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 1-3 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 lines 2-3 are unclear as to the source material. What does ‘hydromineral’ mean?
Lines 4-6 are similarly unclear; ‘mechanical impurities’, ‘field brine’ are also unclear. In line 10, ‘air desorption’ is unclear. Is air being desorbed? If so, from what?
‘column-type … multidirectional screw nozzle’ is unclear in lines 12-13. In lines 14-15, ‘reduced to form NaBr3’ appears intended. See also ‘anchor type’. It is unclear what constitutes a ‘type’. ‘after Stage I desorption’ in line 25 is awkward and unnecessary; it appears that ‘then’ is meant. Perhaps it should be recited earlier in the sequence.
Claim 2 is awkward and unclear as to whether things are being re-recited with more detail or new steps are added (which would be inconsistent with ‘consists’’ in claim 1 line 3).
Claim 3 is unclear as to what density is ‘required’ and why it is necessary. An actual density should be claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
While the claims can be improved for content, organization and readability, they recite numerous specific steps and conditions not taught or suggested in the prior art and are thus allowable. Sanders ‘942, for example, teaches only a small subset of the steps claimed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights