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
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10,11, 14-17, 20-23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article by Talitha C. Santini et al (“pH and Organic Carbon Dose rates Control Microbially Driven Bioremediation Efficacy in Alkaline Bauxite Residue”) in view of the article by MK Hamdy et al (“Bacterial amelioration of bauxite residue waste of industrial alumina plants”)
Regarding claims 1 and 25, the article by Santini et al disclose the treatment of alkaline bauxite residue with organic carbon and teaches in the paragraph bridging pages 11165 and 11166 that haloalkaliphilic conditions should be maintained. The differences between the method disclosed by Santini et al, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that Santini et al do not disclose that the process should include the presence of haloalkaliphilic bacteria, and that the bauxite residue should also be treated with a source of calcium and a source of phosphorus or phosphate. Hamdy et al disclose the bacterial amelioration of bauxite residue by treating then residue with calcium carbonate and potassium hydrogen phosphate. (See the Abstract and Figure 3 on page 231 and the description thereof. It would be obvious to carry out the process of Santini et al in the presence of haloalkaliphilic bacteria. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Santini et al teach that haloalkaliphilic conditions should be maintained, and the processes of Hamdy et al and Santini et al are analogous in that both entail treatment of bauxite residue which bacterial cultures such as Lactobacillus and Enterobacter (See the Abstract of Hamdy et al and Table 1 on page 11165 of Santini et al.) It would also be obvious from Hamdy et al to include calcium carbonate and potassium hydrogen phosphate One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Hamdy et al disclose the favorable results of Bermuda grass hay, calcium carbonate and potassium hydrogen phosphate in the bioremediation of bauxite residue in Figure 3 on page 213, and the processes of Santini et al and Hamdy et al are both directed to the bioremediation of bauxite residue.
Regarding claims 2 and 23, Hamdy et al suggest in the paragraph bridging the first and second columns on page 228 that gypsum has been suggested as an ameliorant for red mud.
Regarding claim 3, Santini et al disclose in the Abstract that Bacillaceae and Enterobacteriaceae result in salinity influenced microbial successional trajectories.
Regarding claim 6, it would be obvious to mix the composition with the bauxite residue to provide intimate contact between the residue and composition.
Regarding claim 7, Hamdy et al disclose the addition of Bermuda grass hay to the composition in Figure 3, which would be expected to have the C:N ratios recited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable ratio of the organic carbon to the bauxite residue in the composition.
Regarding claim 11, it would be obvious to till the composition into the bauxite residue, since the processes of both Santini et al and Hamdy et al are directed to bioremediation.
Regarding claim 14, it would be obvious to mix the composition with the bauxite residue to a depth of from about 20 cm to about 5 m, since one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the composition should be deep enough to minimize erosion, but not so deep as to be ineffective.
Regarding claim 15, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable order of addition of the various components of the composition.
Regarding claim 16, it would be obvious to inoculate the organic material of Santini et al with any suitable haloalkaliphilic bacteria, since Santini et al teach that haloalkaliphilic conditions should be maintained.
Regarding claim 17, it would be obvious to add the inoculum to the other organic material in the process, so long as the organic material is inoculated.
Regarding claim 20, it would be obvious to add elemental sulfur to the bauxite residue, since Santini et al teach in the paragraph bridging pages 11164 and 11165 that sulfur oxidation is a potential acid-generating pathway in organic carbon fermentation.
Regarding claim 21, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable amount of the elemental sulfur to add to the bauxite residue.
Regarding claim 22, it would be obvious to repeat the addition of the composition to the bauxite residue, to render the treatment more effective.
Claims 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santini et al in view of Hamdy et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 108359474A.
Regarding claim 9, it would be further obvious from CN 108359474A. to include a phosphorus-rich calcium mineral in the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since CN 108359474A.discloses on the first page of the English translation that calcium superphosphate has been used to improve the physical and chemical properties of red mud.
Regarding claim 12, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable amount of the calcium superphosphate to dd to the bauxite residue.
Regarding claim 13, it would be expected that the calcium superphosphate of CN 108359474A.wouldcontain 5 to 10% P by weight and have a phosphorus solubility of greater than 50%.
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 3, 12, 13, 22 and 23 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.
In claim 3, “preferably” renders the scope of the claim vague and indefinite, since it is not clear whether the limitation following the word “preferably” is a positive limitation, or whether it is merely an example of the broader genus.
In claims 3 and 23, “well adapted” and “highly saline” render the scope of the claims vague and indefinite, since these are relative termism and would not be ascertainable
In claims 12 And 13, “such as” renders the scope of the claims vague and indefinite, since it is not clear whether the phrase following the term “such as” is appositive limitation, or whether it is merely an example of the broader genus.”
In claim 22, there is no antecedent basis for a mixture which includes a source of sulphur or sulphate.
Weaver et al (US 10,351,484) is made of record for disclosing a fertilizer composition which includes bauxite. (See coil. 24, lines 44-58.)
Erro et al (US 2013/0104612) is made of record for disclosing phosphate fertilizers formed from an organic source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736