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 .
The traverse is noted. The argument that ‘the Office Action does not rely on any art that teaches or suggests the common feature’ is untrue. It is predicated upon the references cited by the foreign office that are said to do exactly that. In so far as the foreign office is wrong, references are provided herein. An apparatus is not limited to the intended process and may be used to make calcium carbonate. The restriction is maintained and made FINAL.
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 6-7 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 6 and 7 contradict claim 1, in so far as claim 1 implies a pure source of NaOH. Clarification is requested.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT/KR2022/001991.
Lee 20230271129 is taken as an equivalent.
Lee teaches mixing water and alkali and contacting with CO2 source 120 to make bicarbonate (para 18); see the figure and para 50. Note control unit 161; para 57. NaOH is taught in para 14.
Lee differs in not teaching a ‘sparger’ per se, however it is obvious to use one to create the flow of materials required. Choosing to make bicarbonate isa obvious to capture the CO2.
For claim 2, the controller controls all of them.
For claim 3, a flow meter is taught.
For claims 4 and 5, see element 132, noting that the water must come from somewhere and the claim reads upon the municipal water supply carried by pipes. In so far as municipal water is used, claim 5 is obvious as a measure taken by the supplier to avoid fouling of the pipes. In any event, it is obvious to remove Mg and ca to avoid interfering reactions.
For claim 6, see element 131.
For claim 7, the base strength is suggested in para 13, and is obvious to attain the desired results.
Claim 8 does not actually require liquid CO2. See element 120. Using captured CO2 that has been liquified is obvious for efficient transport of a large amount of material, see para 19.
For claims 9-12, a pH meter is connected to the reaction tank.
For claim 13, see para 32.
State of the art:
Lin 202000391157 Paras 10-14
Lopez 20230322568
Matsuura et al. 20230242410
Keith et al. 20100034724.
Zommer 20100307912, especially in fig. 2, paras 6, 31, 38 and 42.
Artur et al. 4032616, especially in Fig. 1, example 3.
Hill 2792283.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights