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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
1. This application was filed on 11/09/2022.
Claims 1, 10, 13, 21-23, 25-26, 28-30, & 32 were originally canceled in this application.
Claims 2-9, 11-12, 14-20, 24, 27, & 31 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 2-9, 11-12, 14-20, 24, 27, & 31 are currently pending and under consideration.
Specification
2. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 2, 3, 6, & 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 2, line 2, “A method of recovering metal from catalyst material comprising one or more metals from catalyst materials” is too wordy. It is suggested that applicants amend the claim to recite --A method of recovering metals from a catalyst material comprising one or more metals--.
B. In claim 3, line 2, --a group consisting of-- should be inserted after “from”.
C. In claim 6, line 2, --a group consisting of-- should be inserted after “from”.
D. In claim 8, line 2, “rare earth” should be changed to --rare-earth--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
4. 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 19 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.
It would appear that the limitation “an oxidizing agent” is not defined or particularly pointed out in the claim, thus renders the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
A. Claim(s) 2-9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, 20, 24, 27, & 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaduri et al. (US 2022/0259696 A1) taken together with Zhu et al. (US 11,878,291 B2), hereinafter “Zhu et al. ‘291”.
The claimed invention relates to a method of recovering metal from a catalyst material comprising one or more metals by contacting the catalyst material containing metal with a leaching agent composition including one or more oxidized disulfide oil (ODSO) compounds, and wherein at least a portion of the metal contained in the catalyst material is extracted into the leaching agent composition.
Bhaduri et al. discloses a method for recovering metals from spent catalysts comprising a Group VI metal, a Group VIII metal, and a Group VB metal, the method comprises heating the spent catalyst under oxidative conditions at a first temperature for a first time sufficient to reduce the levels of sulfur and carbon to form a calcined spent catalyst; contacting the calcined spent catalyst with a caustic leach solution to form a spent catalyst slurry; separating and removing a first filtrate and a first solid residue from the spent catalyst slurry; drying the insoluble Group VIII/Group VIB/Group VB metal compound first solid residue; combining the dried Group VIII/Group VIB/Group VB metal compound first solid residue with anhydrous soda ash to form a solid residue/soda ash mixture; heating the metal compound solid residue/soda ash mixture at a second temperature to form a soda ash calcine; contacting the soda ash calcine with water to form a soda ash calcine slurry at a temperature and for a time sufficient to leach a soluble Group VIB metal compound and a soluble Group VB metal compound from the soda ash calcine; separating and removing a second filtrate and a second solid residue from the soda ash calcine slurry, etc.; and recovering the soluble Group VIB metal compound and the soluble Group VB metal compound from the spent catalyst slurry first filtrate and from the soda ash calcine slurry second filtrate (see page 11- page 12, claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Bhaduri et al. teaches the claimed method, but does not teach the claimed “leaching agent composition including one or more oxidized disulfide oil (ODSO) compounds”.
However, Zhu et al. ‘291 fairly teaches using ODSO compounds as peptization agents in the production of solid catalyst particles and/or solid catalyst support particles (see Abstract and col. 19, claim 1).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the “ODSO compounds” as taught in Zhu et al. ‘291 as a leaching agent in the method of in Bhaduri et al. to recover the metals in the spent catalysts because it is a useful leaching agent for treating the same catalyst material, as shown by Zhu et al.
Regarding claims 3-9 & 11-12, the reference teaches the spent catalysts comprise the same metals as claimed, thus meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 15, 24, 27, & 31, the reference appears to teach the same ODSO compounds containing the same chemical structures as claimed and it does not indicate any amount of water contained in the ODSO compounds, thus the claimed ODSO compounds and water ratio of 100:0 is met by the reference.
Regarding claim 20, Zhu et al. ’291 discloses the same ODSO compounds as claimed, which is “the mixture of two or more types of ODSO compounds corresponds to oxidized disulfide oils, present in an effluent refinery hydrocarbon stream recovered following catalytic oxidation of mercaptans present in the effluent refinery hydrocarbon stream” (see col 20, claim 6).
B. Claims 16 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaduri et al. (US 2022/0259696 A1) taken together with Zhu et al. (US 11,878,291 B2), hereinafter “Zhu et al. ‘291”, as applied to claims 2-9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, 20, 24, 27, & 31 above, and in further view of Marafi (US 8,287,618 B2), hereinafter “Marafi ‘618”.
Bhaduri et al. teaches the claimed method as discussed in the precedent paragraph, however the reference does not teach the claim limitations on “the leaching agent composition further comprises one or more additional leaching compound(s)” and “the additional leaching compound(s) include one or more of hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and nitric acid”.
Marafi ‘618 teaches a similar method of recovering metals (V, MO, Co, Ni, and Al) from spent catalysts as in Bhaduri et al. and teaches to use Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic Acid and nitric acid to extract the metals (see col. 10, claim 1).
Since “nitric acid” is taught to be useful for extracting and recovering metals from the spent catalyst in Marafi ‘618, it is considered a person of skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize nitric acid in the method of Bhaduri et al. to treat the same catalyst material because it is known to do so.
C. Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaduri et al. (US 2022/0259696 A1) taken together with Zhu et al. (US 11,878,291 B2), hereinafter “Zhu et al. ‘291”, as applied to claims 2-9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, 20, 24, 27, & 31 above, and in further view of Tilley (US 4,343,774), hereinafter “Tilley ‘774”.
Bhaduri et al. teaches the claimed method as discussed in the precedent paragraph, but the reference does not teach the claim limitation on “the method further comprising contacting the catalyst material with an oxidizing agent”.
Tilley ‘774 teaches a similar method of recovering metals from spent catalysts by contacting the catalyst particles with an aqueous sulfuric acid solution and then subjecting the catalyst particles to conditions of elevated temperature in an oxidizing atmosphere comprising oxygen then contacting the catalyst particles with a leaching solution to extract the metals (see col. 5 – col. 6, claim 1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have looked into the method of Tilley ‘774 and motivated to modify the method of Bhaduri et al. incorporating the oxidizing step of Tilley ‘774 because he teaches to do so prior the leaching step to extract and recover the metals from the same catalyst materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 14 & 18 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.
The prior art teaches the claimed method of recovering metal from catalyst material using a leaching agent composition comprising one or more oxidized disulfide oil (ODSO) compounds, however the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following.
As concerned with claim 14, “metal removal efficacy is in the range of 10-99 wt% relative to an amount of metal in the catalyst material”.
As concerned with claim 18, “the additional leaching compound(s) include one or more of oxalic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, glycolic acid, phthalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, salicylic acid and tartaric acid”.
Citations
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
8. Claims 2-9, 11-12, 14-20, 24, 27, & 31 are pending. Claims 2-9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-20, 24, 27, & 31 are rejected. Claims 14 & 18 are objected. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
October 18, 2025