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 Status
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending with claims 1-11 and 15 under examination and claims 13-14 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 12 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
The claim amendments, received 04/13/2026, have overcome the 101 rejection(s) previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection. Accordingly, the 101 rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, the prior art rejection over Yamamoto has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ward et al. (Determination of Traces of Antimony in Soils and Rocks, Analytical Chemistry, vol. 26, No. 7, July 1954, pp. 1168-1173; hereinafter “Ward”).
Regarding claim 1, Ward disclose a method of analyzing an antimony ion (Ward; p. 1172, “Procedure”), the method comprising:
extracting antimony from a starting sample to provide a first analysis solution comprising trivalent antimony ions and pentavalent antimony ions (Ward disclose 0.2 g soil or rock and 1.5 grams of flux are heated in a tube then suspended in 6 ml of 6M HCl, heated, then 1 ml of sodium sulfite and 3 ml of 6M HCl are added. The first analysis solution is passed through a No. 42 fluted filter paper and the filtrate is collected in a 125-ml separatory funnel; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Solution of Sample”. Note: The procedure later includes oxidation with cerium (IV) which oxidizes Sb(III) to Sb(IV). See pp. 1170-1171, “Conditions for Oxidation and Extraction of Antimony”. Accordingly, the soil or rock sample comprises both Sb(III) and Sb(IV) ions);
mixing a first acid with the first analysis solution to provide a second analysis solution (Ward disclose the tube residue on the filter paper are rinsed twice with 3 ml HCl and once with 2 mL water; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Solution of Sample”);
mixing the second analysis solution with a second acid to obtain a third analysis solution in which the pentavalent antimony ions are chlorinated and which contains [SbCl6]- ions (Ward disclose the tube residue on the filter paper are rinsed twice with 3 ml HCl and once with 2 mL water; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Solution of Sample”. Note: The 6M HCl solutions contains Cl- which react with the Sb(V) ions to form SbCl6- ions.);
mixing the third analysis solution and a first organic solvent, and phase-separating the mixture into a fourth analysis solution as an organic phase and an aqueous phase to obtain the fourth analysis solution (Ward disclose adding 5 ml isopropyl ether and draining off all but about 0.5 ml of the aqueous phase; pp. 1171, “Procedure”, “Isopropyl Ether Extraction of Antimony”);
mixing the fourth analysis solution and a coloring liquid containing rhodamine B to obtain a fifth analysis solution (Ward disclose adding 2ml of Rhodamine B reagent; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Estimation”); and
measuring the absorbance of the fifth analysis solution at a wavelength of 530 nm or more to 570 nm or less to measure the concentration of pentavalent antimony ions in the fifth analysis solution (Ward disclose measuring the absorbance at 545 to 555 nm; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Estimation”);
wherein a total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate contained in the first analysis solution is 0.00 mol/L or more and 0.1 mol/L or less,
the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate contained in the first acid is 0.00 mol/L or more and 0.1 mol/L or less, and
the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate contained in the second acid is 0.00 mol/L or more and 0.1 mol/L or less (Ward disclose the first analysis solution comprise 6 mL of 6M HCl in 1 mL of sodium sulfite reagent and 3 mL of 6M HCl, the first acid is 3 mL of 6M HCl, and the second acid is 3 mL of 6M HCl. Nitric acid, cerium nitrate, and cerium sulfate are not used in these steps and therefore their concentration is 0.00 mol/L; p. 1171-1172, “Reagents and Apparatus Required for Field Determinations” and “Procedure”).
Regarding claim 2, Ward disclose the analysis method according to claim 1 above, wherein a pH of the first analysis solution is -1 or more and 3 or less, and a pH of the second analysis solution is -1 or more and 3 or less (Ward disclose the first analysis solution and second analysis solution are comprised of 12 mL of 6M HCl and 1 mL of 0.128 mol/L Na2SO3 solution; pp. 1171-1172, “Reagents and Apparatus Required for Field Determination” and “Procedure”. Accordingly, the concentration of 6M HCl is exceptionally high resulting in a pH of the first and second analysis solutions having a pH of -1 or more and 3 or less).
Regarding claim 3, Ward disclose the analysis method according to claim 1 above, wherein the first acid contains 2 mol/L or more and 12 mol/L or less of hydrochloric acid and/or 2 mol/L or more and 18 mol/L or less of sulfuric acid (Ward disclose the tube residue on the filter paper are rinsed twice with 3 ml HCl and once with 2 mL water; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Solution of Sample”).
Regarding claim 4, Ward disclose the analysis method according to claim 1 above, wherein the second acid contains 2 mol/L or more and 12 mol/L or less of hydrochloric acid (Ward disclose the tube residue on the filter paper are rinsed twice with 3 ml HCl and once with 2 mL water; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Solution of Sample”).
Regarding claim 5, Ward disclose the analysis method according to claim 1 above, wherein the first analysis solution does not contain nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate, the first acid does not contain nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate, and the second acid does not contain nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate (Ward disclose the first analysis solution comprise 6 mL of 6M HCl in 1 mL of sodium sulfite reagent and 3 mL of 6M HCl, the first acid is 3 mL of 6M HCl, and the second acid is 3 mL of 6M HCl. Nitric acid, cerium nitrate, and cerium sulfate are not used in these steps and therefore their concentration is 0.00 mol/L; p. 1171-1172, “Reagents and Apparatus Required for Field Determinations” and “Procedure”).
Regarding claim 6, Ward disclose the analysis method according to claim 1 above, wherein a pH of the first analysis solution is -1 or more and 1 or less, and a pH of the second analysis solution is -1 or more and 1 or less (Ward disclose the first analysis solution and second analysis solution are comprised of 12 mL of 6M HCl and 1 mL of 0.128 mol/L Na2SO3 solution; pp. 1171-1172, “Reagents and Apparatus Required for Field Determination” and “Procedure”. Accordingly, the concentration of 6M HCl is exceptionally high resulting in a pH of the first and second analysis solutions having a pH of -1 or more and 1 or less).
Regarding claim 8, Ward teach the analysis method according to claim 1 above, wherein the first organic solvent is one or more selected from the group consisting of diisopropyl ether, diethyl ether, ethyl methyl ether, dibutyl ether, 1-octanol, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, benzene, and hexane (Ward disclose adding 5 ml isopropyl ether and draining off all but about 0.5 ml of the aqueous phase; pp. 1171, “Procedure”, “Isopropyl Ether Extraction of Antimony”).
Regarding claim 15, Ward teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein the absorbance of light having a wavelength of 530 nm or more and 570 nm or less is 0.01 or more and 3 or less (Ward; figure 1, pp. 1169-1170, “Stability of Antimony-Rhodamine B Compound in Isopropyl Ether”).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward.
Regarding claim 7, Ward disclose the analysis method according to claim 1 above, wherein a mixing volume ratio of the first analysis solution and the first acid is represented by [amount of the first acid]/[amount of the first analysis solution] (Ward disclose the mixing volume ration of the first analysis solution and the first acid is represented by 6 mL of 6M HCl/3 mL of 6M HCl.
Ward does not explicitly teach the mixing volume ratio is 1 or more and 100 or less.
However, Ward does teach 3 mL of the first acid is used to rinse the tube and the residue on the filter paper (Ward; p. 1172, “Procedure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the procedure of Ward to use 6 mL of the first acid to rinse the tube and the residue on the filter paper, because using 6 mL rather than 3 mL would more thoroughly dissolve any remaining amount of residue left in the tube or filter paper thus achieving greater recovery. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Ward teaches collecting the residue from the equipment used during extraction from the sample.
Regarding claim 9, Ward teach the method of analyzing an antimony ion according to claim 1 above, further comprising:
mixing the analysis solution with a third acid to obtain a sixth analysis solution in which trivalent antimony ions are oxidized into pentavalent antimony ions (Ward disclose adding 3 ml of ceric sulfate solution to the filtrate; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Isopropyl Ether Extraction of Antimony”. Note: The ceric sulfate solution is comprised of 3.3 g anhydrous ceric sulfate in 100 mL of 0.5M sulfuric acid, p. 1171, “Reagents and Apparatus Required for Field Determinations”. Further, Ceric sulfate oxidizes Sb(III) to Sb(IV); pp. 1170-1171, “Conditions for Oxidation and Extraction of Antimony”);
mixing the sixth analysis solution with a fourth acid to obtain a seventh analysis solution containing [SbCl6]- ions in which pentavalent antimony ions contained in the first analysis solution and pentavalent antimony ions in which trivalent antimony ions contained in the first analysis solution are oxidized are chlorinated (Ward disclose adding an additional 2 mL of 1M HCl acid solution of hydroxylamine; p. 1172, “Procedure”);
mixing the seventh analysis solution with a second organic solvent and phase- separating the mixture into an eighth analysis solution as a second organic phase and an aqueous phase to obtain the eighth analysis solution (Ward disclose further diluting the sample with isopropyl ether until the color intensity obtained from a sample is similar to one of the standards; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Estimation”);
mixing the eighth analysis solution and a coloring liquid containing rhodamine B to obtain a ninth analysis solution (Ward disclose further diluting the sample with isopropyl ether and shaking with 2 mL of rhodamine B reagent until the color intensity obtained from a sample is similar to one of the standards; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Estimation”);
measuring the absorbance of the ninth analysis solution at a wavelength of 530 nm or more to 570 nm or less to measure the concentration of trivalent antimony ions and the concentration of pentavalent antimony ions in the ninth analysis solution (Ward disclose measuring the absorbance at 545 to 555 nm; p. 1172, “Procedure”, “Estimation”);
wherein the third acid contains one or more selected from the group consisting of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate (Ward disclose the third acid is 3 ml of ceric sulfate solution to the filtrate prepared by adding 3.3 g anhydrous ceric sulfate in 100 mL of 0.5M sulfuric acid, p. 1171-1172, “Reagents and Apparatus Required for Field Determinations” “Procedure”, “Isopropyl Ether Extraction of Antimony”).
Ward does not teach the assay solution is the first or the second assay solution.
However, Ward does teach mixing the third assay solution with a third acid to obtain a sixth analysis solution in which trivalent antimony ions are oxidized into pentavalent antimony ions (Ward; p. 1171, “Procedure”, “Isopropyl Ether Extraction of Antimony”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the procedure to use the first or second assay solution in place of the third assay solution in order to reduce reagent consumption and costs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since the second assay solution is a recovery step of residual after initial extraction.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ward teach the analysis method according to claim 9 above, wherein the total concentration of nitric acid, cerium (IV) nitrate, and cerium (IV) sulfate in the third acid is 0.02 mol/L or more and 1.0 mol/L or less (Ward disclose the ceric sulfate solution is comprised of 3.3 g anhydrous ceric sulfate in 100 mL of 0.5M sulfuric acid resulting in a 0.1M solution, p. 1171, “Reagents and Apparatus Required for Field Determinations”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ward teach the analysis method according to claim 9 above comprising the fourth acid (Ward disclose adding an additional 2 mL of 1M HCl acid solution of hydroxylamine; p. 1172, “Procedure”).
Ward does not teach wherein the fourth acid contains 2 mol/L or more and 12 mol/L or less of hydrochloric acid.
However, Ward does teach adding 2 mL of a 1M hydrochloric acid solution of hydroxylamine (Ward; p. 1172, “Procedure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the 1M HCl solution of Hydroxylamine with a 2M HCl solution of Hydroxylamine because the 2M HCl solution would further suppress the pH of the solution during the extraction of antimony. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Ward teach using the fourth acid as a means of removing excess cerium(IV) from the solution (Ward; pp. 1171, “Interfering Elements”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/13/2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of their remarks towards the 101 rejection that the claim amendments integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner agrees and the 101 rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 9-12 under USC 35 102, that Yamamoto does not teach the amended limitation “extracting antimony from a starting sample to provide a first analysis solution”. The examiner agrees with applicant’s remarks and notes that the arguments are towards the amended claims. Therefore, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search, a new prior art rejection is set forth over Ward.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights