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 .
This application is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 12/29/2023.
Claims 1-13 are pending and under examination.
Specification
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.
Currently abstract is more than 150 words in length. It is suggested to have the abstract within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
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 1-13 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 1, lines 6-7 recites the broad recitation of phosphoric acid having a mass content between 42% and 61% of P2O5 followed by narrower range preferably between 48% and 61%. Clarification is requested.
In the present instance, claim 1 lines 9-10 recites the broad recitation a content between 1.5% and 10% by eight of the mixture preferably between 2.5% and 9% by weight of the mixture which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Clarification is requested.
In the present instance, claim 1 line 16 recites the broad recitation of solid level comprised between 1 and 15% by weight, preferably 7% by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Clarification is requested.
In the present instance, claim 1 line 20 recites the broad recitation of cadmium content of less than 10 ppm, even of less than 2 ppm which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Clarification is requested.
In the present instance, claim 1 line 17 recites the broad recitation of sulfate level comprised between 1% and 5% by weight, preferably 3% by weight which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Clarification is requested.
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation of temperature comprised between 50 and 120°C, preferably above 70°C which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Clarification is requested.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3 and 5-13 these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 4, 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested to amend “70°” to “70°C” ensure consistency in the claim 4 line 3.
It is suggested to amend “a solid level” to “the solid level” to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim 8 line 3 and claim 11 line 3.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
8. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustapha et al (FR 2687657, machine translation, IDS cited reference by applicant) in view of Weterings et al (EP0253454, IDS cited reference by applicant).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, Mustapha discloses process for decadmiation of phosphoric acid comprising phosphoric acid of 20 to 60% by weight (reads on phosphoric mass content between 42 and 61%) with low cadmium content less than 10 ppm were adjusted with the addition of gypsum (at a solid level of 1.8%, calcium sulfate hydrated) and 65 ml of sulfuric acid in a reactor-evaporator at a temperature from 84 to 92°C under 50 to 60 mm Hg pressure (reads on carried out in single reactor of claims 1, 4 and 5). The decadmed decanted acid contains phosphoric acid concentration 56.5% weight of P2O5, and 3 ppm cadmium. Mustapha discloses a solid content of between 1.3 and 6% of the phosphoric acid (reads on phosphoric acid solid level comprised between 1 and 15%) decanted in hydrated calcium sulphate and adjusted in parallel with sulfuric acid to obtain a sulfuric excess between 1.5 and 6 (reads on sulfate level comprised between 1 and 5%, see pages 1-2, examples). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mustapha further discloses decanting the mixture to obtain cadmium rich anhydrite sludge with cadmium content between 2 and 10 ppm (reads on cadmium content of less than 10 ppm, reads on desaturating and clarifying step) and conditioning cadmium rich anhydrite sludge with phosphoric acid solution having P2O5 content between 52 and 60% (reads on conditioning steps having phosphoric acid less than 61%) and recycling the sludge rich in cadmium to acid entering the reactor-evaporator for etching phosphate with sulfuric acid (reads on recycling step and reads also claim 12 and claim 3, see pages 1-2, examples). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mustapha does not explicitly disclose or suggest calcium sulfate dihydrate or hemihydrate and sulfate content between 1.5 and 10% in the mixture of sulfuric acid and phosphate acid and forming calcium sulphate anhydrite by recrystallization of calcium sulfate dihydrate or hemihydrate.
Weterings discloses process for removal of heavy metals from acid, phosphate containing aqueous media comprising of wet phosphoric acid process comprising adding phosphoric acid (i.e., 44% P2O5) with 30 ppm of Cd, adding concentrated sulfuric acid in amount of 8% (reads on sulfate content between 1.5 and 10%) where calcium sulphate hemihydrate or dihydrate is added to phosphoric acid and further addition of sulfate ions in an amount of (i.e., concentrated sulfuric acid) forming calcium sulphate anhydrite by recrystallization of calcium sulfate dihydrate or hemihydrate. Weterings further discloses cadmium co-crystallizing with said calcium sulphate anhydrite where a phosphoric acid stream with 4.0 ppm Cd remained. Using the phosphate rock, phosphoric acid stream desulphurized at 90 C to 1% H2SO4 (reads on sulfate level between 1 and 5% and then filtering off this relatively clean HH with 1.6 ppm Cd and the phosphoric acid stream contained 6.3 ppm Cd and 44% P2O5 (reads on desaturating and clarifying step with Cd content of less than 10 ppm and conditioning step having less than equal to 61% of P2O5, see col.2 lines 8-29, 37-42, 48-54, col.3 lines 1-58, col.4 lines 1-10, examples 1-2, see claims 1-8, reads on also claim 7 for adjusting cadmium content, P2O5, temperature, reads on claim 3). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify the process of Mustapha with Weterings to include the formation by recrystallization of calcium sulfate dihydrate or hemihydrate with cadmium co-crystallizing with said anhydrite and concentrated sulfuric acid addition where calcium sulphate anhydrite has great affinity for high concentrations of heavy metals which makes it possible to remove heavy metals from phosphoric acid medium without adding substances that are foreign to the process and without prior neutralization while still obtaining limited amount of waste product containing heavy metals as taught by Weterings (see col. 1 lines 44 thru col.2 lines 1-7).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Weterings discloses temperature between 40 and 100 C (see Col.2 lines 37-40) while Mustapha discloses solid level from 1.3 to 6% (see page 1, examples). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Mustapha disclose a temperature of 84-92 C for cadmium rich anhydrite sludge with phosphoric acid solution (reads on greater than equal to 40 C, page 1 and examples). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Mustapha in view of Weterings discloses conditioned sludges are filtered with calcium sulfate dihydrate or hemihydrate obtained by reaction of etching the phosphate with phosphoric acid (see examples in Mustapha and Weterings). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2, 6, 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and once overcome 112(b) rejections as set forth above.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. 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. 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.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 08/17/2026
Prosecution Insights