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.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 4-5, 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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 contains the trademark/trade names of DOWEX resin, D201 resin and Diaion PA 308 resin. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe DOWEX resin, D201 resin and Diaion PA 308 resin and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Appropriated corrections are required.
Regarding claim 9, the use of “preferably” renders the claims indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(d)[R-07.2015].
Appropriated corrections are 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).
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.
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
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738