hydrolyzing phosphate rock or phosphate concentrate with a nitric acid (line numbers 20-55). Gu et al. teaches after the reaction, the slurry is filtered, the filter residue is washed with clean water, and the washing liquid is returned to be used to mix with nitric acid to decompose the phosphate rock powder which meets the limitation of and separating acid- insoluble substances to obtain an acid-hydrolyzed solution (lines 45-70). Gu et al. teaches calcium nitrate freezing crystallization and add the defluorinated solution to the freezing tank, centrifuge to separate the calcium nitrate crystals after cooling, wash with frozen nitric acid solution and then with frozen water which meets the limitation freezing-crystallizing the acid-hydrolyzed solution, and then carrying out solid-liquid separation to obtain a first solution (lines 65-85). Gu et al. teaches ammonium sulfate double decomposition and decalcification by adding the filtrate of freezing and separation of calcium nitrate crystals to the metathesis decalcification tank, add ammonium sulfate metathesis under stirring conditions which meets the limitation of adding a solution containing sulfate ions to the first solution for reaction, and then carrying out solid-liquid separation to obtain a second solution A and/or adding a sulfuric acid to the first solution for reaction, and then carrying out solid-liquid separation to obtain a second solution B (lines 75-90). Gu et al. teaches neutralized filtrate is evaporated and concentrated so that its mass fraction reaches 60% to 70% which meets the limitation of subjecting the second solution A and/or the second solution B to a denitrification (evaporation) to obtain a third solution A and/or a third solution B (lines 90-110). Gu et al. teaches filtrate from the previous step is neutralized with ammonia water, and the following reaction occurs during the neutralization process and the precipitate is filtered and separated by a filter press which meets the limitation of adding ammonia to the third solution A for neutralization, and then carrying out solid-liquid separation to obtain an ammonium phosphate solution (lines 80-105). Gu et al. teaches “The filtrate of previous step is neutralized with ammoniacal liquor, and following reaction takes place in N-process:
Fe(NO3)3+H3PO4+3NH4OH→FePO4↓+3NH 4NO 3+3H2O
which meets the limitation of and then adding an iron source to the ammonium phosphate solution for reaction to prepare ferric phosphate; and/or subjecting the third solution B to a pre-treatment and extraction by using an extractant to obtain an extract phase , and then subjecting the extract phase to a post-treatment and back- extraction to obtain a phosphoric acid solution, and then reacting the phosphoric acid solution with an iron source to obtain ferric phosphate (lines 80-105). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add additional iron from the initial acid hydrolysis to improve the molar ratio of the reaction.
Regarding claim 2, Gu et al. teaches to decompose phosphate rock with nitric acid, defluorination, freezing separation of calcium nitrate, deep decalcification of ammonium sulfate which meets the limitation of wherein the iron source comprises at least one of iron salts, ferrous salts, or elemental iron, and the solution containing sulfate ions is at least one of a sulfuric acid solution or an ammonium sulfate solution (lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 3, Gu et al. teaches the filtrate comprising phosphoric acid and ammonium nitrate is neutralized and the following reaction occurs Fe(NO3)3+H3PO4+3NH4OH→FePO4↓+3NH 4NO 3+3H2O and progresses to a pH of 6.5 (lines 80-105). It is the position of the Office the pH of the reaction taught by Gu et al. meet the limitation of the pH value of the reaction system is controlled between 4 and 6 during the reaction of the iron source with the ammonium phosphate solution, and wherein the pH value of the reaction system is controlled between 4 and 6 during the reaction of the iron source with the phosphoric acid solution because the solution is comprised of both phosphoric acid and ammonium nitrate. Furthermore, the reaction occurs until the pH reaches 6.5 which implies a pH less than 6.5 for the pH of the reaction system.
Regarding claim 4, Gu et al. teaches neutralized filtrate from the previous step is sent to a conventional double-effect evaporator to evaporate the cable until its mass fraction reaches 60% to 70%, and then sent to the crystallizer to cool and crystallize, to obtain a nitrate phosphate fertilizer slurry, and then sent to a centrifuge to obtain nitrate phosphate fertilizer which would obviously decrease the concentration of the nitrate ions in the third solution A and the third solution B is below 0.1%; more preferably, the concentration of the nitrate ions in the third solution is below 0.05%; more preferably, the concentration of the nitrate ions in the third solution is below 0.01% (lines 225-235).
Regarding claim 5, it is the position of the Office that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could determine through routine experimentation the optimal ratio of the extractant to the third solution B is 0.5-5:1.
5. (Original) The method for cogenerating ferric phosphate through the nitrophosphate fertilizer device according to claim 1, wherein in the step of subjecting the third solution B to the extraction by using the extractant, the volume
Regarding claim 6, Gu et al. teaches ammonia water which meets the limitation of wherein the ammonia comprises at least one of ammonia gas, liquid ammonia, or aqueous ammonia (lines 85-95).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 03/29/2026
Prosecution Insights