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.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: 0011, 0012 are single sentences but lack grammatical structure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the provided images are not clear in resolution. Figures 4a and 4b are challenging to interpreted due to shading and size. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 lacks a period and is therefore not a single sentence. Claim 1 additionally recites “first reactant mixture” and “second reactant mixture” in step (a) and later recites “the fifth reactant mixture” in step (b); consistent language should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 5 and 6 recite a “liquid ferrate” which imply a structure that is not exemplified in the specification. The specification indicates that the intended meaning is “aqueous ferrate,” rather than ferrate as an ionic liquid. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 is written in independent form but recites the shelf life of the ferrate claimed in claim 5. It is noted that a shelf life does not qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. It is interpreted that claim 6 is a dependent claim of claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “d. absorbing toxic gases.” This language does not clarify which gases are absorbates and which absorbents should be considered, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite rather than merely broad. To proceed with further examination on the merits of the claim, chlorine (Cl2) will be considered to fall within the scope of “toxic gases,” and “absorbing” will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of any material or compound absorbing the gas(es), including but not limited to any or all of the reactant mixtures recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 is written in independent form but recites the shelf life of the ferrate claimed in claim 5. It is noted that a shelf life does not qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. It is interpreted that claim 6 is a dependent claim of claim 5.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "stabilizing the resultant final mixture" in step (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 additionally recites the limitation “the stabilizing agent” in step (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 additionally recites the term “toxic” which is a relative term; “toxic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of toxicity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since a gas may be considered “more” or “less” toxic depending on context, the limitation “absorbing toxic gases” recited in step (d) is indefinite in scope.
Claim 1 additionally recites “d. absorbing toxic gases.” This language is indefinite as it does not clarify where the gases are absorbed, and therefore a broadest reasonable interpretation includes the reactant mixtures as potential absorbents.
Claims 2-5 are dependent upon claim 1 and are therefore similarly rejected for a failure to rectify the indefinite limitations.
Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation “the dry ball mill” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation “the toxic gases generated.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim depends upon claim 1 identifies Cl2 as a reactant (RM 5) and CO2 as a byproduct, and does not define either compound as a toxic gas generated.
Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation “the wet scrubbing unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita, JP 55-075926 A, cited herein as Morishita A, in view of Deininger and Dotson, EP 0082590 B1, referred to herein as Deininger. A translated copy of Morishita is provided with this office action, and is cited herein as JP MT.
Regarding claim 1, Morishita teaches a method for synthesizing ferrate (a process for producing an alkali ferrate, JP MT p. 2) comprising: a. allowing first reactant mixture hematite iron ore to react with an alkali (the alkali ferrite used … is prepared by oxidizing and roasting a mixture of an iron compound such as iron hydroxide, hydrous iron oxide or iron oxide, an iron ore such as hematite or magnetite, and an alkali agent, JP MT p. 2-3; examples thereof include alkali, alkali carbonate, JP MT p. 3 pp. 1); at a temperature of 800 to 1200 degrees Celsius (at least 800, preferably 900-1200, Morishita A C7); b. subjecting the resultant NaFeO2 with the fifth reactant mixture chlorine (the oxidizing agent which is another raw material, chlorine or an alkali hypochlorite is used, JP MT p. 3, pp. 4) and third reactant sodium hydroxide to produce sodium ferrate, sodium chloride (Morishita A C8, Equation 4); and c. combining the reactant mixtures at an optimum temperature of 50 to 60C (the change at is kept at about 60 ° C. or less, JP MT p. 3 pp. 8).
Morishita does not teach the second reactant mixture being sodium carbonate. However, the use of sodium carbonate as an alkali carbonate would be obvious to one skilled in the art with reasonable prediction of success. It is noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that a claim can be proved obvious by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Morishita additionally does not teach that the water acts as the fourth reactant mixture; however the equation taught by Morishita (Morishita A, C8) produces water which is capable of acting as a fourth reactant mixture.
Morishita additionally does not teach absorbing toxic gases, and does not teach stabilizing the resultant final mixture by the addition of sixth reactant mixture, the stabilizing agent.
However, Deininger teaches chlorine gas can be purified by scrubbing before being added to the reactor (“An example of one advantageous method for ensuring the purity of the chlorine gas reactant is by scrubbing, spraying, or otherwise contacting the chlorine gas with at least one chlorine-insoluble aqueous acid,” p. 5 line 33-36), wherein such a form of scrubbing is a gas absorption process. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by Morishita with a scrubbing step as taught by Deininger, in order to purify the chlorine gas used in the reaction, motivated by Deininger, and arrive at an invention which absorbs chlorine gas. Deininger further teaches stabilizing the final mixture by the addition of a stabilizing agent (alkali metal salts of iodide and iodate, and alkali metal silicates, p. 5 line 61-64, which are added in continuous operation, “ferric salt, chlorine gas, an aqueous KOH solution, and at least one ferrate-stabilizing compound are all added to the ferrate reactor,” p. 9 lines 42-43). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by Morishita with the addition of a stabilizing agent as taught by Deininger, in order to stabilize the ferrate produced by the invention, motivation also taught by Deininger (Ferrate Stabilizers, p. 5-6). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore arrive at the presently claimed invention with reasonable prediction of success.
Regarding claim 3, Morishita does not disclose the resultant ferrite is combined with third reactant mixture and fourth reactant mixture in a mixing tank by agitation and sent to reactor and filtered. However, Deininger discloses Example 1 wherein the caustic soda KOH was added with deionized water to ferric chloride and stirred (p. 12 lines 12-15) and continuously sent to reactor (p. 12 line 12) and then centrifuged (p. 12 line 58). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention taught by Morishita with the agitation and centrifugation taught by Deininger and arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to do so in order to increase the rate of dissolution, as taught by Deininger (“agitation to increase the rate of dissolving,” p. 9 line 5) and in order to separate liquids and solids in a continuous process, as taught by Deininger (“filtration and centrifuging are the preferred methods, with the latter being more preferred for continuous operation,” p. 8 lines 38-39).
Regarding claim 4, modified Morishita as applied above to claim 1 teaches chlorine gas being absorbed in a wet scrubbing unit (“by scrubbing… aqueous acid,” p. 5 line 33-36).
Regarding claim 5, modified Morishita as applied above to claim 1 teaches stabilizing the final mixture by the addition of a stabilizing agent (alkali metal salts of iodide and iodate, and alkali metal silicates, Deininger p. 5 line 61-64; Preferred Continuous Process, p. 9).
Regarding claim 6, modified Morishita teaches the method as applied above to claim 5. Further, Deininger teaches stability of the product over 6 weeks (examples have shown no appreciable loss of activity of a 94% by weight K2Fe04 product in over 6 weeks of closed-container storage at room temperature, p. 9 lines 22-24). This range of over 6 weeks anticipates the instant claimed range of minimum 6 weeks.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita and Deininger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heo Bong-Cheol, KR 100233566 B1, referred to herein as Heo, and Quan et al., CN 109365106 A, referred to herein as Quan. Machine translations of Heo and Quan, as provided with this office action, are cited.
Regarding claim 2, Morishita modified by Deininger teaches the method for synthesizing ferrate as applied to claim 1, and further teaches the first reactant mixture and second reactant mixture being processed in an electric furnace (electric oven, p. 4 Examples 1 and 2).
Morishita modified by Deininger does not teach the mixture being combined in the dry ball mill and being forwarded to a vibro sifter for screening, and does not teach the electric furnace being of rotary type.
However, Heo discloses an electric rotary kiln (title). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to process the reactant mixtures in an electric rotary kiln, as taught by Heo. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide an even heating atmosphere to the mixtures, motivation taught by Heo (“forming a heating zone so that the heating atmosphere is evenly and widely provided,” p. 2 pp. 1). Therefore one skilled in the art would reasonably be motivated to modify the electric oven taught by Morishita with an electric rotary kiln taught by Heo with reasonable prediction of success.
Morishita modified by Deininger and Heo does not disclose the use of a dry ball mill and forwarded to vibro sifter.
However, Quan discloses a metal material being processed in a dry ball mill and then being fed to a two-stage vibrating screen (0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing of the reactant mixtures with the dry ball mill and vibrating screen taught by Quan. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the separation efficiency of the materials to obtain a controlled particle size, such as the separation of granular vs slag steel as taught in Quan (0038). Therefore one skilled in the art would reasonably be motivated to modify the process taught by Morishita with the dry ball mill and vibrating screen taught by Quan with reasonable prediction of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738