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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species (ii), claims 1-11, 15-16 and 19-20, in the reply filed on August 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 12-14 and 17-18 (species) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 3, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, [002], line 2, please amend the word “priority” to the word -- benefit --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 11, 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8
Line 1, please amend the word “member” to the word -- membrane --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Line 2, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “sulfuric”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 10.
Claim 11
Line 1, please amend the word “system” to the words -- one or more electrochemical cells --.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 3.
Line 2, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “sulfuric”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 10.
Claim 15
Line 2, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “mineral”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 1 (preamble).
Claim 19
Line 2, please insert the word -- the -- before the word “sulfuric”.
This is an instance where the article should be added to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology. See claim 1, line 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11, 15-16 and 19-20 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
Line 9, “the reactor solution” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by
introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v.
Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,”
thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier
recitation.
Claim 7
Line 1, “the mineralized carbonate production reaction” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim 9
Line 2, “the concentration of acid (H+)” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v.
Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir.
1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Lines 3-4, recite “recirculating fluid from the mineralized carbonate production reactor
through the cathode chamber”.
Claim 1, line 9, recites “return some or all of the reactor solution to the cathode chamber”.
It is unclear from the claim language what is returned or recirculated from the mineralized carbonate production reactor to the cathode chamber.
Claim 10
Line 3, “the electrochemical cell” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier
recitation.
Claim 11
Line 1, “the anode side” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim 16
Line 2, “the solid product” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir.
1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,”
thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
Claim 19
Line 1, recites “carbon dioxide”.
Claim 1, line 8, recites “CO2”.
It is unclear from the claim language what the relationship is between the CO2 and the carbon dioxide.
Lines 2-3, recite “electrochemically produced hydroxide solution”.
Claim 1, line 7, recites “a hydroxide solution”.
It is unclear from the claim language what the relationship is between the hydroxide solution and the electrochemically produced hydroxide solution.
Lines 3-4, recites “carbon dioxide directly from air or from a more concentrated source”.
Claim 1, line 8, recites “CO2”.
It is unclear from the claim language what the relationship is between the CO2 and the carbon dioxide directly from air or from a more concentrated source.
Lines 3-4, the phrase “from a more concentrated” is indefinite.
See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2012/129510 (‘510).
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘510 teaches a system that couples sulfuric acid production (= preparing acidic sulfate material. Such acidic sulfate material may be selected from the group consisting of sulfuric acid) [page 5, lines 20-22] to mineral carbon sequestration (= sequesters CO2) [page 17, line 2], the system comprising:
• an electrolyzer stack of one or more electrochemical cells (= an electrolysis rector including one or more electrolysis cells) [page 5, lines 15-16] comprising:
۰ an anode (= the anode 204) [page 35, line 33] within an anode chamber (= the anode region) [page 36, line 5] containing an anolyte (= a more dilute sulfuric acid solution 230) [page 36, lines 4-5],
۰ a cathode (= the cathode 202) [page 35, lines 32-33] within a cathode chamber
(= the cathode region) [page 35, line 34] containing a catholyte (= an electrolyte solution 224 containing sodium sulfate) [page 35, lines 33-34], and
۰ an anion exchange membrane separating the anode and cathode chambers (= the anion exchange membrane 208) [page 35, line 33; and Fig. 13:
PNG
media_image1.png
300
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
];
• a mineralized carbonate production reactor (= a contactor 400) [page 41, line 3] configured to receive a hydroxide solution from the cathode chamber to generate mineralized carbonate from a sulfate feedstock and CO2, and to return some or all of the reactor solution to the cathode chamber (= a processing cycle involving electrolysis of sodium sulfate electrolyte solution to produce oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide, with sodium hydroxide used to capture carbon dioxide and prepare sodium carbonate, which is then contacted with the calcium sulfate (e.g., gypsum) to sequester the carbon dioxide as a calcium carbonate and regenerate the sodium sulfate for further use in the cycle) [page 38, lines 1-6; and Fig. 17]; and
• a sulfuric acid recovery module configured to receive sulfuric acid from the anode chamber (= a sulfuric acid solution may be recovered from the anode region (page 33, lines 21-
22); and a sulfuric acid solution 368 which may be collected in a tank 370 (page 40, lines 15-
16)).
Regarding claim 2, WO ‘510 teaches wherein the system is configured as a continuous flow system (= a processing cycle involving electrolysis of sodium sulfate electrolyte solution to produce oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide, with sodium hydroxide used to capture carbon dioxide and prepare sodium carbonate, which is then contacted with the calcium sulfate (e.g., gypsum) to sequester the carbon dioxide as a calcium carbonate and regenerate the sodium sulfate for further use in the cycle) [page 38, lines 1-6; and Fig. 17].
Rgearding claim 3, WO ‘510 teaches wherein the mineralized carbonate production reactor is operably connected to a source of sulfate (= sodium hydroxide may in turn be reacted with CO2 from the air or flue gas to form sodium carbonate, which, combined with gypsum,1 closes the chemical cycle and sequesters CO2 as a solid carbonate) [page17, lines 1-3; and Fig. 17].
Regarding claim 4, WO ‘510 teaches wherein the source of sulfate comprises solid calcium sulfate (= the calcium sulfate (e.g., gypsum)) [page 38, line 5].
Regarding claim 5, WO ‘510 teaches where the mineralized carbonate production reactor is operably connected to a source of CO2 (= a carbon dioxide-containing gas 402 that is also supplied to the contactor 400) [page 41, lines 3-4].
Regarding claim 6, WO ‘510 teaches wherein the source of CO2 comprises air (= carbon dioxide, from air, flue gas streams, mixed gas streams or concentrate) [page 14, lines 13-14].
Regarding claim 7, WO ‘510 teaches wherein the mineralized carbonate production reaction is configured to convert a gypsum to calcium carbonate (= to convert natural or waste
gypsum into calcium carbonate and sodium sulfate) [page 16, lines 29-30].
WO ‘510 teaches the system of at least claims 1-6 as applied above. WO ‘510 does not explicitly teach according to the reaction: CaSO4۰2H2O(gypsum) + 2OH- + CO2(g) → CaCO3(s) + SO42-(aq) + 3H2O(l).2
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because WO ‘510 teaches a system that is similar to the system as presently claimed. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the system taught by WO ‘510 would have been configured to convert the gypsum to calcium carbonate according to the reaction: CaSO4۰2H2O(gypsum) + 2OH- + CO2(g) → CaCO3(s) + SO42-(aq) + 3H2O(l).
Furthermore, the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) and MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 8, WO ‘510 teaches wherein the anion exchange member is configured
so that sulfate anion crosses the anion exchange membrane to the anode chamber where sulfuric acid is generated (=
PNG
media_image2.png
247
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) [Fig. 13].
Regarding claim 9, WO ‘510 teaches recirculating fluid from the mineralized carbonate production reactor through the cathode chamber (= a processing cycle involving electrolysis of sodium sulfate electrolyte solution to produce oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide, with sodium hydroxide used to capture carbon dioxide and prepare sodium carbonate, which is then contacted with the calcium sulfate (e.g., gypsum) to sequester the carbon dioxide as a calcium carbonate and regenerate the sodium sulfate for further use in the cycle) [page 38, lines 1-6; and Fig. 17].
WO ‘510 teaches the system of at least claims 1-8 as applied above. WO ‘510 does not explicitly teach wherein the system is configured to maintain a relatively low concentration of base (OH-) in the catholyte relative to the concentration of acid (H+) in the anolyte.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because WO ‘510 teaches a system that
is similar to the system as presently claimed. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would
have expected that the system taught by WO ‘510 would have been configured to maintain a
relatively low concentration of base (OH-) in the catholyte relative to the concentration of acid (H+) in the anolyte.
Furthermore, the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) and MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 10, WO ‘510 teaches the system of at least claims 1-9 as applied above. WO ‘510 does not explicitly teach wherein the system is configured to generate an acid concentration in the anolyte that is higher than the base concentration in the catholyte even though protons and hydroxides are produced at the same rate in the electrochemical cell.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because WO ‘510 teaches a system that is similar to the system as presently claimed. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the system taught by WO ‘510 would have been configured to maintain a relatively low concentration of base (OH-) in the catholyte relative to the concentration of acid (H+) in the anolyte.
Furthermore, the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) and MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 11, WO ‘510 teaches wherein on the anode side of the system, aqueous sulfuric acid is recirculated at a constant rate through the anode chamber to allow for accumulation of sulfuric acid (= likewise, the more dilute sulfuric acid solution addition to the anode region may be provided by recirculation of a diluted portion of the sulfuric acid solution previously recovered from the anode region) [page 33, lines 30-32].
Regarding claim 19, WO ‘510 teaches the system is further configured to sequester carbon dioxide as calcium carbonate (= some or all of the sodium hydroxide is subsequently reacted with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, flue gas or concentrated gas streams to form sodium carbonate. In the present process the sodium carbonate is reacted with gypsum producing more calcium carbonate and sodium sulfate) [page 18, lines 22-25] and produce sulfuric acid by reacting calcium sulfate solids with electrochemically produced hydroxide solution (= a processing cycle involving electrolysis of sodium sulfate electrolyte solution to produce oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide, with sodium hydroxide used to capture carbon dioxide and prepare sodium carbonate, which is then contacted with the calcium sulfate (e.g., gypsum) to sequester the carbon dioxide as a calcium carbonate and regenerate the sodium sulfate for further use in the cycle) [page 38, lines 1-6] contacted with
carbon dioxide directly from air or from a more concentrated source (= carbon dioxide, from air, flue gas streams, mixed gas streams or concentrate) [page 14, lines 13-14].
Regarding claim 20, WO ‘510 teaches the system is further configured to include one or more of a sulfuric acid concentration step (= a supply of the sulfuric acid solution 372 may be
used as a final product or may be further processed, for example, to prepare a more
concentrated sulfuric acid product) [page 40, lines 16-18], a step to recover hydrogen or energy
from produced hydrogen using a fuel cell, a phosphoric acid production step, and valuable co-product recovery steps (= other acidic sulfate products recovered from electrolysis processing) [page 34, line 34, to page 38, line 1].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/129510 (‘510) as applied to claims 1-11 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Stockhoff
et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0373789 A1)).
Regarding claim 15, WO ‘510 teaches the system of at least claims 1-11 and 19-20 as applied above. WO ‘510 does not explicitly teach wherein the system is configured for
phosphoric acid production with mineral carbon sequestration.
WO ‘510 teaches that:
The sodium sulfate may then be processed to prepare feed of electrolyte solution for electrolysis processing to create sulfuric acid, which could be used in the mining or mineral processing operation from which the waste gypsum resulted. Acidic sulfate solutions are often used in such mining operations, for example in leaching or other operations (page 8, line 31, to page 9, line 1).
Stockhoff teaches that:
A process for producing phosphoric acid and purified calcium sulfate which can be used for producing cement clinker and sulfuric acid, and a plant for carrying out the process (page 1, [0001]).
The phosphoric acid production plant according to the process of the invention comprises preferably a processing unit for phosphate rock, a reaction unit for the reaction of raw phosphate with sulfuric acid, and a first separating unit, preferably a filtration unit, for the separation of calcium sulfate (page 5, [0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by WO ‘510 with wherein the system is configured for phosphoric acid production with mineral carbon sequestration. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because WO ‘510 teaches that acidic sulfate solutions are often used in other operations on page 8, line 34, to page 9, line 1, where a reaction unit for the reaction of
phosphate rocks with sulfuric acid would have produced phosphoric acid and purified calcium
sulfate which can be used for producing cement clinker and sulfuric acid as taught by Stockhoff
in [0001], [0072] and [0079].
Regarding claim 16, WO ‘510 and Stockhoff teach the system of at least claims 1-11, 15 and 19-20 as applied above. The references does not explicitly teach wherein the system is
configured for generation of phosphoric acid from rock phosphorus with calcium carbonate as the solid product as described by the reaction: Ca5F(PO4)3(fluorapatite) + 5CO2(g) + 5H2O(l) → 5CaCO3(calcite or aragonite) + 3H3PO4 + HF.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because modified WO ‘510 teaches a system that is similar to the system as presently claimed. One having ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the system taught by modified WO ‘510 would have been configured for generation of phosphoric acid from rock phosphorus with calcium carbonate as the solid product as described by the reaction: Ca5F(PO4)3(fluorapatite) + 5CO2(g) + 5H2O(l) → 5CaCO3(calcite or aragonite) + 3H3PO4 + HF.
Furthermore, the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) and MPEP § 2114.
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xie et al. (“CO2 Sequestration Through Mineral Carbonation of Waste Phosphogypsum
Using the Technique of Membrane Electrolysis,” Environmental Earth Sciences (2016 Sep), Vol. 75, No. 17, pp. 1-11) is cited to teach a schematic representation of mineral carbonation of PG
by membrane electrolysis (page 3, Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
222
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 PM.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 gypsum = hydrated calcium sulfate (CaSO4۰2H2O).
2 This is where Applicant claims a system in terms of function and the system of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference.
Prosecution Insights