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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 21-38 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “especially air”, but the claim already limits to “air” so this is unnecessary.. Appropriate correction is 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 23, 24, 36, 37 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.
Claims 23 and 24 recites “preferably” which renders the claim indefinite as if it is trying to further limit the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claims are being construed broadly to cover any contaminant level.
Claim 36 recites “preferably having an inner ceramic coating” which is indefinite as to if the rotary kiln requires it. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claim is being construed to just be drawn to a rotary kiln.
Claim 37 recites “preferably” for narrower inclination and rpms so it is indefinite if Applicants intended to claim the narrower aspects covered by “preferably”. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is being construed to cover the broader limitations.
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.
Claims 21-27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 7186395 to Walsdorff et al. (hereinafter, “Walsdorff at __”) with “Humidity” as an evidentiary reference to water vapor being present in air.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 27 and 38, Walsdorff discloses a method for refining a material comprising iron oxide wherein the iron oxide consists essentially of hematite (Walsdorff at 2:54 which states the materialis hematite so it is considered to be at least 90% if not at least 95% hematite) comprising a contaminant of chlorides (Walsdorff at 2:43) wherein the iron oxide is calcined in air (2:16, air naturally contains trace to 4% water vapor as evidenced by “Humidity”), wherein the gas is free of halogen.
As to claim 23, chlorine is present at 50-5000 ppm (2:53-54).
Turning to claim 24, sulfur is listed as an impurity (2:47).
Concerning claims 25 and 26, calcination is performed at 860 to 1000 C (1:63).
With respect to claim 31, the starting Cl concentration is reduced to 200 ppm (2:59) and per “Table 1” the starting is 1400 ppm, 85% reduction would be 210 ppm, with specific examples below that so the claim is considered to be met.
As to claim 32, the BET surface area is 3-5 m2/g (2:55) and ~2 per “Table 1”.
Turning to claim 34, the material is produced by spray roasting HCL picked hematite (1:55-60).
With respect to claim 35, treatment with acid or base is not performed (1:66-2:1).
Regarding claim 36, a rotary kiln can be utilized (2:15-16).
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.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by or in the alternative, unpatentable over Walsdorff as applied to claim 36 above.
Regarding claim 37, Walsdorff discloses that the residence time in the rotary kiln is controlled by the inclination angle of the kiln and the rpm (Walsdorff at 2:14-16) and that the calcining takes 0.5-1.5 hours (1:65-66). The instant specification has a residence time of 0.5-1 hour (Wasldorff at “Instant Example 7” discloses one hour), so the same inclination and rpm as claimed would be expected. To the extent it is not, the inclination and rpm are a result-effective variable which one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to modify to control the residence time in the rotary kiln for calcination which is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsdorff as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of “Chamber studies of the heterogeneous reaction of sulfur dioxide with particulate hematite” to Vanlerberghe.
As to claims 29 and 30, Walsdorff does not expressly state how much water vapor is present in the air.
Vanlerberghe in a method of testing the amount of sulfur dioxide that hematite can absorb discloses maximum discloses that the lowest amount of sulfur dioxide remains when the relative humidity is 80% (Vanlerberghe at “Figure 3.9”) which is a volume percentage of (80/100 * 37e-5/760)*100=2.96 vol% of water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Walsdorff with 2.96 vol% of water vapor. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being maximum removal of sulfur dioxide (as reduction in uptake is akin to maximizing removal capability).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28 and 33 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.
As to claim 28, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination, discloses or reasonably suggests presence of a fuel with the air to remove halogen or sulfur from hematite.
As to claim 33, Walsdorff is the closest piece of prior art and it fails to disclose or suggest how much air is added to determine a gas/material ratio between 0.1 and 10 normal-meters cubed/kg.
Conclusion
Claims 21-27, 29-32 and 34-38 are rejected. Claims 28 and 33 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights