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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10 are currently under examination. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claim 4 is amended. No new claims are added.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the objection with regarding to claim 4 is withdrawn. However, the objection with respect to claim 5 stands.
In the light of the cancellation, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, with respect to claim 9 is withdrawn.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-9, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hao et al. (Atomic Energy Science and Technology, 56, 8, 1616, applicants submitted in IDS) stands because a certified English translation for the foreign priority documents have not been submitted yet. Once applicants submit certified English translations for the foreign priority documents, the effective filing date will be 02/17/2022. Among them, claim 9 has been cancelled.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 10, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al. stands.
New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
Priority
Certified English translation for the foreign priority documents have not been submitted yet.
Once applicants submit certified English translations for the foreign priority documents, the effective filing date will be 02/17/2022.
Previous & New Grounds of Rejections
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the abbreviations “rpm” and “min.” are vague. They should not be used and should be replaced by an indication of what they are intended to cover. For the purposes of examination, the “rpm” in claim 4 is interpreted as “ revolutions per minute) and “minutes” respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hao et al. (Atomic Energy Science and Technology, 56, 8, 1616, applicants submitted in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Xuan et al discloses treating a retained plutonium waste organic phase of the PUREX process comprising contacting the waste organic phase of the PUREX with an aqueous phase containing of (DPA, 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid) in low-acid solution for back extraction to obtain a back extraction product as the instant claim (See page 1, second paragraph of the left column to page 10, first paragraph of the left column).
Regarding claims 2-3, the process taught by Hao et al. comprise a weight ratio of the aqueous back extraction solution containing 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid (0.025 mol/L, about 0.4%wt.) to the waste organic phase 1:1, as the instant claim (left column, page 1619).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, the process taught by Hao et al. comprise contacting the back extraction product with anion exchange resin DOWEX 1 and the adsorption of Pu and U on the strongly basic anion exchange resin DOWEX 1. The use of 8 mol/L HNO3 for transformation and 0.35 mol/L HNO3 for desorption of Pu, and final 0.1 mol/L of NH2OH+0.5 mol/L for reductive desorption as the instant claims (right column on page 1618-left column page 1619 and pages 1623-1624).
Regarding claim 7, the process taught by Hao et al. comprise the acidity of the Pu and U solution is between 0.1 to 1.0 mol/L at 25 0C which has a pH value of 1 as the instant claim (page 1620).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, the process of Hao et al. comprises the use of DOWEX 1 as the instant claim (page 1617).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uhnak (Ph.D thesis, AQUEOUS PYRIDINE LIGANDS FOR ACTINIDE LANTHANIDE SEPARATIONS, July 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Uhnak discloses treating a retained plutonium waste organic phase of the PUREX process comprising contacting the waste organic phase of the PUREX with an acidic aqueous phase containing of 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid (DPA) for back extraction to obtain a back extraction product as the instant claim (See pages 18-21, 38-39 and 100-137).
Regarding claim 2, the process taught by Uhnak comprises a weight ratio of the aqueous back extraction solution containing 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid (~1M, about 0.17%wt.) to the waste organic phase 1:1, as the instant claim (pages 109-112 and 178).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 4-5, as discussed above, the process taught by Hao et al. comprise the use of oscillation of a vortex mixer the waste organic phase of the PUREX with an aqueous phase containing of DPA (2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid) for 5 minutes at room temperature (about 25 0C) (left column, page 1618-page 1620).
Although Hao et al. do not specifically disclose an oscillation rate of 400-700 rpm for 10-30 minutes as per applicant claims 4-5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable including oscillation rate between 400-700 rpm and time of 30 minutes through routine experimentation in order to improve efficiency for mixing, given teachings of Hao et al., and in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, although Hao et al. do not specifically disclose contacting the waste organic phase of the PURPEX process with deionized water as per applicant claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use deionized water and/or alkaline solutions washing prior the back extraction with DPA, motivated by the fact deionized water can remove water soluble impurities in the waste organic phase of the PURPEX process.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhnak as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, the process taught by Uhnak comprises a weight ratio of the aqueous back extraction solution containing 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid (~1M, about 0.17%wt.) to the waste organic phase 1:1, as the instant claim (pages 109-112 and 178).
Although Uhnak does not specifically disclose the content of 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid in the aqueous back extraction solution is 0.3- 0.5 wt.% as per applicant claim 3, the differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter, this is a case of prima facie obviousness, as one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, given the general conditions taught by Uhnak.
Regarding claims 4-5, Uhnak teach to sonicate the aqueous solution containing 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid to ensure complete dissolution prior to use (pages 78, 109).
Although, Uhnak is silent as to the reaction temperature, it would be obvious to perform this at room temperature, which reads on the conditions. There are no indications that this process is occurring at other than standard temperature.
Although, Uhnak is silent as to the length of time under which a chemical reaction is performed is considered to be a result effective variable because, it is well known in the art that depending upon the exact reaction conditions, the time to completion of reaction will vary, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to be able to determine the time it takes for a reaction to go to completion.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/06/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the previous and new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights