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 .
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2024, 3/26/2024, 6/13/ 2024, 08/05/2024, 10/04/2024, 3/12/2025, 06/04/2025, and 7/7/, 2025.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 20-22, 25-26, 33, 41, 50, 54-56, 54-56, and 58- 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fram et al., (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5142, hereinafter as “Fram”) in view of Johnson et al. (Chemical Geology, 2014), hereinafter as “Johnson”).
Fram discloses contacting chlorinated aqueous solution with basalt comprising mineral phases including olivine wherein iron species reduce free chlorine oxidants (p. 7, Experimental Setup, left column, lines 10-12), corresponding chlorination of aqueous solution.
Fram does not expressly disclose deacidification in an acidic aqueous solution.
Johnson discloses that olivine silicate ((Mg, Fe)2SiO4) (p. 102, Fig, 5A, dissolution rate of olivine as a function of pH) minerals consumes H+ during dissolution in acidic aqueous solution resulting to driving pH to increase (p. 93, Reaction equation (2), second column; Table 1(p. 98) data where Experiment 1 shows that after 74 hours of contact time, alkalinity (meq) increases and CO2 (M) concentration decreases, would result to pH increase or turn the aqueous solution more basic), corresponding to deacidifying aqueous solution.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the olivine-containing basalt mineral dechlorination system disclosed by Fram comprising Fe2+ low valent reductive species responsible for dechlorination in aqueous neutral solution to make the aqueous solution acidic because presence of H+ in acidic aqueous would allow silica in olivine minerals to demonstrate the deacidification reaction process (Johnson: p. 93, Reaction equation (2), second column; Table 1(p. 98) data where Experiment 1 shows deacidification of aqueous solution with olivine mineral dissolution), thereby demonstrate the dual functionality of the olivine-containing basalt mineral disclosed by Fram to perform dechlorination and deacidification simultaneously which would have been expected when contacting acidic chlorinated aqueous solution, thereby meeting the limitations of claim 1.
In regard to claim 2, Johnson discloses Fe2+ within olivine mineral structure (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2), corresponding to the recited low valent metal reductive species.
In regard to claim 3, Johnson discloses olivine as a silicate mineral composition (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2).
In regard to claim 10, Johnson discloses Fe as a transition metal present in olivine mineral composition (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2). Iron (Fe) belonging to Group 8, is a transition metal within the Group 3-12 metal species, corresponding to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 20, Johnson discloses Mg present in olivine mineral composition (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2). Magnesium is group II metal corresponding to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 21, Johnson discloses mafic and ultramafic silicate mineral (p. 94, left column, second paragraph, lines 1-2), corresponding to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 22, Johnson discloses preparation of olivine mineral particles for dissolution experiments, producing particular mineral materials having surface area within the 0.38 mm to 0.11 mm scale particle sizes (p. 95, right column, 2.3 Mineral and mineral analyses subsection, second paragraph, lines 9-10), which overlaps the claimed range of 100 nm (0.0001 mm) to 10 m. Because the prior art particle size range overlaps the claimed range, the limitation is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In regard to claim 25, Johnson discloses olivine silicate composition (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2), corresponding to the claimed silicate limitation.
In regard to claim 26, Fram discloses a mineral composition from a basalt (p. 5, right column, Experimental Method, line 4 (i.e., “ Fallon basalt”), and Johnson also discloses a mineral composition from an olivine (p. 95, 2.3. Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2), corresponding to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 33, Johnson discloses dissolution of olivine in acidic solution (p. 102, Fig. 5A, dissolution rate of olivine samples as a function of pH), where H+ is consumed during reaction of silicate minerals with acidic solution (reaction equation (2), p. 93, right column). The extend depends on mineral loading and extent of reaction (p. 93, Reaction equation (2), second column; Table 1(p. 98) data where Experiment 1 shows that after 74 hours of contact time, alkalinity (meq) increases and CO2 (M) concentration decreases, would result to pH increase or turn the aqueous solution more basic). The claimed deacidification capacity of 1-100 mol H+ per kg, corresponds to the magnitude of acidity neutralization achievable from known proton-consuming silicate dissolution reactions. The claimed range reflects optimization of result-effective variable affecting reaction extent, thereby render this claimed limitation obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In regard to claim 41, Fram discloses measurable reduction of chlorine concentration resulting from interaction between chlorinated water and basalt mineral (p. 11, Experimental Results, Fig. 5, column 3 and 4, all rows, where Final Cl (mg/L) and Initial Cl (mg/L) shows reduced chlorine concentration after contact with basalt mineral: water ratio in column 2) but does not quantify uptake capacity per unit mass. Chlorine removal depends on mineral composition, reactive Fe2+ content, and surface area of particles affecting reaction extent (Fram, p. 15, left column, lines 5-13). Selecting a desired uptake capacity represents optimization of a result-effective variable affecting reaction extent. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In regard to claim 50, Fram dissolution experiments employs rock:water ratio, typically within 0.1-0.90 g/ml (p. 13, Experimental Results, Table 7, column 2, rock: water mass ratio), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.0001-10 g/ml. Because the prior art ratio overlaps the claimed range, the limitation is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In regard to claim 54, Fram discloses chlorine removal using mineral media rather than activated carbon (p. 13, Experimental Results, Table 7 illustrates the final from initial chlorine (mg/L) removal indicate use of basalt mineral and not by activated carbon).
In regard to claim 55, Fram discloses aqueous chlorine species HOCl and OCl- present in chlorinated water systems (p. 15, left column, lines 10-11).
In regard to claim 56, Johnson discloses dissolution reactions conducted under acidic conditions approximately 3-6 (p. 102, Fig. 5A, dissolution rate of mineral olivine as a function of pH) overlapping the claimed pH <5 limitation.
In regard to claim 58, as set forth above, in light of the teachings of Fram in view of Johnson, it would be expected that the basalt mineral containing olivine phases would deacidify acidic aqueous solution as taught by Johnson, would predictably produce a dechlorinated aqueous solution having increased pH toward neutral-to-alkaline conditions corresponding to claimed invention, thereby render this claim obvious.
In regard to claim 59, Fram disclosed measured aqueous pH values greater than 4 following mineral-water interactions (p. 13, Experimental Methods, Table 7, column 6), overlapping the claimed pH limitation of greater than 4. Because the prior art overlaps the claimed pH range the limitation is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In regard to claim 61, Fram disclosed reduction of free chlorine concentration following contact between chlorinated water and basalt mineral (p. 13, Experimental Methods, Table 7, column 3 and 4, showing free chlorine reduction from initial to final concentration of Cl (mg/L)). Chlorinated aqueous system operate within ppm concentrations ranges below 100 ppm. Because Fram discloses reduction of chlorine concentration within the ppm levels below the claimed threshold, this limitation is met.
Claims 11 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fram in view of Johnson, and further in view of Foley et. al., (Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology (2011) 162:1-20), hereinafter as “Foley”).
In regard to claim 11, Fram and Johnson fail to disclose Mn or Ni species recited in the claim limitation.
Foley teaches trace elements composition of olivine rock samples (Abstract, p. 1)
Foley discloses composition of Mn and Ni of olivine mineral (p. 6, Table 2, column 1 showing trace elements composition of olivine rock samples).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mn-and Ni-substituted olivine of Foley into the olivine mineral composition of Johnson used in the aqueous dechlorination treatment environment using basalt mineral of Fram, to introduce additional redox-active transition metal species within the silicate olivine structure. The presence of additional transition metal species other than Fe (iron) would have been expected to increase electron transfer pathways for reducing free chlorine species, thereby improving the dechlorination function of the reductive mineral composition recited in claim 1.
In regard to claim 31, Johnson discloses olivine having formula (Mg1.84, Fe0.16SiO4, p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses, second paragraph, line 2). Johnson does not expressly disclose multi-element substituted olivine composition recited in claim 31.
Foley discloses trace elemental composition ranges (p. 4, Table 1, pp. 3-4) of the recited claim, including Mn, Al, Ti, Ca, Cr, Ni and CO with composition at the order of approximately 10-5 to 10-2 (p. 4, Table 1, composition of elements in olivine ugandite sample). Claim 31 recites elemental coefficients within the same order of magnitude of approximately 10-5 to 10-2. Because the claimed compositional ranges overlap the magnitude of trace elements’ composition disclosed in Foley, the claimed elemental composition is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights