DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Calcined was misspelled as "calcineed" in paragraphs 9, 14, 15, 42, 47, 51, and 57.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 7 line 6, "calcineed" should be "calcined".
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.
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 5, 6, and 7 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 5 and 7 recite "analytically pure grade" and "analytically pure" respectively, yet the claim and specification do not indicate what constitutes "analytically pure grade" or "analytically pure" rendering the claim unclear. For purposes of examination, the terms will be interpreted as having a purity higher than 9
Claim 6 and 7 recite "cooled naturally" and "natural cooling" respectively, yet the claim and specification do not indicate what constitutes "cooled naturally" or "natural cooling" rendering the claim unclear. For purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted as cooling through exposure to an open-air environment
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bucci (U.S patent No 5,220,112), hereinafter "Bucci".
Regarding claims 1-3, Bucci teaches a mixture of fly ash and a calcium-containing material that is calcined at 475-800°C (Col 2/lines 60-67) wherein the calcium-containing material can be calcium hydroxide (Col 3/lines 41-43). Bucci further teaches a ratio for the disclosed mixture of between 0.06 to 1.25 grams of calcium-containing material to every gram of fly ash (Col 4/lines 17-20).
With respect to the limitation “for treating acidic mine wastewater with high concentration”, the Examiner submits that these are intended use limitations which are not assigned patentable weight in the composition of matter claim 1. The composition of matter of Bucci is capable of these intended use limitations as the components of the body of claim 1 are met.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucci (U.S patent No 5,220,112) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111097373 B), hereinafter "Zhang". For purposes of examination, Zhang is claim mapped to the provided EPO machine translation.
With respect to claims 4-6, Bucci teaches a mixture of fly ash and a calcium-containing material that is calcined at 475-800°C (Col 2/lines 60-67) wherein the calcium-containing material can be calcium hydroxide (Col 3/lines 41-43).
Bucci also teaches that the added calcium-containing compound can be a pure (Col 3/lines 38-39), calcium hydroxide is mixed with fly ash (Col 6/lines 67-68), and a calcining time of 0.5-5 hours (Col 4/lines 37-38), but does not specifically teach a rate of heating or processing of fly ash.
Zhang teaches an optimized calcination procedure wherein the material is heated to the calcination temperature of 600-1000°C at a rate of 2-10°C per minute (Paragraph 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the optimized calcination procedure disclosed by Zhang with the modified fly ash disclosed by Bucci because, according to Zhang, the optimized calcination procedure improves the material structure to be less prone to breakage and extends the service life (Paragraph 21).
Zhang teaches pretreating fly ash prior to calcining where the fly ash can be obtained from a coal fired power plant (Paragraph 54) and is dried at 105°C, then sieved with a 100-mesh sieve (Paragraph 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the fly ash procurement disclosed by Zhang for the modified fly ash disclosed by Bucci because, according to Zhang, fly ash is widely available, low cost, and able to be obtained from coal fired power plants (Paragraph 17 & 54). It would have also been obvious to pretreat the fly ash according to the method of Zhang because, drying is known to remove volatile/solvent impurities and sieving separates smaller sized particles and according to Bucci, intimate contact is important for reactions with heavy metals (Col 3/lines 48-51) and is promoted by smaller particle sizes (Col 3/lines 64-66).
With respect to the limitations within the body of claims 4-6, the Examiner submits that these contain product-by-process limitations which are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (See MPEP 2113(I)). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product of the instant application is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324).
With respect to the product-by-process limitations within the body of claim 5 “is obtained by collecting recently newly produced fly ash from a coal fired power plant and oven drying at 90 to 110°C, followed by passing through a sieve with 80 to 100 meshes”, the limitations implied from the structure are fly ash that is a burnt byproduct of coal, is dried, and has an equal or lesser diameter than the sizes corresponding of 80 to 100 mesh-sieves.
With respect to the product-by-process limitations within the body of claim 6 “placed in co-rotating drum blender with, mixed for 2-3 h, then calcined at high temperature of 600°C to 800°C, and cooled naturally to room temperature after calcination”, the limitations implied from the structure are fly ash and calcium hydroxide are mixed and heated to 600-800°C. The processes including the co-rotating drum blender and cooled naturally do not have any implied structure in the given disclosure and will not be assigned patentable weight.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucci (U.S patent No 5,220,112) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111097373 B), and further in view of Guo (CN 109095830 A) and Hong-seok et al. (Construction and Building Materials, 2018, 166, 257-270), hereinafter “Guo” and “Hong-seok”. For purposes of examination, Guo is claim mapped to the provided EPO machine translation.
With respect to claims 7-9, Bucci teaches a process of creating modified fly ash from calcining fly ash and a calcium-containing mixture at 475-800°C (Col 2/lines 60-67) and that the calcium-containing material can be calcium hydroxide (Col 3/lines 41-43). Bucci further teaches a ratio for the disclosed mixture of between 0.06 to 1.25 grams of calcium-containing material to every gram of fly ash (Col 4/lines 17-20).
Bucci also teaches that the added calcium-containing compound can be a pure (Col 3/lines 38-39) and that the calcium hydroxide is mixed with fly ash (Col 6/lines 67-68), but does not specifically teach a rate of heating for calcination or processing of fly ash.
Zhang teaches a process of preparing an adsorbent where fly ash is pretreated prior to calcination where the fly ash is dried at 105°C, then sieved with a 100-mesh sieve (Paragraph 81) and the fly ash can be obtained from a coal fired power plant (Paragraph 54).
Zhang does not teach using an oven to dry fly ash or “naturally cooling” for modified fly ash after a high temperature calcination treatment.
Guo teaches pretreating fly ash by drying in an oven at 100-120°C (Paragraph 12). and “naturally cooling” a modified fly ash mixture after heating treating at 700°C (Paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the fly ash procurement disclosed by Zhang for the modified fly ash disclosed by Bucci because, according to Zhang, fly ash is widely available, low cost, and able to be obtained from coal fired power plants (Paragraph 17 & 54). It would have also been obvious to pretreat the fly ash according to the oven drying of Guo and the sieving of Zhang because, drying is known to remove volatile/solvent impurities and sieving separates smaller sized particles and according to Bucci, intimate contact is important for reactions with heavy metals (Col 3/lines 48-51) and is promoted by smaller particle sizes (Col 3/lines 64-66). It would also have been obvious to use “natural cooling” for the calcined fly ash mixture as according to Honk-seok, air-dried cooling in atmosphere is recommended after calcination at 700°C due to the ease and economy of cooling (Page 265/Paragraph 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucci (U.S patent No 5,220,112) in view of Malachosky et al. (U.S patent No 5,645,730), hereinafter "Malachosky".
Regarding claim 10, Bucci teaches a mixture of fly ash and a calcium-containing material that is heat treated at 475-800°C (Col 2/lines 60-67) wherein the calcium-containing material can be calcium hydroxide (Col 3/lines 41-43).
Bucci does not teach the use of the modified fly ash-calcium hydroxide material for acidic mine wastewater treatment as simultaneous removal of iron, manganese, and sulfate ions.
Malachosky teaches a process of chemically neutralizing and treating acidic mine wastewater to simultaneously remove iron, manganese, and sulfate ions (Col 3/Lines 44-60) wherein fly ash can be used as the treating material (Col 4/Lines 4-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the modified fly ash of Bucci to chemically treat acidic mine wastewater according to the method of Malachosky with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, as the modified fly ash has increased stability (Col 4/Lines 1-4) and reactivity with heavy metals (Col 3/Lines 48-51) over regular fly ash.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jack Pecinovsky whose telephone number is (571)272-9027. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JACK WELLIK PECINOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779