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 Election/Restrictions
This is the response to election/restriction filed 03/26/2026 for application 18/673687.
Claims 1-24 and 31-36 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 25-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because
--the groups have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the groups require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries)
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 25-30 have also been cancelled.
Claims 31-36 have been added.
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 7-9 and 20 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 9 is dependent on claim 7.
Claims 9 and 20 teach controlling a pulsing air flow characteristic of the pulsating gas and an air flow characteristic respectively.
It is unclear the scope of the claims in regards to the gas. It is unclear if the gas is meant to comprise air or if air flow is meant to refer to gas flow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 12-14, 17-19, 23, 31, and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCEATS et al. (WO 2007045050) in view of SCEATS (WO 2016077863).
SCEATS et al. is referring to WO 2007045050.
SCEATS is referring to WO 2016077863.
Regarding claim 1, SCEATS et al. teach a method for fabricating a material compound through calcination.
SCEATS teaches a method of calcinating materials.
SCEATS is relied on to teach modifying the method of SCEATS et al.
Both SCEATS et al. and SCEATS teach producing a solid powder, preheating the solid powder, calcining the solid powder, and then cooling the product. The examples used employ MgCO3.
SCEATS teaches in paragraph 27, that the setup may be applied to other processes including those with a reducing atmosphere.
SCEATS et al. teach an apparatus in Fig 6.
SCEATS et al. teach the method associated with the apparatus in pp 30-
Feedstock 612 is fed into a retort 610 (the retort is considered in the reduction zone) by a rotary feeder 620 through a throat 622 (entrance).
Superheated steam is fed through multiple points in the retort 610, including an injector 626 at the base of the retort. Gases comprising superheated steam and carbon dioxide are exhausted from the retort.
The feedstock 512 is preheated by exhaust gases 613 from the retort 610 via a heat exchanger 618. (recuperation zone)
The feedstock is calcined in retort calciner 610 and a calcined feedstock exits the bottom of the retort 610.
The heat energy for the calciner is taught on page 30 to be provided from an external source.
SCEATS et al. further teach a cooling segment in the form of a heat exchanger 700 (quenching zone) for cooling hot calcined granules from the calciner. Calcined feedstock passes from the bottom of a calciner.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the heat exchanged from cooling the calcined feedstock for partially heating the superheated steam.
It would be obvious to flow the steam that is intended to be superheated through the heat exchanger 700 given that SCEATS et al. teach that walls 706 of the heat exchanger 700 could be used to pass the heat efficiently to feedstock granules in a riser section.
Passing the steam intended to be superheated would be an obvious alternative to a rising feedstock with a carrier gas given that the apparatus that SCEATS et al. teach also teach a heat exchanger 618 at the top of the retort that exchanges heat to the feedstock from a rising exhaust gas.
SCHEATS furthermore recognizes in paragraph 21 that heat recuperation reduce heat consumption and may therefore reduce CO2 emissions.
Calcination is a process that removes CO2 from the solid feedstock. (moving oxygen in the form of CO2 from the solid feedstock to the gases in the form of exhaust gases as well as converting the solid feedstock into oxygen depleted)
Passing a product to be collected in a collection area after quenching would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, SCEATS et al. teach on page 30 that the feedstock may be in the form of grinded solid particles.
Regarding claim 31, 12, and 23, SCEATS et al. teach on page 30 that the heat energy for the calcination may be provided by an external source and in one embodiment, a coiled heat exchange pipe may be placed around the retort section for transferring heat.
SCEATS teach in paragraphs 21 and 57 a furnace may also be used to produce heat energy for calcination.
The retort section and the furnace may both be grouped together to be in the reduction zone. Employing known forms of energy or power such as solar energy for a furnace to produce the heat for the retort section in the calcination step would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, SCEATS et al. teach on page 30 that the heat energy for the calcination may be provided by an external source and in one embodiment, a coiled heat exchange pipe may be placed around the retort section for transferring heat.
SCEATS teach in paragraphs 21 and 57 that electric power for a furnace may also be used to produce heat energy for calcination. Hydroelectric power is recognized in paragraph 9 of SCEATS.
Employing known forms of energy or power to a furnace to produce the heat for the retort section in the calcination step and grouping the retort section and furnace as the reduction zone are both obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, and 17 and 33, the feedstock 612 is taught on page 30 to be preheated as close to the calcination temperature as possible. The exhaust gases that exit would be expected to drop to room temperature when transferring all to substantially all the heat to the feedstock 612.
SCHEATS teaches in paragraph 52 a design for calcination wherein the temperature exceeds 1200 C.
Regarding claims 5, 18, and 34. the calcinated feedstock is taught on page 31 to be cooled and quenched by heat exchanger 700 and exchanged with feedstock in a carrier gas (modified to be steam to be superheated) in the rising section has a higher heat capacity.
The cooled and quenched calcinated feedstock would be expected to drop to room temperature after all to substantially all the heat has been transferred.
The solid feedstock in SCHEATS et al. is taught to flow downward from the throat and the superheated steam may be introduced in the heat exchanger 700 and rise through to the throat to exchange heat with the solid feedstock.
Regarding claim 6, 19, and 35, SCHEATS teaches in paragraph 27 that other processes may be employed to produce other products.
There is no reason to believe that the products produced from calcination would lose energy when stored for a period of 2 months at room temperature.
Regarding claim 20, maintain the reaction at optimal or workable conditions would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It has also established that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 10-11, 15-16, 21-22, 24, 32, and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art references do not suggest further oxidation nor teach with sufficient specificity the feedstock of magnesium manganese oxide or magnesium iron oxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights