Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/424,751

METHOD FOR TREATING ALKALINE FLUORINE-CONTAINING WASTEWATER BY COMBINING INDUCED CRYSTALLIZATION METHOD WITH TUBULAR MEMBRANE FILTER

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 27, 2024
Priority
Jun 02, 2022 — CN 2022106198010 +1 more
Examiner
MENDOZA, WILSON GALLARDO
Art Unit
1772
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hainan University
OA Round
2 (Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allowance Rate
2 granted / 2 resolved
+35.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
17
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
68.0%
+28.0% vs TC avg
§102
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on July 01, 2026. Status of Claims Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 are amended and claim 9 is canceled. Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitation formerly recited in claim 9 requiring that the fluoride-ion concentration before treatment be 20-30 mg/L. Claims 1-8 in the instant application would be allowable if amended to overcome the specification objection and rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth below. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is objected to because it uses shearing rate for a parameter expressed in revolutions per minutes (Specification: ¶¶ [0003, 0022, 0028, 0033, 0038, 0039, 0040]). Revolutions per minute denotes rotational speed, whereas shear rate is a distinct physical parameter dependent upon fluid deformation/velocity gradient and equipment geometry. The terminology should therefore be corrected to provide consistency between the specification and claim See MPEP 608.01(o) and 2173.03. Applicant is required, where supported by the application as originally filed, to amend the specification to consistently identify the parameter as “rotational speed of the high-speed shearing machine” or equivalent terminology when expressed in r/min. Any amendment must not introduce new matter. See 35 U.S.C. 132(a); MPEP 608.04. 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) 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 regard(s) as the invention. (i) Claim 1 recites “a dosage of the tremolite is in a range of 6-10% of the calcium fluoride” is indefinite because it fails to identify the quantitative basis of the percentage, e.g., weight/mass, molar amount, volume, or another basis. Because the different quantitative bases define materially different dosage relationships, the metes and bounds of the claims 6-10% relationship is unclear. See MPEP 2173 and 2173.02. (ii) Claim 1 further recites “a shearing rate of the high-speed shearing machine is in a range 5,400-5600 r/min.” The limitation is indefinite because r/min denotes rotational speed, whereas shear rate is a different physical parameter. It is unclear whether claim 1 requires a rotational speed of 5,400-5,600 r/min or a particular fluid shear rate produced by operation of the machine. The claim therefore permits more than one reasonable interpretation and fails to clearly define its metes and bounds. See MPEP 2173.02. Claims 2-8 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend on claim 1 and incorporate the foregoing indefinite limitations. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 in the instant application would be allowable if amended to overcome the specification objection and rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth above. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A thorough search for pertinent art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 1-8. The concept of a method for treating alkaline fluorine containing wastewater by combining an induced crystallization method with a tubular membrane filter (TMF), comprising: step 1, introducing fluorine-containing wastewater into a regulating pond, and regulating a potential of hydrogen (pH) of the fluorine-containing wastewater to a range of 8.0-8.5 to obtain the alkaline fluorine-containing wastewater; step 2, introducing the alkaline fluorine-containing wastewater from the regulating pond into a first-stage chemical sedimentation tank, adding calcium chloride, poly aluminum chloride, calcium fluoride, and tremolite into the first-stage chemical sedimentation tank sequentially in that order to obtain first-stage fluorine-containing wastewater, performing shearing treatment on the first-stage fluorine-containing wastewater by using a high-speed shearing machine to obtain sheared first-stage fluorine-containing wastewater, introducing the sheared first-stage fluorine-containing wastewater into a first-stage coagulation sedimentation tank to obtain first-stage coagulating-sedimentation wastewater, and then introducing the first-stage coagulating-sedimentation wastewater into a first- stage inclined-tube sedimentation tank to discharge a first-stage effluent; wherein a dosage of the calcium fluoride is in a range of 120-150 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and a dosage of the tremolite is in a range of 6-10% of the dosage of the calcium fluoride; and a shearing rate of the high-speed shearing machine is in a range of 5,400-5,600 revolutions per minute (r/min); step 3, introducing the first-stage effluent into a second-stage chemical sedimentation tank, adding calcium chloride and poly aluminum chloride into the second-stage chemical sedimentation tank sequentially in that order to obtain second-stage wastewater, stirring the second-stage wastewater to react to obtain reacted second-stage wastewater, introducing the reacted second-stage wastewater into a second-stage coagulation sedimentation tank, adding polyacrylamide into the second-stage coagulation sedimentation tank to obtain second-stage coagulating-sedimentation wastewater, and then flowing the second-stage coagulating-sedimentation wastewater into a second- stage inclined-tube sedimentation tank, and discharging a second-stage effluent through the second- stage inclined-tube sedimentation tank; and step 4, performing a treatment on the second-stage effluent by using the TMF to obtain treated second-stage effluent, and then discharging the treated second-stage effluent; wherein a concentration of fluoride ions before treating the fluorine-containing wastewater is in a range of 20-30 mg/L, (claim 1), is considered novel. A closest prior art to Zhu et al., (CN 204,958,619 U, hereinafter as “Zhu”) teaches calcium-based fluoride treatment together with downstream tubular membrane filtration but does not teach the foregoing coordinated induced-crystallization conditions. Other pertinent prior art to Shen et al. (CN 11,2607,917 A, hereinafter as “Shen”) teaches multistage calcium-based defluorination and inclined-tube clarification and demonstrates further treatment of an intermediate stream of about 19.5 mg/L fluoride, but does not teach an initial 20-30 mg/L feed operated with the claimed CaF2/tremolite induced-crystallization formulation. Other pertinent prior art to Zeng et al. (CN 10,5836,866 A, hereinafter as “Zeng”) teaches CaF2-seedd induced crystallization and selectable CaF2 seed quantities, but does not disclose tremolite at 6-10% relative to the CaF2 or the claimed integrated low-concentration treatment train. Other pertinent prior art to Xu et al. (CN 102,276,034 A, hereinafter as “Xu”) teaches auxiliary mineral loading in calcium-based fluoride treatment, but its auxiliary material is kaolin and it does not teach or suggest the specific relationship of tremolite to CaF2 required by amended claim 1. Other pertinent prior art to Abbas et al. (ES 2,392,598 T3, hereinafter as “Abbas”) teaches high-shear wastewater mixing generally, but does not disclose the claimed shearing conditions in the particular CaF2/tremolite induced crystallization environment. The cited prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest one skilled in the art to conduct a method for treating alkaline fluorine containing wastewater by combining an induced crystallization method with a tubular membrane filter (TMF), comprising: wherein a dosage of the calcium fluoride is in a range of 120-150 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and a dosage of the tremolite is in a range of 6-10% of the dosage of the calcium fluoride; and a shearing rate of the high-speed shearing machine is in a range of 5,400-5,600 revolutions per minute (r/min); step 3, introducing the first-stage effluent into a second-stage chemical sedimentation tank, adding calcium chloride and poly aluminum chloride into the second-stage chemical sedimentation tank sequentially in that order to obtain second-stage wastewater, stirring the second-stage wastewater to react to obtain reacted second-stage wastewater, introducing the reacted second-stage wastewater into a second-stage coagulation sedimentation tank, adding polyacrylamide into the second-stage coagulation sedimentation tank to obtain second-stage coagulating-sedimentation wastewater, and then flowing the second-stage coagulating-sedimentation wastewater into a second- stage inclined-tube sedimentation tank, and discharging a second-stage effluent through the second- stage inclined-tube sedimentation tank; and step 4, performing a treatment on the second-stage effluent by using the TMF to obtain treated second-stage effluent, and then discharging the treated second-stage effluent; wherein a concentration of fluoride ions before treating the fluorine-containing wastewater is in a range of 20-30 mg/L, (claim 1), as recited in claimed invention. 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 communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any 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 Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772 /YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 01, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 21, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Sep 29, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
2y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 2 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month