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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A fluoride removal module and an extracting module in claim 1,
A dehydrator and a filtrate concentrate in claims 11 and 15, and
A cryolite crystal package apparatus in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-18: Claim limitation, see the list below, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1:
The fluoride removal module is indefinite because, the disclosure in [0012], [0043] and claim 7 discloses the reaction tank 221 as a fluidized bed having carriers with surface area 3000-5000 m2/m3, and the crystals as grown on them. No further details are provided, like carrier material, its structure and how the grown crystals are separated from the carrier.
The extracting module is indefinite because it is only shown as a box 300, with internal boxes 310 (dehydrator), 350 (filtrate concentrator), and couple of tanks. See more reasons below.
Claims 11 and 15:
The dehydrator (310) is not described in any detail, other than as a box 310 in the figures, as to its structure and how it works. Box 340 is described as a as a filtrate tank.
The filtrate concentrator is not described in any detail other than a box 350 in the drawings. The disclosure of “a condensed fluoride-containing liquid 390” would indicate the concentrator as an evaporator condenser, but then the condensate would be stream 380 with <5 ppm fluoride, not the >3% fluoride solution 390.
Claim 13: the cryolite crystals package apparatus has no structural details, and also not shown in the drawings.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 describes “corrosion resisting stainless” which is an incomplete sentence. Does applicant mean meant corrosion resistant stainless steel?
Arguments traversing these rejections are not persuasive. The cited terms defined under 35 USC 112(f) are so cited because they have multiple possibilities unlike a screw driver, a filter, or a clamp. Since applicant provides no structural details for these apparatuses, the office has no choice but to reject them under 35 UCS 112(b) as indefinite. If the details are commonly known, applicant is advised to provide appropriate citations for such details, and incorporate such details in the disclosure as appropriate.
Carriers in the fluidized bed must have a composition and a physical structure, which are lacking in the disclosure. Simply stating that they have a surface area is insufficient. If the carrier details are known in the art, applicant could easily amend the disclosure to incorporate such details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jiang et al, Recovery and removal of fluoride from fluorine industrial wastewater by crystallization process: a pilot study, Clean Techn Environ Policy (2017) 19:2335–2340.
At the outset, claims are directed to an apparatus, and elements in the claims related to process and materials worked upon are not patentable limitations. Therefore, claims 3-5 are not patentable.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 recites essentially a fluoride removal module and a connected extraction module. Jiang teaches a fluoride removal module (integrated reactor fluidized bed) and an a sedimentation tank that separates the cryolite crystals and water by sedimentation, which anticipates claim 1.
Claim 2: Jiang figure shows a water collecting tank, adjusting tank (integrated reactor) and reagent tanks. Also, Jiang teaches mixing sodium hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide to obtain sodium aluminate, which shows additional tanks/containers are implied. Note that Jiang adjusts pH, and therefore there is an implied provision for this, like another reagent tank and mixing tank. Therefore, while the arrangement may not be exactly as recited in the claim, the claim is deemed obvious based on the teaching of Jiang. MPEP 2144.04: IV and V. Please also note that the claims are for an apparatus. For example, instead of Ca-hydroxide, sodium aluminate can be added, to produce more of the cryolite crystals in the FBR.
Claim 6, 8, 9: PTFE tank would have been an obvious alternative of the polypropylene vessel used by Jiang, unless otherwise shown. Similarly, use of Teflon-lined stainless steel or FRP tanks are also obvious and well-known for handling corrosive chemicals.
Claim 7: fluidized bed carrier: the bed is provided with seed (carrier) for growth of cryolite and CaF2 crystals.
Claim 10: additional tanks – see storage and stirring tanks in the figure.
***
Claims 11-18 are not examined on merits due to the 112(f)/112(b) issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All arguments are related to process, whereas the claims are for an apparatus. In addition, to overcome the 112(b) rejection, applicant also argus that the devices listed are apparently known in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777