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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 5/22/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “highly dispersed” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly dispersed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear in what manner the iron-containing powders must be dispersed and to what degree.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maksimov L.I., Mironov V.V. Improvement of technology for obtaining highly dispersed metallic iron powders based on sediments of an iron removal station. Bulletin of Tomsk State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering – Journal of Construction and Architecture. 2020. V. 22. No. 2. Pp. 162-173., as machine translated, in view of Wu et al. (CN 104646680 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claim 1, Maksimov teaches “to develop a process flowsheet for iron recovery in a heated carbon monoxide environment, and that involvement of sludge from groundwater iron removal plants in production eliminates the possibility of sludge deposition in landfills or in storage devices and creates a new raw material base for additive technologies” (which reads upon “a method for producing highly dispersed iron-containing powders from technogenic waste of ground water treatment plants, characterized in that it consists of the following successive stages”, as recited in the instant claim; page 162).
Maksimov teaches that “the main stages of the process include: extraction of iron-containing sludge from iron removal plant rinse water, dehydration, heating to 450–900 °C, and iron reduction in a heated carbon monoxide (CO) environment (Fig. 4)” (which reads upon “dehydration of wash water sludge from groundwater treatment plants”, as recited in the instant claim; page 169). Maksimov teaches that “from the container with raw materials, the dewatered sludge from the groundwater iron removal station (GWIS) enters the reactor” (which reads upon “loading or in-line feeding of wash water sludge from groundwater treatment plants to a reaction chamber or reactor”, as recited in the instant claim; page 170). Maksimov teaches that “the dewatered sludge from the groundwater iron removal station (GWIS) enters the reactor, where the iron is reduced” (which reads upon “reduction of iron compounds contained in wash water sludge from groundwater treatment plants in a reaction chamber or reactor”, as recited in the instant claim; page 170).
Maksimov teaches that “carbon dioxide (CO2) will be heated in a neutral environment by an induction element to a temperature of 800–1000 °C” (which reads upon “carbon dioxide and at 300 to 900 degrees Celsius”, as recited in the instant claim; page 170). Maksimov teaches that “the carbon dioxide is saturated with a carbon-containing powder (finely ground graphite or charcoal), and the injection device produces carbon monoxide” (page 170; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that trace amounts of CO2 would remain in the gas). Maksimov teaches that “the heated carbon monoxide is then fed into a reactor chamber” (which reads upon “in a gaseous environment having a reduction potential and consisting of at least 95% of a mixture of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide”, as recited in the instant claim; page 170).
Maksimov teaches that “the use of electromagnetic fields allows for the separation of magnetic material powders from the non-magnetic fraction, yielding high-purity products” (which reads upon “separation of particles of the target product-iron compounds having ferromagnetic properties from the components of the raw mixture obtained in the reduction reaction”, as recited in the instant claim; page 170). Maksimov teaches that “the recovered metallic iron powder is collected in a separate bin using a cyclically operating electromagnet” (page 170). Maksimov teaches that “this method ensures sufficient purity of the final product” (which reads upon “cooling to 90 degrees Celsius or less to reduce the chemical activity of the obtained iron-containing powders in order to prevent premature oxidation due to exposure to oxidizing agents, including atmospheric oxygen”, as recited in the instant claim; page 170; room temperature reads on 90 degrees Celsius or less; Maksimov is silent regarding any steps taken to maintain the final product at elevated temperatures, thus the final product will cool to room temperature).
Maksimov teaches that “from the data in Table 2 it is evident that when wetting the studied dry sediment the proportion of particles up to 5.281 µm in size increased by almost 20 % in the dry sediment due to the dissolution of bonds between sediment particles” (pages 166-167). Maksimov teaches that “using a 100-watt ultrasonic crusher allowed the separation of agglomerates with stronger bonds, increasing the proportion of particles 5.281 µm in size by another 10%, and that 88.3% of the particles are smaller than 21.345 µm, making the iron-containing sediment suitable as a raw material for the production of iron oxide pigments and additive manufacturing” (page 167). The instant application teaches that dispersion of technogenic waste of groundwater treatment plants by treatment (ultrasonic or another treatment) [] ensures an equivalent particle diameter of not more than 100 microns for at least 90% of particles of the total number of particles, With regard to the dispersion of wash water sludge by treatment that ensures an equivalent particle diameter of not more than 100 microns for at least 90% of particles of the total number of particles limitation, although Maksimov does not specifically disclose the claimed property, it is reasonable to presume that such property would be inherent to the method of Maksimov. Support for the presumption is found because Maksimov teaches the same starting material, iron-containing sludge from iron removal plant rinse water, treated in the same way, ultrasonic assisted dispersion. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). Additionally or alternatively, Maksimov teaches using a 100-watt ultrasonic crusher. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the crusher could be used (at higher settings or longer duration) to further reduce the size of the particles. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Maksimov is silent regarding dehydration to a relative humidity of not more than 90%.
Wu is similarly concerned with a method for producing highly active iron powder by recycling waste iron sludge (paragraph [0002]). Wu teaches to “(1) Take a certain amount of industrial waste iron sludge, remove water-soluble impurities by washing and filtering” (paragraph [0010]). Wu teaches to “(2) Dry the washed iron mud obtained in step 1 at a certain temperature for a certain period of time” (paragraph [0011]). Wu teaches to “(3) Mix the dried iron mud obtained in step (2) with the modifier and stir evenly to obtain a mixture of iron mud and modifier; put the mixture of iron mud and modifier or the dried iron mud from step (2) directly into the reduction reactor, introduce reducing gas, and reduce at 500-1200℃” (paragraph [0012]). Wu teaches to “(4) After the reduction is completed, an inert atmosphere is introduced to cool it to a certain temperature, and reduced iron powder is obtained” (which reads upon “cooling”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Wu teaches that “the cooling temperature in step (4) is room temperature - 200℃” (which reads upon “cooling to 90 degrees Celsius or less to reduce the chemical activity of the obtained iron-containing powders in order to prevent premature oxidation due to exposure to oxidizing agents, including atmospheric oxygen”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0021]; overlapping ranges). Wu teaches that “using a one-step reduction method, high-activity iron powder can be prepared by recycling industrial waste iron sludge, realizing waste utilization, reducing environmental pollution, and producing products with good performance” (paragraph [0022]). Wu teaches to “dry the solid material at 100℃ for 12 hours” (which reads upon “dehydration to a relative humidity of not more than 90%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that drying the mud to 100 C, which is the boiling point of water, and holding it for 12 hours will drive off a significant portion of the water, thus ensuring the relative humidity is below 90%).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dehydration step of Maksimov to use 100℃ for 12 hours, as taught by Wu to ensure the majority of the water is driven off to allow for greater efficiency in the reduction reaction. Additionally Maksimov teaches using a dehydration step, but does not provide details as to the temperature and time used, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 100℃ for 12 hours, because Wu teaches that these settings are known and tested values predictably suitable for drying iron mud prior to reduction.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733