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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please insert a section “Cross-Reference to Related Applications” to cite the parent foreign application TW112138073.
In paragraph [0004], please delete the phrase at the end of the paragraph, “fluoride-containingfluoride-containingFIG. 1 FIG. 1”.
In paragraph [0007], the phrase “fluoride-containingan advanced defluorination agent” in the first sentence is improper.
In Table 4, the results for Comparative example 5 and 6 appear to be missing.
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 2-10 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 2 recites the limitation “the polymerized aluminum sulfate” on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “polyaluminum sulfate” on line 3. It is not clear if this limitation is the same limitation as “polyaluminum sulfate” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “hydroxyapatite” on line 4. It is not clear if this limitation is the same limitation as “hydroxyapatite” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “deionized water” on line 7. It is not clear if this limitation is the same limitation as “deionized water” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “isdefluoridation efficiency90.4-99.7%” on line 3 . It is not clear what this limitation is intending to state, and is grammatically improper. Examiner interprets this limitation to read “is 90.4-99.7%”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a reduction ratio of a conductivity…ranges from 38.3-57%”. It is not clear based on the units provided what the conductivity is measured with and expected to be changed or reduced to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “for removing fluoride ions in fluoride-containing wastewater” in the preamble and imports the limitations from Claim 1 into this claim later. However, Claim 1 already recites “fluoride ions” and “fluoride-containing wastewater”, making it unclear if the two instances of each limitation in Claim 8 are the same as each other, or different altogether. Examiner suggests deleting this portion of the preamble instead.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “deionized water” on line 4. It is not clear if this “deionized water” that the advanced defluoridation agent is dissolved in is the same as the “deionized water” already recited in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets them to be different, and suggests making this clear if so.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the pH-adjusted fluoride-containing wastewater”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, and Examiner suggests rewriting this limitation to read “the fluoride-containing wastewater that is pH-adjusted”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the stirring” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner suggests rewriting to read “the stirring time”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the chloride ions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6 & 7 recite the limitation “An advanced defluoridation agent according to claim 1”, but Claim 5 recites “The advanced defluoridation agent”. The Examiner suggests rewriting “An advanced defluoridation agent” to read “The advanced defluoridation agent” for consistency, as it becomes unclear what the distinction is between these versions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over dependent claims 5, 6, 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/905,017, (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 5 and 6 (or Claims 9 & 10) of Application No. 18/905,017 each respectively claim the same language as Claims 1 & 3 of the current application, in addition to the independent claims from which the co-pending application’s claims depend.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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, 2, 5, 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al., CN110054275A, (“Machine Translation of CN110054275A”, published 2019, 31 total pages), in view of Li et al., CN113526639A, (“Machine Translation of CN113526639A”, published 2021, 44 total pages), as further evidenced by “Polyaluminum Sulfate”, (Polyaluminum Sulfate, https://ah-rico.com/polyaluminum-sulfate/, RICO industroChem, 6 total pages).
Regarding Claims 1, 2 & 5, Shi discloses an advanced defluorination agent for removing fluoride ions in fluorine-containing wastewater, (See paragraph [0012]), comprising: polyaluminum sulfate, (See paragraph [0025], polyaluminum sulfate), 0.3-30wt% of apatite, (See paragraph [0014]; anticipates the claimed range at 2.9wt%), and deionized water supplemented to 100wt%, (See paragraph [0018]; adding deionized water to the overall composition inherently achieves 100wt% of the overall composition).
Shi does not disclose the polyaluminum sulfate at 40-70wt%, or that the apatite is hydroxyapatite.
Li discloses 40-70wt% of the polyaluminum sulfate, (See paragraph [n0008] & [n0005]-[n0007]; polyaluminum sulfate can be selected as the source of choice; and See paragraph [n0029]; the range can be specifically 30-60 wt% anticipating the claimed range from 40-60 wt%), and that the apatite is hydroxyapatite, (See paragraph [n0018] & [n0033], Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the advanced defluorination agent of Shi by incorporating the polyaluminum sulfate at 40-70wt% and that the apatite is hydroxyapatite as in Li in order to use “the combined action of aluminum source” so that “the fluoride generated by fluoride ions in fluoride-containing wastewater can be rapidly grown and precipitated in the form of precipitated flocs, effectively shortening the precipitation time of fluoride ions, and achieving a fluoride ion removal rate of >99%”, (See paragraph [n0024], Li), and “provide hydroxyapatite [that] has advantages such as low operating cost, high defluorination efficiency, high adsorption capacity, and no leaching of harmful ions, and is suitable for defluorination needs of different water qualities”, (See paragraph [n0033], Li).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: An advanced defluoridation agent according to claim 1, wherein an alumina content of the polymerized aluminum sulfate is 15-20wt%, (as evidenced by Polyaluminum Sulfate on pages 2 & 6, “Solid product” of alumina (Al2O3) is 16%, anticipating the claimed range at this value).
Claim 5: The advanced defluorination agent according to claim 1, wherein a defluoridation efficiency of the advanced defluoridation agent isdefluoridation efficiency90.4-99.7%, (See paragraph [n0024], Li; anticipates claimed range from 99 to 99.7 based on this passage).
Regarding Claims 8 & 9, modified Shi discloses a method for removing fluoride ions in fluoride-containing wastewater, comprising: dissolving the advanced defluoridation agent of claim 1 in deionized water, (See paragraph [0018], Shi), wherein a mixing ratio of the advanced defluoridation agent and the deionized water is 1:5~50 to prepare an advanced defluoridation agent solution having a concentration of 5%~50% by weight, (See paragraph [0018], Shi, anticpates the claimed range from 10 to 20%); adjusting the fluoride-containing wastewater with liquid caustic soda to a pH value of 6-8, (See paragraph [0019]; Shi; sodium hydroxide and anticipates pH range from 7.5 to 8, and See paragraph [n0038], Li); and adding the advanced defluoridation agent solution to the pH-adjusted fluoride-containing wastewater and stir to react, (See paragraphs [0019] & [0020], Shi).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 9: The method according to claim 8, wherein a stirring time is 5-15 minutes, (See paragraphs [0019] & [0020], Shi; anticipates the claimed range at 15 minutes), and a defluoridation efficiency of the advanced defluoridation agent is 89.3-99.7% after the stirring, (See paragraph [n0024], Li; anticipates claimed range from 99 to 99.7 based on this passage).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of either dependent Claim 3 and Claim 7 or 10 are considered allowable based on a review of the relevant prior art in the appropriate field of endeavor. The closest prior art such as Shi et al., CN110054275A, (“Machine Translation of CN110054275A”, published 2019, 31 total pages), and Li et al., CN113526639A, (“Machine Translation of CN113526639A”, published 2021, 44 total pages), do not suggest the further details of the claimed composition of Claim 3, or also being directed to removing chloride ions in the ratios claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights