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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/10/26 has been entered.
Allowance Withdrawn
The indication of allowability set forth in the previous action is withdrawn and prosecution is reopened in view of the following new ground of rejection.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 108585051), EPO translation and in view of Song (US Pat.: 9954258).
Zhou describes a manganese sulfate (para. 1, 2) that is battery grade quality (para. 8). The process involves producing a crude manganese sulfate crystals (para. 8), feeding those crude manganese sulfate crystals through a five series recrystallization in a countercurrent manner (para. 22 and 35) to produce higher grade manganese sulfate crystals (para. 8).
The process removes impurities from the manganese sulfate (para. 22). Specifically, manganese sulfate crystals are fed to the crystallizers to obtain manganese sulfate crystals and crystallization mother liquor (para. 35). The manganese sulfate liquor is returned to the conversion process and then added to the tertiary crystallization mother liquor for second recrystallization (para. 33). Since the mother liquor is used to produce manganese sulfate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the liquor contains manganese sulfate. This process removes impurities (para. 39). The process is performed in solution (para. 36), but Zhou does not describe use of an aqueous solution.
Song describes a method of making a high-purity manganese sulfate for use in batteries (abstract). The solution treats an aqueous manganese solution (col. 9, lines 5-9, 20-22) that employs a recycled manganese sulfate stream (col 2, lines 13-15). The process recovers waste solution (col. 2, lines 12-15) in order to reduce the cost of treating the wastewater from manganese sulfate waste liquor used in manganese sulfate generation (col. 1, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an aqueous solution for use in making the manganese sulfate, as taught by Song for use with Zhou because Song explains that use of an aqueous solution of manganese sulfate wastewater liquor reduces the cost of treating wastewater used in manganese sulfate generators.
As to Claims 4 and 18, Zhou teaches precipitating calcium ions (para. 12).
As to Claims 6 and 19, Zhou does not specifically disclose that the impurity concentration is higher in the manganese sulfate liquor than in the crystals.
Song explains that in the process used (described above), impurities are removed from the manganese sulfate waste liquid by using sulfides (col. 9, lines 61-63) and can employ additional waste water treatments (col. 9, lines 23-25) to produce wastewater as treated clean waste water (col. 9, lines 23-26). Although Song does not specifically state that the manganese sulfate liquor comprises a lower level of impurities than the crystallized metal sulfate, since the wastewater can be repeatedly treated to remove impurities, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this stream has fewer impurities when compared to the crude crystallized metal sulfate precipitate of Zhong because Zhong explains that this crude crystalline product requires various steps to remove impurities from the solid.
As to Claim 7, the liquid rich in manganese sulfate in Zhou is the same as the crystallization liquor from the crystallization of manganese sulfate in a crystallizer (see rejection of Claim 1).
As to Claim 10, Song teaches that the filtrate from the precipitation step is separated and processed (see Fig. 1). Filtrate separated from the solid producing slurry can be considered an overflow solution (see Fig. 1).
As to Claim 11, Zhou teaches selectively precipitating metals that are not manganese (para. 8, 9, 10). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the removal of other metals avoids the crystallization of other metals and therefore can be considered to selectively precipitate manganese sulfate.
As to Claim 14, Zhou teaches that the removal of copper impurities involves precipitation (para. 8).
As to Claim 20, Song teaches that the filtrate is separated off (see Fig. 1) and recycled back to a first evaporation concentration step (Fig. 1, step d). Therefore, since the stream after the concentration step is recycled, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the manganese sulfate concentration in the filtrate stream is similar to the concentration in the stream after the concentration step.
Claim(s) 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feldmann, et al. “Influence of Impurities on Crystallization Kinetics. . “.
Zhou teaches making crystallized manganese sulfate from a slurry that contains impurities, but Zhou does not disclose that the impurities are found in the crystal lattice.
Feldmann explains in the introduction that “it is well-known that impurities present in solution may transfer to the crystallized solid.” (pg. 6540, Introduction, Right column, lines 16-18). The transfer may take place using a number of different pathways (pg. 6540, Introduction, Right column, lines 18-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that some of the impurities present in the manganese sulfate solution of Zhou and Song would migrate to the crystal lattice in the crystals, as taught by Feldmann because Feldmann explains that it is well known in the field that impurities present in solution transfer to the crystallized solids.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27, 28, 35, 36, 36, 37, 38, 39-42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 29, 30, 31, 32 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Zhou (CN 108585051), EPO translation. Zhou describes a manganese sulfate (para. 1, 2) that is battery grade quality (para. 8). The process involves producing a crude manganese sulfate crystals (para. 8), feeding those crude manganese sulfate crystals through a five series recrystallization in a countercurrent manner (para. 22 and 35) to produce higher grade manganese sulfate crystals (para. 8).
The process removes impurities from the manganese sulfate (para. 22). Specifically, manganese sulfate crystals are fed to the crystallizers to obtain manganese sulfate crystals and crystallization mother liquor (para. 35). The manganese sulfate liquor is returned to the conversion process and then added to the tertiary crystallization mother liquor for second recrystallization (para. 33). Since the mother liquor is used to produce manganese sulfate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the liquor contains manganese sulfate. This process removes impurities (para. 39). The process is performed in solution (para. 36), but Zhou does not describe use of an aqueous solution.
As for Claims 27, 28, 29 and 30, Zhou also does not disclose adding a base to any steps of the process.
As to Claim 35 and 37, the references do not disclose washing the manganese sulfate, followed by dissolving the crystal in water.
The other claims depend from an allowable claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights