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 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 3, 6 and 9-16 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 3 recites “the routed ammonia gas is obtained from a reaction where the ammonia is burned or catalytically destroyed.” This language is indefinite since the requirement that ammonia is “burned or catalytically destroyed” results in a product that cannot function as ammonia gas, and therefore cannot produce ammonia for the “routed ammonia gas.”
Claim 6 recites “the sulfur dioxide is routed to a mixer comprising an aqueous solution…” Claim 6 depends upon claim 1 which recites “adding sulfur dioxide into a circulating aqueous solution…” It is unclear from this language whether the aqueous solution of claim 6 should be that of the limitation of claim 1 or should be different in identity. This renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Claims 9-16 depend upon claim 6 and are therefore similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue of indefiniteness.
Claim 9 additionally recites “the aqueous solution containing sulfur dioxide…” Claim 9 is dependent upon claims 6 and 1, and it is therefore unclear whether the aqueous solution required by claim 9 should be the solution from claim 6, or claim 1, if different in identity. Claim 9 is therefore indefinite in scope, and claims 10-16 are similarly rejected since they do not rectify the issue of indefiniteness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites "the routed ammonia gas is obtained from a reaction where the ammonia is burned or catalytically destroyed;" this reaction would produce either a gas that cannot function as ammonia or a product that is not ammonia, such as nitrogen or nitrogen oxides. This limitation therefore does not include all the limitations of claim 1 since the "routed ammonia gas" resulting from the claimed reaction cannot contain ammonia given the scope of the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoubye 2006, CZ 297100 B6. An English translation, as provided with this office action, is cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Schoubye discloses a process that produces ammonium thiosulfate via producing ammonium bisulfite and ammonium sulfite (0010) comprising:
routing at least one stream of ammonia gas to a vessel (first absorption step, 0010, 0030, 0031)
adding sulfur dioxide into a circulating aqueous solution (first absorption step, 0010) to maintain the pH at a predetermined range (5 to 6, 0033)
and selectively eliminating ammonia from the gas stream by reacting the ammonia with the sulfur dioxide and water to produce ammonium sulfite and ammonium bisulfite, 0034
Regarding claim 2, Schoubye teaches contact zones (absorbers 8, 25, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Schoubye teaches a reaction where the gas containing ammonia is burned (0048). Schoubye also teaches that the gases used as feed gases can come from hydrocarbon desulfurization, fuel gasification, and coking processes (0029).
Regarding claim 6, Schoubye teaches ammonium sulfite, ammonium bisulfite, and ammonium thiosulfate in second absorber 25 (0031).
Regarding claim 7, Schoubye teaches that the sulfur dioxide in the solution is added at a pH maintained at 5-6 (0033).
Regarding claim 9, Schoubye teaches that aqueous solution containing sulfur dioxide is circulated to the vessel (0010, 0011).
Regarding claim 10, Schoubye teaches that the aqueous solution containing sulfur dioxide and the ammonia gas is configured to flow in a countercurrent or co-current pattern for a predetermined time (0010).
Regarding claim 11, Schoubye teaches that the ammonia content in the waste gas is about 0.5% (0047).
Regarding claim 12, Schoubye teaches that the vessel comprises a top and a bottom surface (absorber 8, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Schoubye teaches the ammonium bisulfite and sulfite discharged from the bottom of the vessel (0044, line 21).
Regarding claim 14, Schoubye teaches that the stream is partially diverted to line 21 (0036).
Regarding claim 15, Schoubye teaches that a portion of the stream is recycled to the vessel in line 10 (0036).
Regarding claim 17, Schoubye teaches two gas streams containing ammonia: feed line 11, waste gas line 26 (Figure 1, 0036, 0048).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoubye as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Jakobsson et al. 2020, WO 2020160998 A1, provided in the IDS filed 2/16/2024, herein referred to as Jakobsson.
Regarding claim 4, Schoubye teaches the process as applied to claim 1. Schoubye does not teach that the routed ammonia gas is obtained from an air stream used to strip ammonia out of a water stream. However Jakobsson teaches a process for producing fertilizer (abstract) which creates ammonia gas in an analogous form by extracting or stripping ammonia from a digestate (ammonia (NH.sub.3) passes from the digestate to the stripping gas, Example 1). Jakobsson also teaches that obtaining ammonia from a stripping process is known in the art (p. 3 lines 4-14). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Schoubye with the step of obtaining ammonia from an air stream used to strip ammonia out of a water stream, as Jakobsson teaches, and arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to do so to better obtain ammonia from sources that are rich in nitrogen already, as Jakobsson teaches (p. 1, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 5, Schoubye teaches the process as applied to claim 1. Schoubye does not teach that the routed ammonia gas is obtained from a digestate liquid stream. However Jakobsson teaches a process for producing fertilizer (abstract) wherein the ammonia is obtained from a digestate liquid stream (Example 1, liquid phase indicated by the discussion of equilibrium between ammonium hydroxide and ammonia). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Schoubye with the step of obtaining ammonia from a liquid digestate, as Jakobsson teaches, and arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to do so to better obtain ammonia from sources that are rich in nitrogen already, as Jakobsson teaches (p. 1, lines 24-25).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoubye.
Regarding claim 8, Schoubye teaches the process as applied to claim 1, and teaches that the pH of the solution containing sulfur dioxide is maintained at 5-6 (0033). Schoubye additionally discloses that the amount of ammonia added controls the pH (0036). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art that the quantities of sulfur dioxide and ammonia added are parameters that directly affect the pH of the solution, which is a critical parameter of the disclosed invention, since Schoubye states that it influences the solubility of ammonium bisulfite and ammonium thiosulfate and the partial pressure at the equilibrium state of the solution (0038). 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. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the process as suggested by Schoubye where the pH of the solution is in any workable or optimum range within 5-6 as taught by Schoubye in order to control the solubility of the ammonium products, as Schoubye teaches (0038), and therefore arrive at a pH that falls within the claimed pH range of 5.5 to 6.5.
Regarding claim 16, Schoubye teaches the process as applied to claim 1, and teaches that the recycled stream line 10 is directed to the heat exchanger 14 (0036). Schoubye does not explicitly disclose that the heat exchanger 14 is used to cool the liquid. However, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use the heat exchanger to cool the liquid stream entering the heat exchanger since Schoubye teaches that the gas can be cooled in heat exchanger 6 (0033) and that the temperature of the second absorber is also controlled by heat exchanger 33 (0046). One would be motivated to do so in order to prevent sulfur dioxide and ammonia from exiting the first absorber, as Schoubye teaches (0039). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoubye, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Ray et al. US 20080213147 A1, herein referred to as Ray.
Regarding claim 18, Schoubye teaches the process as applied to claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 above, and further teaches that two sources of sulfur dioxide may be routed to the vessel (line 7, line 26, Figure 1, 0031, 0048). Schoubye does not teach that line 26 is routed directly to the vessel; however Ray teaches an analogous process for the reaction of sulfur dioxide and ammonia for removal from a gas stream (abstract), in which two streams of sulfur dioxide are routed to a vessel (0016, streams 5 and 10, Figure 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Schoubye with the multiple streams of SO2 taught by Ray; one would be motivated to do so in order to provide a sufficient amount of SO2 in order to react with ammonia as Ray teaches (0016). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable prediction of success.
Regarding claim 19, in Schoubye modified by Ray, Ray teaches that the SO2 streams are passed in line with the ammonia vapor stream, to the lower section of the scrubber 20 (0016). This meets the limitation of the at least two SO2 streams routed in line with gaseous ammonia required by the instant claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 7390470, in view of Schoubye. Claims 3 and 24 of '470 each recite “(b) contacting a second gas comprising sulfur dioxide with a third gas, the third gas comprising ammonia, and a feed liquid in a second contact zone to produce ammonium bisulfite and ammonium sulfite, the second contact zone producing a second contact zone overhead gas and a second contact zone effluent liquid comprising ammonium bisulfite and ammonium sulfite.” This limitation meets the limitations of “routing at least one stream of ammonia gas to a vessel, adding sulfur dioxide into an aqueous solution to adjust the pH to be within a predetermined range, and selectively eliminating ammonia from the gas stream by reacting the ammonia with the sulfur dioxide and water to produce ammonium sulfite and ammonium bisulfite” required by the instant claim. While ‘470 does not require that the aqueous solution be a circulating aqueous solution, Schoubye teaches that the solution is circulating (0010). The modification would be obvious to one skilled in the art and one would be motivated to do so in order to construct a continuous process as Schoubye teaches (0003).
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