Detailed Office Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. 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In light of amendment the 112(2) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues MAGNOTTA does not disclose that the non-process elements, especially K+ and Cl-, could be purged after alkaline stages
MAGNOTTA already purges 100% of the alkaline extraction stream via purge line (59) [Figure 9]. The reason for purging the streams does not have to be the same as the applicant’s reason. Nor, would MAGNOTTA need to recognize that the purged stream is also purging potassium and chloride. Nevertheless, the purged streams would comprise chlorides as chlorine dioxide is used in the bleaching stages. Further, SMOOK recognizes the recycling bleach plant filtrates causes chloride build-up [see e.g. SMOOK pg. 183 col. 1 last par. – col. 2 first par]; therefore not recycling the filtrates purges chlorides.
Applicant argues that MAGNOTTA does not address purging the filtrate with potassium and chloride ions to a wastewater treatment.
MAGNOTTA does not explicitly say where the purge (59) goes to. The person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a purge bleach plant filtrate stream must go to a wastewater treatment plant (for environmental and legal reasons). For avoidance of doubt MAGNOTTA is combined with SMOOK to explicitly teach this feature.
Applicant argues that at the time of MAGNOTTA there were no problems with the concentration of non-process elements such as potassium and chlorides.
Attorney argument is not a substitute for evidence. Furthermore, the applicant’s attorney argument is categorically wrong. SMOOK (1992 before MAGNOTTA) explicitly states that recycling the alkaline filtrates from bleaching causes a buildup of chlorides [see e.g. SMOOK pg. 183 col. 1 last par. – col. 2 first par.].
The applicant continues to argue that the applicant’s invention specifically lowers potassium and chlorides by their claimed method and SMOOK does not teach this.
The applicant’s claimed method of purging potassium and chloride by purging alkaline/bleaching effluents [instant Figure 1 7.1] is what the pulp mills already do. As shown in MAGNOTTA the alkaline filtrates from bleaching are already purged [Figure 9 (59)]. As explained in SMOOK alkaline and bleach plant filtrates are typically purged and it is only advanced concept closed cycles that alkaline bleach plant effluents are not recycled.
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 1-4 and 6-10 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 recover line of the Kraft pulp process;).
MAGNOTTA discloses purging the filtrates from bleaching and alkali extraction but does not specifically disclose that they go to a waste water treatment plant (wherein the non-process elements are allowed to be purged and discharged to the Wastewater Treatment Plant by purging the alkaline wash filtrate;).
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].
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 in the recovery cycle of the kraft pulp process). 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.
MAGNOTTA discloses the bleaching includes chlorine dioxide to stages (213), (217) and (221) [Figure 9]. The filtrates of these stages and subsequent alkaline stages are those that are being purged. Therefore chloride ions are present and purged from the system (filtrate, resulting in a reduced concentration of the non-process elements in the recovery cycle, wherein the non-process elements include K+ or Cl⁻). It is recognized in the art that not purging wastewater filtrates leads to increased chlorides [see e.g. SMOOK pg. 183 col. 1 last par. – col. 2 first par.]
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
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
Prosecution Insights