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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “are include” in line 4 should be “include”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qin et al (CN-105502462 where citations are from the Machine Translation provided by the Office).
Regarding claim 7, Qin teaches a calcium carbonate production device comprising:
a container configured to prevent carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere;
a slurry supply section that supplies a slurry including calcium hydroxide into the container;
a carbon dioxide supply second that supplies carbon dioxide into the slurry including the calcium hydroxide that has been supplied into the container;
where the carbon dioxide supply section supplies fine bubbles including the carbon dioxide from a fine bubble generator that is provided with a porous section have micropores (see Abstract, Page 3, and Figure 1).
Qin teaches that flow rate of the carbon dioxide gas condition is controllable. Qin does not specifically teach where the flow rate of the carbon dioxide is 40 to 2500 ml/min per 1 mol of the calcium hydroxide.
However, one of ordinary kill in the art would recognize that a flow rate of the carbon dioxide per 1 mol of the calcium hydroxide is either merely a recitation of intended use or functional language. In so far as the limitation is functional language, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Qin teaches all of the structural elements capable of producing a flow rate of 40 to 2500 ml/min per 1 mol of calcium hydroxide. Thus, Qin teaches an apparatus comprising all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Qin teaches a container having a sealed configuration preventing carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere (see Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin and in further view of Oishi et al (JP 2018039696 submitted in the IDS filed 4/19/2024 where citations are from the equivalent US-2021/0276878).
Qin teaches a method for preparing nanometer calcium carbonate, the method comprising:
generating micron-sized carbon dioxide bubble by passing a carbon dioxide gas though the pipe wall of a microporous pipe;
high-speed flowing through a calcium hydroxide suspension in a venturi tube section of a reaction tube wherein nanometer calcium carbonate is generating in a carbonization reaction; and
the venturi tube and reaction tube is closed from the atmosphere (see Pages 3-4 and Figure 1).
Qin discloses a method where the microporous pipe fully disperses the carbon dioxide gas to fully mix with the calcium hydroxide suspension and make the flow rate and pressure of the carbon dioxide controllable so as to improve production rate of nano calcium carbonate (see Page 3, Invention contents).
Qin does not teach a method comprising preparing a slurry including calcium hydroxide. Qin also does not teach a method where the flow rate of the carbon dioxide is 40 to 2500 mL/min per 1 mol of calcium hydroxide.
Oishi teaches a method for efficiently producing fine inorganic carbonate comprising:
Preparing a slurry including calcium hydroxide (mixing slaked lime with water to prepare an aqueous suspension containing slaked lime);
Generating ultra fine bubbles including carbon dioxide using a fine hole method;
supplying the carbon dioxide into the slurry to precipitate calcium carbonate; wherein
the carbon dioxide gas of the flow volume is preferably 100-10000 L / hour per kg of slaked lime (13.49 mol, since the molar mass of slaked lime is 74.09 g/mol) and the flow rate is therefore 123.5 to 12,350 ml/min per mol of calcium hydroxide (see [0051-0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Qin comprising a step for preparing a slurry of calcium hydroxide as taught by Oishi since Qin also uses a suspension of calcium hydroxide to efficiently produce the calcium carbonate.
Regarding a flow rate of CO2 per 1 mol of calcium hydroxide, as noted above Oishi teaches a preferable range of 123.5 to 12,350 ml/min per 1 mol of calcium hydroxide produces a calcium carbonate from ultrafine bubbles. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.Cir. 1990). It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Qin where the introduction of CO2 to the calcium hydroxide slurry is in any workable or optimum range overlapping as taught by Oishi since Oishi teaches a process efficiently forming calcium carbonate from bubbles of CO2.
Regarding claim 2, Oishi teaches a method where the solid content concentration of the slaked lime slurry is 30 % by weight or less and is preferably 0.1 % by weight or more from the view of reaction efficiency (i.e., about 0.0135 to 4.8 M). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as suggested by Qin and Oishi where the concentration of the slaked lime slurry is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with 0.0135 M to 4.8 M including the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Qin discloses a microporous pipe hole diameter is 5 to 80 microns (see Page 4, ¶9-10).
Regarding claim 4, Qin discloses a sealed reaction tube (See Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Qin discloses a method where the pressure of the carbon dioxide is from 0.1 to 0.3 MPa and where the pressure has a great influence on the reaction rate and utilization rate (see Page 5, ¶8-9). One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the pressure in the sealed container would necessarily be equal to or less than the carbon dioxide since the carbon dioxide must enter the sealed container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the process as suggested by Qin and Oishi where the pressure in the sealed container is in any range overlapping with 0.1 to 0.3 MPa, as taught by Qin, including the claimed range to improve the reaction rate and utilization rate.
Regarding claim 6, Oishi teaches a method comprising ultrafine bubbles have an average particle size of 1000 nm or less (see [0060]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin as applied to claim 7 and in further view of Oishi.
As applied to claim 7, Qin teaches an apparatus comprising all of the structural limitations of the apparatus according to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Qin does not teach the fine bubble generator providing fine bubbles having a diameter of 100 µm or less and include at least ultrafine bubbles having a diameter of less than 1 µm.
Oishi teaches a method comprising ultrafine bubbles have an average particle size of 1000 nm or less and efficiently producing fine particles of calcium carbonate (see [0051] and [0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the apparatus as taught by Qin where the micron-sized bubble generator provides ultrafine bubbles having diameter of 1000 nm or less to efficiently produce fine particles of calcium carbonate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights