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 .
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(s) 1-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0234319 in view of Matsui US 4639355.
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘319 teaches a process or recovering gallium after a liquid-liquid extraction operation (Claim 1). The gallium may be recovered from a divinylbenzene polymer (Paragraph [0043]) using sulfuric acid (Claim 8). The recovered gallium may be precipitated with by neutralizing with a hydroxide solution to form a precipitate, followed by filtration (Paragraph [0031]), which would be gallium hydroxide.
EP ‘319 does not expressly state that the filtered gallium hydroxide is dissolved in a caustic solution.
Matsui teaches a similar process of recovering gallium where gallium hydroxide is recovered by precipitation (col. 5, l. 6). After the precipitate is recovered it is dissolved back into a caustic soda solution so that gallium may be recovered by electrolysis (col. 5, l. 6-8).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the process of EP ‘319 including a step of dissolving the filtered gallium hydroxide in a caustic soda solution in view of Matsui. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to prepare the gallium hydroxide for gallium recovery by electrolysis as taught in Matsui (col. 5, l. 6-8).
Regarding claim 2, EP ‘319 teaches that the sulfuric acid is at least 0.5 mol/l (Paragraph [0027]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3-4, 10-12 and 15, EP ‘319 in view of Matsui does not expressly state the concentration of N2O in the caustic solution, that the caustic solution is generated at 60-80 deg. C, the temperature of the gallium precipitation, the content of gallium in the solution, nor the pH of the caustic solution. However, these features are inherent or obvious over the process of in order to provide sufficient caustic solution to dissolve precipitate and the dissolving step would produce heat in the claimed temperature range.
Regarding claim 5-6, and 16-17, Matsui teaches that the process reactions are performed at room temperature, which would require cooling (col. 6, l. 56).
Regarding claim 7 and 18, EP ‘319 in view of Matsui does not expressly state removing impurities during the cooling process, but, absent unexpected results, this step would be obvious in order to further purify the desired recovery of gallium as taught in Matsui.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 19-20, the process of EP ‘319 may be part of a process that produces alumina or aluminum, such as a Bayer process (Paragraph [0001]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the person having ordinary skill in the art would not combine EP ‘319 and Matsui because they too different and/or complicated to combine, which renders the claimed method non-obvious. In response, the two processes are related to the recovery of gallium and the Office Action of 10/1/2025 expressly states that the motivation for performing a step of dissolving gallium hydroxide in EP ‘319 is prepare the gallium hydroxide for gallium recovery by electrolysis a taught by Matsui (col. 5, l. 6-8). Applicant has not addressed nor discussed the motivation rationale presented by the examiner in the Office action of 10/1/2025. Thus, Applicant’s arguments of non-obviousness fail to overcome the prime facia showing of obviousness.
Applicant argues that EP ‘319 in view of Matsui do not teach or suggest the features of claims 3, 4, 7, 10-12, and/or 18 because EP ‘319 in view of Matsui does not teach recovery of up to 100% gallium hydroxide without any losses. In response, this argument is irrelevant because the feature of recovery of up to 100% gallium hydroxide without any losses is not recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Amber 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights