Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 1/23/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1 and 6-9 have been amended. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of amendment the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that MAGNOTTA prefers the use of OWL(S) instead of substituting for NaOH.
MAGNOTTA explains that oxidized white liquor is used as a source for alkali ([col. 1 lines 36-40]) and states that its use reduces the need for fresh alkali [col. 6 lines 59-61].
Applicant argues that the white liquor oxidation of MAGNOTTA oxidizes all of the Na2S and therefore there is no NaOH left.
MAGNOTTA does oxidized substantially all of the Na2S to Na2SO4. The NaOH present in the white liquor is from NaOH dissolved therein and the disassociation of Na2S into NaHS and NaOH. Oxidation of Na2S only decreases the second part of NaOH contributed by Na2S. That is the explicit purpose of white liquor oxidation (the very same thing the applicant is doing in their invention). It is clear that there is alkali (NaOH) because MAGNOTTA explicitly states that the oxidized white liquor is used to replace alkali. Table 5 shows that fully oxidized white liquor comprises NaOH [Table 5].
PNG
media_image1.png
170
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-4 and 6-10 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.
In claim 1, the applicant added the following amendment:
PNG
media_image2.png
162
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As written, this seems to suggest that NPE are purged from the recovery boiler by purging alkaline wash filtrate. The alkaline wash filtrate does not exist once it has reached the recovery boiler. Any filtrates to the recovery boiler have been concentrated by evaporation and then combusted in the recovery boiler. The recovery boiler can only purge NPEs in 2 ways through the stack with gases and fumes and with the smelt. The applicant’s drawing shows that the recovery boiler purging via 7.2 (a recovery boiler (F) in the Kraft chemical recovery process (C)
of the Kraft pulp process.) is different than the purge of 7.1 (by purging the
filtrates from washing steps after the bleaching stages(I) and/or alkaline extraction stages to a Wastewater Treatment Plant) [Figure 1]. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets the recovery boiler purge to be separate from the alkaline wash filtrate.
The claims dependent from claim 1 are similarly rejected.
The applicant amended claim 1 but didn’t carryover the conventions to claim 10. Claim 10 should be amended as follows to have proper antecedent basis “The process of claim 1, wherein up to 100% of the alkaline wash filtrateobtained from washing steps after the bleaching
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 5,382,322 MAGNOTTA et al., hereinafter MAGNOTTA, in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claims 1 and 10, MAGNOTTA discloses making totally oxidized white liquor (referred to as OWL(s) in MAGNOTTA [col. 1 lines 51-59]) for use in a kraft pulp mill bleaching plant [abstract]. MAGNOTTA uses totally oxidized white liquor in the bleach plant and alkali extraction [Table 6] (Feeding the fully oxidized white liquor to the bleaching stages and/or the delignification stages and/or the alkaline extraction stages in the fiberline of the Kraft pulp process;). MAGNOTTA explains that oxidized white liquor is used as a source for alkali ([col. 1 lines 36-40]) and states that its use reduces (substitute) the need for fresh alkali [col. 6 lines 59-61]. MAGNOTTA uses 78.8 gpm of total oxidized white liquor white is 17.8 m3/h totally oxidized white liquor which falls within the claimed range [Table 6] (Oxidizing between 1 and 100 m3/h of white liquor from a recovery line of the Kraft pulp process with oxygen in at least one oxidation reactor to produce fully oxidized white liquor comprising NaOH suitable to substitute purchased NaOH used in delignification stages, alkaline extraction stages, or bleaching stages in the fiberline of the kraft pulp process;). MAGNOTTA discloses that after the bleaching stages there are washing stages [Figure 9]. MAGNOTTA discloses that the waste water from the bleaching stages is purged out of a waste liquor steam (59) [Figure 9] (Purging non-process elements by purging filtrates from washing steps after the bleaching stages and/or alkaline extraction stages to a Wastewater Treatment Plant;). MAGNOTTA discloses that after the oxygen delignification stage (205) there is washing (209) and the filtrates (29) go to evaporation (223) [Figure 9] (Feeding the alkaline wash filtrate obtained in the washing steps after the delignification stages to the evaporation plant in the revover line of the Kraft pulp process;).
MAGNOTTA discloses purging the filtrates from bleaching an alkali extraction but does not specifically disclose that they go to a waste water treatment plant (to a Wastewater Treatment Plant;).
SMOOK discloses that bleach plant filtrates are sources of various types of pollution and should undergo pollution abatement is a waste water treatment plant [pg. 381 col. 2 section 26.2]. SMOOK discloses that acidic and alkaline effluents from a bleach plant comprise the most amount of color and BOD (biological oxygen demand) [pg. 382]. SMOOK discloses treatment including primary and secondary treatment [pg. 384 col.1 and pg. 386 col. 1-2]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to treat the bleach plant effluents MAGNOTTA in a waste water treatment plant as suggested by SMOOK. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the U.S. federal government requires monitoring and control of pollution released from a pulp mill as discussed in SMOOK [pg. 382 col. 2 and pg. 383 Table 26-5].
MAGNOTTA discloses a recovery boiler (225) and green liquor production (227) [Figure 9]. MAGNOTTA does not disclose any specific purging of NPE (wherein the recovery line of the Kraft pulping process includes a recovery boiler from which the non-process elements are allowed to be purged). SMOOK discloses that in the production of green liquor insoluble are removed [pg. 150] called dregs. These dregs are NPE’s in white liquor including iron. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known green liquor clarification step of SMOOK to the green liquor production process of MAGNOTTA. The process would be improved by allowing for the removal of dregs from the circular process (which otherwise would build up). Further, SMOOK suggests that green liquor quality effects the degree of causticization which makes white liquor [pg. 152 col. 2]. Therefore the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to improve white liquor production. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as this is a known process for green liquor production in a kraft mill. The Examiner also notes that SMOOK suggests that recovery boiler produce fume which is captured in a ESP. An ESP is not 100% effective therefore some fume containing NPEs (NaCl) will be allowed to be purged out the recovery boiler stack [pg. 93 Table 27-1]. Further, it is allowable for the collected ESP dust to be purged.
The claim limitation of feeding up to 100% of effluents from alkaline filtrate to an evaporation plant is optional because up to 100% includes 0% (Feeding up to 100% of an alkaline wash filtrate obtained in the washing steps after the bleaching and/or alkaline extraction stages to an evaporation plant). Therefore MAGNOTTA alone meets this limitation. This interpretation is supported by instant claim 10 which states 100% of filtrates from the bleaching stages are sent to the evaporation plant.
As for claim 2, MAGNOTTA discloses that oxygen should be charged at an amount of about 2-2.6 * the sulfide present for full conversion [col. 13 lines 19-21]. MAGNOTTA discloses 30 g/L Na2S a stochiometric ratio would require 2 moles diatomic oxygen per mol Na2S.
The stochiometric amount of oxygen required is therefore 30 g Na2S/L * (mol Na2S/ 78 grams Na2S) * (2 moles O2/ mol Na2S) * (32 grams O2/mol O2) = 24.6 grams O2/l white liquor
24.6 grams O2/l white liquor = 24.6 kg O2/m3 white liquor which falls within the claimed range.
2 * 24.6 kg O2/m3 white liquor = 49.2 kg O2/m3 white liquor which falls within the claimed range.
2.6 * 24.6 kg O2/m3 white liquor = 64kg O2/m3 white liquor which falls slightly outside the claimed range. Therefore MAGNOTTA discloses an overlapping range.
As for claim 3 and 4, MAGNOTTA discloses that the white liquor oxidation used high purity oxygen gas with at least 80% by volume oxygen [col. 6 lines 55-58]
As for claims 6-9, MAGONTTA discloses operating at 100-200 psig which is 6.9-13.8 bar(g) [col. 15 lines 10-12] which falls within the claimed range and 300 to 380 degrees F which is 149 to 193 degrees C [col. 15 lines 17-18] which falls within the instant claimed range. MAGNOTTA discloses that at 200 psig the residence time is 26 minutes [col. 15 lines 1-20] and 3 times longer (78 minutes) at 150 psig [col. 15 lines 4-6therefore overlapping with the instant claimed range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748