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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed May 21, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are currently pending and are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
The specification and drawing objections have been overcome by the applicant's amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-12 and 15-22 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunce (BUNCE, N. J., et al.; Electrochemical treatment of acidic aqueous ferrous sulfate and copper sulfate as models for acid mine drainage; Water Research; 2001; Vol. 35, No. 18, pg 4410-4416) in view of Carson (U.S. Pat. No. 7,871,508).
PNG
media_image1.png
896
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Bunce discloses an apparatus for treatment of acid mine drainage comprising at least one electrochemical reactor with at least one anode electrode, at least one cathode electrode, a semipermeable membrane for separating at least one anode electrode and at least one cathode electrode (Fig 1 (see above), Bunce), the use of sulfuric acid, and the selective recovery (and collection) of metals (abstract) which includes precipitation of metals within the catholyte reservoir (pg 4412, results and discussion). Bunce also discloses an anolyte reservoir for containing buffer distinct from and in fluid communication with the electrochemical reactor (Fig 1). Bunce teaches a power supply that is controlled (or capable of being controlled) such that a predetermined pH is obtained, as well as different current densities which result in different pHs of the catholyte (Fig 3). Bunce also discloses the sampling of pH using a pH meter/sensor, although in their teaching the sensor is not included in the cathode cell, but rather it is used to monitor the pH of the resultant catholyte electrolyzed by the system.
Bunce does not disclose the use of a catholyte reservoir, nor recirculation within the catholyte system (pg 4412-4413, results and discussion, Bunce).
Carson discloses an apparatus for purification of water for later use in a hydrogen generator, wherein the contaminants are precipitated and removed from the fluid loop. In their procedure, Carson discloses a complex dual-loop anolyte and catholyte recirculation and recovery system (Fig 1A and col 21, lines 20-43, Carson). Carson also discloses at least one sensor for monitoring the pH of a contents of the reactor as well as a power source for supplying electrical current to the reactor (Fig 1A and Fig 2, as well as col 22, lines 30-39, Carson). Carson discloses that the supply of electrical current is controlled based on inputs from a variety of sensors including pH (Fig 2, Carson) and said power supply can be used to extract and precipitate metallic anions, water or other electrolytes which may be recovered via a resin column or other components of the recovery and treatment system(s) (Claim 47, as well as col 15, lines 12-27, Carson).
Carson and Bunce are both directed to the field of treatment of water by electrochemical methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the state of the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the improved methods of Carson (including electrical control incorporating a pH sensor, recirculation of catholyte fluids, etc.) within the apparatus of Bunce in order to more effectively recover desired metals and critical elements (disclosed by Carson) whilst minimizing waste products.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Bunce and Carson (hereafter referred to as modified Bunce) teach all limitations of claim 1. Bunce explicitly teaches the use of sulfuric acid [The anode compartment contained pure dilute sulfuric acid as a supporting electrolyte (pg 4411, Introduction, Bunce)]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use sulfuric acid as disclosed by Bruce as an acidic buffering agent in an aqueous electrolyte in the apparatus of modified Bunce.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 1. Modified Bunce discloses in detail the removal of iron, copper, zinc, cadmium, lead and arsenic (Table 1, pg 4411, Bunce) as well as a wide variety of other metallic elements (Table 1, Carson).
Regarding Claim 5-7, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 1. Carson furthermore discloses that the apparatus disclosed may also be used for the processing of a variety of Rare Earth materials as well as elements such as Yttrium, Tantalum, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, Vanadium and Zirconium (Table 1 and Table 2, Carson). Carson also specifies that an “optional inorganic compound removal and treatment system (15)” may be included in the apparatus to remove precipitate forming anions (Fig 1B-D and col 21, line 5-9, Carson) and also that said treatment system may be a “filter, centrifuge, hydrocyclone, etc,)” (col 18, line59-60, Carson). While Carson does not specifically discuss the other means by which solubilized Rare Earth materials and other noted elemental compounds can be collected in such a treatment system, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical arts to select a mediator compound suitable to collection/precipitation of the desired inorganic species which aligns with the processing steps contained in the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Bunce discloses the use of semipermeable membranes which are anion exchange membranes: [Experiments were also carried out using anion exchange membranes (AEM), for which the loss of positive charge in the catholyte due to H+ reduction is balanced by the migration of sulfate anions out of the catholyte. (pg 4413, results and discussion, Bunce)].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 1. Both Carson and Bunce disclose an anolyte recovery and recirculation system. Both Carson and Bunce disclose the use of sulfate ions within the anolyte. Carson also discloses [an anolyte recovery system 41 for capturing the anions and for reintroducing the anions into the anolyte chamber (Claim 18(g), and Fig 1A-C, Carson)].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 1. Carson further discloses a recirculation pump and reservoir capable of recovering and recirculating water produced within the cathode chamber of the reactor (Fig 1A, Carson).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 1. Bunce further discloses the effect of metal type on predetermined pH for the recovery of catholyte effluent flow rate as a result of pH between 12 and 2 (Fig 2 as well as pg 4412, “results and discussion”, Bunce).
Regarding Claim 15, Bunce discloses a process for treatment of acid mine drainage comprising at least one electrochemical reactor with at least one anode electrode, at least one cathode electrode, a semipermeable membrane for separating at least one anode electrode and at least one cathode electrode (Fig 1 (see above), Bunce), the use of sulfuric acid, and the selective recovery (and collection) of metals (abstract, Bunce) which includes precipitation of metals within the catholyte reservoir (pg 4412, results and discussion, Bunce). Bunce also discloses an anolyte reservoir for containing buffer distinct from and in fluid communication with the electrochemical reactor (Fig 1, Bunce). Bunce teaches a power supply that is controlled (or capable of being controlled) such that a desired pH is obtained, as well as different current densities which result in different pHs of the catholyte (Fig 3, Bunce). Bunce also discloses the sampling of pH using a pH meter/sensor, although in their teaching the sensor is not included in the cathode cell, but rather it is used to monitor the pH of the resultant catholyte electrolyzed by the system.
Bunce does not disclose the use of a catholyte reservoir, nor recirculation within the catholyte system (pg 4412-4413, results and discussion, Bunce).
Carson discloses a method for purification of water for later use in a hydrogen generator, wherein the contaminants are precipitated and removed from the fluid loop. In their procedure, Carson discloses a complex dual-loop anolyte and catholyte recirculation and recovery system which recirculates fluid from the cathode chamber back into at least one catholyte reservoir (Fig 1A and col 21, lines 20-43, Carson). Carson also discloses at least one sensor for monitoring the pH of a contents of the reactor as well as a power source for supplying electrical current to the reactor (Fig 1A and Fig 2, as well as col 22, lines 30-39, Carson). Carson discloses that the supply of electrical current is controlled based on inputs from a variety of sensors including pH (Fig 2, Carson) and said power supply can be used to extract and precipitate metallic anions, water or other electrolytes which may be recovered via a resin column or other components of the recovery and treatment system(s) (Claim 47, as well as col 15, lines 12-27, Carson).
Carson and Bunce are both directed to the field of treatment of water by electrochemical methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the state of the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the improved methods of Carson (including electrical control incorporating a pH sensor, recirculation of catholyte fluids, etc.) within the method of Bunce in order to more effectively recover desired metals and critical elements (disclosed by Carson) whilst minimizing waste products.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 15. Carson further discloses the recirculation of electrolyte fluid from a catholyte reservoir to the cathode chamber (Fig 1A and col 15, lines 28-46, Carson). While Carson does not specifically apply their electrolytic system to the processing of acid mine drainage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the state of the art to use this catholyte recirculation system within the acid mine drainage processing system of modified Bunce.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 15. Carson further discloses the pumping of anolyte fluid (which may include a buffer solution) from at least one anolyte reservoir to the anode chamber (Fig 1A-1C and col 15, lines 28-46, Carson).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 15. Carson further discloses the pumping anolyte fluid (which may include a buffer solution) from at least one anode chamber back to at least one anolyte reservoir (Fig 1A-1C and col 15, lines 28-46, Carson).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 15. Carson further discloses that their method may be applied to a batch process [Figure 1C Anolyte Reaction Chamber for Solids, Mixtures, and Larger Particulate and with Batch Operation is a schematic representation of the anolyte reaction chamber used for waste solids, and mixtures that include large particulate. This chamber will be used for batch mode processing of wastes. (col 12, lines 61-64, Carson)].
Regarding Claim 20, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 15. Carson further discloses that their method may be applied to a continuous process [Figure 1B Anolyte Reaction Chamber for Liquids, Mixtures, and Small Particulate and with Continuous Feed is a schematic representation of the anolyte reaction chamber used for waste fluids, and mixtures, which include small particulate. This chamber accommodates a continuous feed of these materials into the chamber (col 12, lines 55-60, Carson)].
Regarding Claim 21, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 15. Bunce teaches a process by which electrochemical current may be applied until a desired pH is reached (Fig 3, Bunce). The claim does not recite any limitations as to what the “specified voltage” may be. Therefore, as Bunce teaches controlling the current density to reach the desired pH, it discloses this method process.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 15. Carson further discloses that the monitoring of pH includes using at least one sensor to monitor the pH. [The sensors in the MEO apparatus provide digital information on the state of the various components. Sensors measure flow rate, 59, temperature, pH 63… (Fig 2, and col 22 lines 28-38, Carson)].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Bunce as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Morkovsky (U.S. Pat. No. 5,928,493).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Bunce teaches all limitations of claim 1. Modified Bunce does not teach the use of one or more additional electrochemical reactors arranged in series for sequential recovery of different metals and/or critical elements. Morkovsky teaches the use of multiple sequential reactors (col 5, line 64- col 6, line 2, Morkovsky) to extract useful metals (via precipitation) (col 13 lines 12-18, Morkovsky).
Modified Bunce and Morkovsky are both directed to the field of treatment of water by electrochemical methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the state of the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the additional reactors disclosed by Morkovsky in order to more efficiently recover desired metals and critical elements from a stream of mixed metal-containing acid mine drainage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed May 21, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues on page 11 that Bunce fails to disclose selective recovery of metals and critical elements through precipitation by reaching a predetermined pH and wherein the precipitation is encouraged to occur within the at least one catholyte reservoir to resist precipitation or adherence of precipitant on a surface of the at least one cathode electrode.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is unpersuasive. On page 4413, left column, Bunce acknowledges the relationship between pH and precipitation and teaches that raising the pH allows precipitation of the iron oxide. Bunce teaches the desire to control pH to achieve efficient removal of the iron from solution (page 4413, left column). While Bunce does not explicitly teach the recited limitation of claim 1 with respect to the “selective recovery” of the metals by precipitating in a catalytic reservoir, this claim limitation is directed to an effect or desired result of the apparatus. The modified Bunce would result in having a reservoir that would be capable of allowing the selective recovery of the metals by precipitation.
It is noted that sample reservoir S of Bunce in Fig. 1 can be broadly interpreted to read on the catholyte reservoir. The language in claim 1 “circulate between the cathode chamber and the at least one catholyte reservoir” appears to suggest that there can be an additional reservoir. However, as presently claimed, a single reservoir such as the sample reservoir S of Bunce broadly reads on the current claim. It is further noted that claim 1 does not require a recirculation line, therefore, the same line feeding the cathode chamber from the sample reservoir can read on the functional limitation of circulating between the cathode chamber and the reservoir.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant argues on page 13 that Carson describes anode recirculation that receives waste that is oxidized, and cathode recirculation that receives electrolyte. This is directly in opposition to the teachings of Bunce where the cathode receives waste for reduction. If one were to apply the teachings of the recirculation of the cathode and catholyte of Carson to Bunce, the resultant system would not work because the catholyte in Carson is electrolyte and is not AMD. Further, the specific operating parameters of Carson are fundamentally incompatible with the requirements of AMD treatment.
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is unpersuasive. Bunce as modified by Carson incorporates a recirculation line (line attached to pH sensor 63 in Fig. 1A) for recirculating effluent from the cathode chamber back into the reservoir. The combination is to incorporate the concept of recirculating, as recited in claim 15, and not the specific materials of Carson in Bunce. Carson specifically teaches using recovery system 41 to recover ions to “maintain process efficiency or cell operability, or their ergonomic worth necessities their recovery” (column 21, lines 54-59). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because “[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA].” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Applicant argues on page 14 that the teachings of Carson to use Carson for reduction purposes of waste where Carson only describes oxidation of waste, would be using the teachings of Carson in a fundamentally different manner than is taught, which changes the principles of invention of Carson. If Bunce were modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the principle of operation of Bunce would be changed. Thus, the combination of Bunce and Carson would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in Carson as well as a change in the basic principle under which Carson was designed to operate. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
Examiner’s Response #3:
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is unpersuasive. Applicant appears to be arguing the modification to Carson. However, the combination is Bunce in view of Carson. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and therefore the modification to Bunce would not require the particulars of the material worked upon in the apparatus. The apparatus of Bunce as modified by Carson would be structurally capable of performing the process of claim 1. The combination would not require substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements in Carson since the examiner is modifying the apparatus of Bunce.
Applicant’s Argument #4:
Applicant argues on page 16 that Carson fails to disclose, teach, or suggest wherein the precipitation is encouraged to occur within the at least one catholyte reservoir to resist precipitation or adherence of precipitant on a surface of the at least one cathode electrode. |n contrast, Carson describes precipitation being collected from the anolyte by a separate chamber positioned on the catholyte side. Therefore, Bunce and Carson, alone or in combination, fail to teach all the essential features of the claimed apparatus or process. Accordingly, Bunce in view of Carson does not render claim 1 obvious.
Examiner’s Response #4:
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is unpersuasive. Similar to the response in #3, Applicant appears to be arguing the modification to Carson. However, the combination is Bunce in view of Carson. Moreover, the limitation “wherein the precipitation is encouraged to occur within the at least one catholyte reservoir to resist precipitation or adherence of precipitant on a surface of the at least one cathode electrode” is directed to a functional limitation. Since Bunce as modified by Carson teaches a sample reservoir S in Fig. 1 with recirculation, the reservoir of Bunce would be structurally capable of performing the recited functional limitation of claim 1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997), MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Since Bunce teaches all the apparatus features of the instant claim i.e., a sample reservoir, the apparatus of Bunce would be structurally capable of encouraging precipitation within the sample reservoir.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Gregory Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795