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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted on 01 April 2024 has been entered. After entry, claims 1-6 and 8 are currently pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no support seen in the specification for the limitation of “at least 15% w/w iron compounds and/or at least 0.5% w/w manganese compounds and/or 0.5% w/w phosphorus compounds” which was added into claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase “the manganese-iron suspension has…is sieved” is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6 and 8 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 phrase “at least 15% w/w iron compounds and/or at least 0.5% w/w manganese compounds and/or 0.5% w/w phosphorus compounds” is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite. As the claim states that a manganese-iron suspension is formed from a waste material containing manganese, iron and phosphates it would appear that the composition would have to comprise manganese, iron and phosphorus compounds however the claim recites “and/or” which suggests that not all have to be present. Clarification is requested. The phrase “the obtained sinter” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 2, the phrase “the solids” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 4, the phrase “the firing” lacks proper antecedent basis. The term “preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 5, the phrase “the maximum temperature” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 6, the phrase “the grains” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is vague and indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. The attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a claim drawn to “Use of” is not drawn to a statutory category of invention.
Reference Cited By The Examiner
LUKASHEVICH et al “Iron-Oxide Pigments Obtained from Sewage Sludge: Properties, Structure, Phase Transformation” teaches the formation of a brick red iron oxide pigment from iron-containing sludge from a water treatment plant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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 GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
June 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights