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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group II, claims 13-18 and 20, in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/12/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 line 13 recites “in communication with solid delaminated”, but should recite “in communication with the solid delaminated” to correct the typo;
Claim 18 line 4 recites “dii sopentyl”, but should recite “diisopentyl” to correct the typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), which is the plain language meaning of the words unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (MPEP § 2111.01).
It is noted that the claim language in the instant application denotes components by their intended use e.g., “a solid delaminated waste stream” or “a liquid delaminated waste stream” (claim 13), rather than ordinal indicators e.g., “a first waste stream” or “a second waste stream”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the use of such terminology to denote different components does not, in and of itself, further limit the recited structure (MPEP § 2111.01(II), see also MPEP § 2115).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “the system according to claim 19” in line 1, but claim 19 is a (withdrawn from consideration) method claim. It is therefore unclear which claim claim 20 is intended to depend from.
Claim 20 is therefore indefinite.
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.
Claims 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0143954 A1) in view of Pang (US Pat. No. 3697400) and Baek (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0186031 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Neumann teaches a system for recovering metals from waste materials (title), comprising:
a source of waste feed stock (“flyash 710” Fig. 7 and para. 99, see also Fig. 4);
a source of supercritical CO2 (scCO2) (“extractions may be performed with scCO2 in one or more supercritical fluid (SCF) extraction columns” para. 97 and “supercritical fluid (SCF) extraction columns 718” para. 105 and Fig. 7, see also Fig. 4);
a source of at least one acid (“nitric acid 418” para. 63 and Fig. 4);
a source of one or more organic ligands (“chelating agent 722 is sent to column 718 along with scCO2” para. 106 and Fig. 7, and “co-solvents generally called metal chelating agents or ligands are utilized in the selective metal extraction processes. In one embodiment, these may include organic ligands…” para. 52);
a waste treatment reactor (““supercritical fluid (SCF) extraction columns 718” para. 105 and Fig. 7) in communication with the source of waste feed stock, the source of scCO2 (see Fig. 7) and the source of at least one acid (“acids and bases may also be part of the co-solvent, e.g., nitric acid and methanol may be part of the co-solvent…” para. 53 and “Each of the extraction processes is optimized to remove the desired metal based on the solubility of the co-solvents with scCO2” para. 98, see also Figs. 4 and 7), the waste treatment reactor including a first outlet (outlet connected to “tank 736” and “Outputs 746, 748 … sent to liquid liquid extractors 750, 752, 754, 756 and 758,” Fig. 7 and para. 111) and a second outlet (outlet labeled “fly ash 742” and “fly ash to carbon removal” Fig. 7 and para. 99, see also Fig. 8);
a liquid delaminated waste stream in communication with the first outlet (“Outputs 746, 748” Para. 111 and Fig. 7, see also paras. 112-113), the liquid delaminated waste stream including rare earth elements (REEs) (“chelating agent 722 is chosen to remove scandium. However, any other chelating agents may also be used as desired for extraction of a predetermined metal.” para. 106 and Fig. 7, see also para. 111);
a solid delaminated waste stream in communication with the second outlet (“fly ash 742” Fig. 7 and para. 99);
a metal enrichment reactor (“first frothing tank (stage 1) 826” para. 119 and Fig. 8) in communication with the solid delaminated waste stream (Fig. 8 shows the “fly ash 742” from Fig. 7 is the feed to the reactor, see also Fig. 7 and para. 119) and configured to perform a flotation separation process on the solid delaminated waste stream (para. 120), the metal enrichment reactor further comprising a third outlet (“output 830” para. 120 and Fig. 8);
an enriched-metal solid delaminated waste stream in fluid communication with the third outlet (“The carbon is skimmed or scraped off and the output 830 includes skimmed carbon” para. 120 and Fig. 8);
a leaching reactor in communication with the liquid delaminated waste stream and the source of one or more organic ligands (“liquid liquid extractors 750, 752, 754, 756 and 758,” para. 111 and Fig. 7), the leaching reactor including a solution including a plurality of metal-ligand complexes formed from a solvent including one or more organic ligands (“The outputs 746, 748 include a class of compounds called coordination compounds…” para. 111 and Fig. 7) and at least a portion of the liquid delaminated waste stream (“Outputs 746, 748 … are sent to liquid liquid extractors …” Para. 111 and Fig. 7), and configured to separate a first product including a first metal from a first metal-ligand complex of the plurality of metal-ligand complexes (“extraction to separate the co-solvents from the predetermined metals and water or dilute acid solutions based on their relative solubility.” Para. 112).
Neumann does not teach the leaching reactor includes an electrochemical separation module configured to electrochemically separate a first product from the solution, the first product including a first metal from a first metal-ligand complex of the plurality of metal-ligand complexes.
However, Pang teaches a system for isolating a target metal from a metal source (abstract and Fig.), comprising reacting the metal source with a solution comprising an organic ligand to form a chelate (“chelate solution” Fig. and col. 7 lines 10-35), wherein the chelate is separated from the organic solvent in a leaching reactor comprising liquid-liquid extractors (Id.), the leaching reactors including an electrochemical separation module (“electrolytic cell” Fig. and col. 7 lines 35-45) configured to electrochemically separate a first product from the solution, the first product including a first metal from a first metal-ligand complex (“The copper loaded chelate solution is passed to a second liquid-liquid extraction system … The strong acid dissolves the copper as copper sulfate and is passed to an electrolytic cell. The copper sulfate is electrolyzed, regenerating sulfuric acid and yielding an electrolytic grade of copper.” col. 7 lines 35-45 and see Fig.) of the plurality of metal-ligand complexes (“AMQA is selective toward copper and leaves iron and many other contaminants relatively unextracted in the leach solution.” col. 8 lines 5-10), wherein the use of the electrolytic cell provides the predictable advantages of isolating the metal with high purity and regenerating the acid used in the liquid-liquid extraction (“The copper sulfate is electrolyzed, regenerating sulfuric acid and yielding an electrolytic grade of copper. The acid produced by the electrolytic cell is recycled with additional make-up acid added as required to the stripping column” col. 7 lines 35-45).
Additionally, Baek teaches that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected that REE ligand complexes (see e.g., para. 30) can be suitably recovered from a mixture of supercritical carbon dioxide and solvent by an electrochemical separation (para. 51).
As Pang teaches a system for recovering metals comprising forming a dissolved chelate, Pang is analogous art to the instant invention. As Baek teaches a method for recovering REEs electrochemically, Baek is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Neumann, by adding an electrochemical separation module configured to electrochemically separate a first product from the solution, the first product including a first metal from a first metal-ligand complex of the plurality of metal-ligand complexes, as taught by Pang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of enabling selective removal of the metal at high purity via electrochemical deposition and regenerating the acid used in the liquid-liquid extractors, as taught by Pang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success making this modification because Baek teaches electrochemical deposition is suitable for recovering REEs from REE ligand complexes. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e., adding the electrochemical cell of Pang to the system of Neumann to isolate the metal and regenerate the acid used in the liquid-liquid extractors) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 14, modified Neumann does not explicitly teach a separation reactor in fluid communication with the leaching reactor and the source of scCO2, the separation reactor further comprising: a rare-earth-element (REE) product stream including REE-ligand complexes from the solution.
However, Pang further teaches the liquid-liquid extractors are arranged in series to enable better recovery of the target metal (Fig. and e.g., col. 12 lines 24-45).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Neumann by adding a separation reactor in fluid communication with the leaching reactor and the source of scCO2, the separation reactor further comprising: a rare-earth-element (REE) product stream including REE-ligand complexes from the solution, as taught by Pang. I.e., a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an additional liquid-liquid extractor in series with the liquid-liquid extractor(s) of Neumann. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of increasing the recovery of the first metal species from the first metal ligand complex, as taught by Peng. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, duplication of parts, absent evidence of unexpected results, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claims 16 and 20, claim 20 has been interpreted to depend from claim 13.
Modified Neumann teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above.
Neumann further teaches the waste feed stock includes fly ash (claims 16 and 20) (“flyash 710” Fig. 7 and para. 99, see also Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, modified Neumann renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
Neumann further teaches the organic ligands include organophosphorus acids (“the chelating agents may include one or more of… Bis(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl) phosphinic acid, tributylphosphate, …” para. 53).
Regarding claim 18, modified Neumann renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
Neumann further teaches the organic ligands include tributylphosphate (“the chelating agents may include one or more of… tributylphosphate, …” para. 53).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann in view of Pang and Baek, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Maccagni (WO 2021/161178 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Neumann renders the limitations of claim 13 obvious, as described above.
Modified Neumann does not teach a carbonation reactor in fluid communication with the liquid delaminated waste stream; and
an alkaline earth metal product stream in communication with the carbonation reactor, the alkaline earth metal product stream including carbonated alkaline earth metals.
However, Maccagni teaches a system for recovering target metals from metal waste (abstract), the system comprising a waste treatment reactor (“unit for leaching 101 metallurgical wastes” p. 16 lines 1-12 and Fig. 1) in contact with a liquid delaminated waste stream (“leachate 119” p. 17 lines 14-23 and Fig. 1), a carbonation reactor (“carbonation unit 111” p. 16 lines 1-12 and Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the liquid delaminated waste stream (see Fig. 1), and an alkaline earth metal product stream in communication with the carbonation reactor (“insoluble precipitate 147” p. 32 lines 3-16 and Fig. 1), the alkaline earth metal product stream including carbonated alkaline earth metals (“the calcium ions and magnesium ions are removed, causing them to precipitate in the form of the respective insoluble carbonate and/or hydrogen carbonate salts” p. 32 lines 3-16), which provides the predictable benefit of removing alkaline earth metals from the leaching solution, thereby allowing it to be recycled (“an aliquot 159 of the leachate present in the recycling tank 107 is withdrawn and recycled to the leaching unit 101,” p. 29 lines 27-32 and Fig. 1 and “the supernatant solution 149 which is sent to the tank 107” p. 32 lines 3-16 and Fig. 1).
As Maccagni teaches a system for recovering target metals from metal waste by leaching followed by electrolysis, Maccagni is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Neumann, by adding a carbonation reactor in fluid communication with the liquid delaminated waste stream and an alkaline earth metal product stream in communication with the carbonation reactor, the alkaline earth metal product stream including carbonated alkaline earth metals, as taught by Maccagni. Specifically, by adding the carbonation reactor downstream from the leaching reactor of Neumann. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of regenerating the leaching solution and recovering alkaline earth metal carbonates, as taught by Maccagni. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burba (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0182786 A1) teaches a system for recovering metals from waste feeds (para. 49), the system comprising a waste treatment reactor (“vat or heap leached (step 204),” para. 92 and Fig. 2) and a leaching reactor (“operation 136” para. 96 and Fig. 2), the leaching reactor comprising an electrochemical separation module (“electrochemical acid generation operation 280” para. 122 and Fig. 2).
Bertuol et al. (“Recovery of cobalt from spent lithium-ion batteries using supercritical carbon dioxide extraction” Waste Management 51 (2016) 245–251) teaches a system for recovering target metals from waste (abstract) comprising a waste treatment reactor using scCO2 (“extractor” Fig. 1 and §s 2.3. and 3.3.) and a leaching reactor comprising an electrochemical separation module (“electrowinning” §s 2.4. and 3.4., and Fig. 2).
Sharma et al. (“Statistical Optimization of Heavy Metal (Cu2+ and Co2+) Extraction from Printed Circuit Boards and Mobile Batteries Using Chelation Technology” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 6805−6819) teaches a system for recovering a target metal from waste using ligands (see Fig. 2).
Baker (WO 2009/109754 A1) teaches a system for recovering a target metal from soil using scCO2 and an organic ligand (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Peng and Park (“Supercritical CO2-induced alteration of a polymer–metal matrix and selective extraction of valuable metals from waste printed circuit boards” Green Chem., 2020, 22, 7080), which shares authors with the inventors of the instant application but was published more than a year before the effective filing date of the instant application, teaches a system for recovering a target metal from e-waste using an acid and scCO2 (see Fig. 3).
Veglio et al. (“Recovery of valuable metals from electronic and galvanic industrial wastes by leaching and electrowinning” Waste Management 23 (2003) 245–252) teaches electrochemical recovery of a target metal from a plurality of metals provides the predictable benefit of allowing the target metal to be selectively isolated (see e.g., § 5).
Jun (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0249100 A1) teaches a system for recovering REEs from coal waste (abstract) using scCO2, acid, and tributylphosphate (see e.g., Fig. 1).
Netten (US Pat. Pub. 2012/0234137 A1) teaches a system for recovering target metals from fly ash (abstract) comprising a leaching reactor (“solvent extraction unit (2)” Fig. 2 and para. 41) comprising an electrochemical separation module (“electrowinning step (3)” Id.).
Wai (US Pat. No. 5792357) teaches a system for recovering metals by forming metal ligand chelates in supercritical fluids and recovering the metal from the metal ligand chelate using acid (e.g., abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795