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 .
Drawings
The 3/20/24 drawings are provisionally accepted. Due to their complexity and/or numerosity, applicant’s assistance is requested to ensure that all component labels therein are correctly identified in the specification and vice versa. 37 CFR 1.3 (courtesy 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “reacting a gas comprising sulfur dioxide with aqueous alkali carboxylate to form aqueous alkali sulfite, aqueous carboxylic acid, and a gas comprising carboxylic acid; and then absorbing at least a portion of said gas in an aqueous alkali carboxylate lean solution to form an aqueous alkali carboxylate[.]” (emphases supplied) It is unclear which gas “said gas” refers to, which causes confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof (MPEP 2173.02), rendering claim 1 rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. While “said gas” is considered to refer to “a gas comprising sulfur dioxide” for prior art purposes, as the “reacting” step appears to be the claimed method’s 2nd step (notwithstanding the fact that it is described first), whereas the “absorbing” step appears to be the method’s 1st step, this rejection nevertheless needs addressing.
Applicant is hereby advised that, as independent claim 1 is rejected for deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b)/2nd par., all claims depending therefrom also contain such deficiencies and are likewise rejected (unless the deficiencies are resolved by the dependent claim’s own limitations) - cure thereof is required for any and all claims affected even if any such claim were otherwise found allowable. See, e.g., In re Jolly, 172 F.2d 566, 567 (CCPA 1949) (holding that dependent claims of indefinite claims are thusly indefinite), and Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1702-04 (BPAI 1989) (same); 35 USC 112(d)/4th par.
Claim 1 recites “absorbing at least a portion of said gas in an aqueous alkali carboxylate lean solution to form an aqueous alkali carboxylate”, but does not define/specify the alkali cation source therein. As such, it is unclear how an aq. alkali carboxylate can be formed from an aq. alkali carboxylate lean solution without any alkali input thereinto (i.e. the law of conservation of matter appears unfulfilled); this causes confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof (MPEP 2173.02), rendering claim 1 further rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par.
Claim 1 recites “absorbing at least a portion of said gas in an aqueous alkali carboxylate lean solution to form an aqueous alkali carboxylate”, but does not define/specify what will meet or infringe “lean”. The foregoing creates confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof (MPEP 2173.02 & 2173.05(b)), rendering claim 1 further rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. While the term “lean” is interpreted via the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (MPEP 2111.03) as meaning <100% or less than saturated, this rejection nevertheless needs addressing.
Claim 8 recites “a cation of… ammonia (NH3).” However, ammonium (NH4+1), not the neutral molecule ammonia (NH3), is a cation. The foregoing presents an internal contradiction and/or inconsistency, rendering claim 8 rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. See Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that an internally contradictive/inconsistent claim is indefinite and thus properly rejected as such under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par.), and Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Columbia v. Symantec).
Claims 15-16 recite “said separating” and respectively depend from claims 11-12, but claims 11-12 do not recite “separating”. Claims 15-16 are thus rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. because their quoted recitation lacks sufficient antecedent bases. While claims 15-16 have respectively been interpreted for prior art purposes as instead depending from claims 13-14, which would obviate these rejections, the rejections nevertheless need addressing.
Claim 20 recites “reacting a gas comprising sulfur dioxide with aqueous alkali carboxylate to form aqueous alkali sulfite, aqueous carboxylic acid, and a gas comprising carboxylic acid; and then absorbing at least a portion of said gas in an aqueous alkali carboxylate solution lean in ‘free’ carboxylic acid to form an aqueous alkali carboxylate rich in ‘free’ carboxylic acid[.]” (emphases supplied) It is unclear which gas “said gas” refers to, which causes confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof (MPEP 2173.02), rendering claim 20 rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. While “said gas” is considered to refer to “a gas comprising sulfur dioxide” for prior art purposes1, as absorbing an SO2-comprising gas into the aqueous alkali carboxylate solution lean in ‘free’ carboxylic acid would form an aqueous alkali carboxylate rich in ‘free’ carboxylic acid (as well as alkali sulfite), this rejection nevertheless needs addressing.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE3525051C2 (1990) (incl. English machine transl’n - “EMT”) (“’051”). Regarding claim 20 (interpreted as detailed above), ‘051 discloses a method comprising reacting an SO2-comprising mixed gas with aq. CHOONa, which reacts therewith to give aq. Na2SO3, aq. CHOOH, and liberated (i.e. gaseous) CHOOH. See ‘051 at, e.g., EMT boxed area.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if amended to overcome the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. rejections. Regarding independent claim 1 (interpreted as detailed above), the most pertinent prior art of record appears to be ’051, whose disclosures are detailed above. However, ‘051 does not absorb its SO2-comprising gas into an aq. alkali carboxylate-lean solution to give an aq. alkali carboxylate; its SO2-comprising gas is absorbed into aq. CHOONa. Even if ‘051’s aq. CHOONa were considered “lean” as claimed, the absorption of SO2 thereinto would consume aq. alkali carboxylate (i.e. CHOONa, thus forming CHOOH and Na2SO3), not form it as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is (469)295-9161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central). 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (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 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.
/DANIEL BERNS/ March 6, 2026
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1736
1 It is noted that the “reacting” and “absorbing” steps appear to describe either i) two different aspects of the same step, or ii) two steps that occur simultaneously. No functional difference between i) and ii) is apparent.