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 .
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, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cuif (US Patent no. 6,455,018).
Regarding claim 1, Cuif teaches a method for a clean recovery of palladium (abstract; col. 1, lines 11-12), comprising:
mixing a palladium-containing material, a cerium-containing acidic solution (abstract; col. 2, lines 29-33 and 58-63 – the composition comprising palladium and cerium are admixed with sulfuric acid; col. 4, lines 26-42), and an additive, i.e. chlorine, to obtain a mixed solution (col. 6, lines 8-15); and
conducting a leaching reaction on the mixed solution to obtain a Pd-containing solution (col. 5, lines 13-33 and 52-58).
Regarding claim 2, the additive of Cuif comprises chlorine (col. 6, lines 8-18).
Regarding claim 4, Cuif further teaches wherein the concentration of the acidic solution is adjusted as desired (col. 6, lines 30-38). It has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A
Regarding claim 5, it has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 8, Cuif discloses wherein the concentration of the acidic solution is adjusted as desired (col. 6, lines 30-38).
Regarding claim 10, it has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 12, it has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
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.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuif as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Fogel et al. (US Patent no. 5,783,062).
Regarding claim 3, Cuif teaches all the method steps discussed above, but fails to disclose further subjecting the Pd2+-containing solution to an electrolysis, such that palladium from the electrolysis is produced at a cathode and a Ce4+-containing acidic solution from the electrolysis reusable for the leaching reaction is produced at an anode.
Fogel discloses an electrolytic method for the recovery of precious metals, such as palladium, from a spent or worn catalyst comprising cerium. The method further comprises recycling the electrolyte comprising cerium in an acidic solution, to a paste formation stage or to a leaching stage (col. 5, lines 42-50; col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 15). This provides the advantage of making it possible to dissolve the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield (col. 8, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a further electrolytic step to recover palladium while reusing the electrolyte for the leaching reaction in the method of Cuif because as taught by Fogel, this provides the advantage of making it possible to recover the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield.
Regarding claim 6, Cuif teaches the steps of mixing a palladium-containing material, a Ce4+-containing acidic solution (abstract; col. 2, lines 29-33 and 58-63 – the composition comprising palladium and cerium are admixed with sulfuric acid; col. 4, lines 26-42), and an additive, i.e. chlorine, to obtain a mixed solution (col. 6, lines 8-15), and subjecting the mixed solution to the leaching reaction at a temperature of at least 50°C to obtain the Pd2-containing solution (col. 5, lines 13-33 and 52-58), wherein the concentration of the acidic solution is adjusted as desired (col. 6, lines 30-38). It has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Cuif fails to teach a second step of subjecting the Pd2+-containing solution obtained in step (1) to an electrolysis, such that palladium from the electrolysis is produced at a cathode and a Ce4+-containing acidic solution from the electrolysis reusable for the leaching reaction is produced at an anode.
Fogel discloses an electrolytic method for the recovery of precious metals, such as palladium, from a spent or worn catalyst comprising cerium. The method further comprises recycling the electrolyte comprising cerium in an acidic solution, to a paste formation stage or to a leaching stage (col. 5, lines 42-50; col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 15). This provides the advantage of making it possible to dissolve the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield (col. 8, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a further electrolytic step to recover palladium while reusing the electrolyte for the leaching reaction in the method of Cuif because as taught by Fogel, this provides the advantage of making it possible to recover the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield.
Regarding claim 7, Cuif teaches all the method steps discussed above, but fails to disclose further subjecting the Pd2+-containing solution to an electrolysis, such that palladium from the electrolysis is produced at a cathode and a Ce4+-containing acidic solution from the electrolysis reusable for the leaching reaction is produced at an anode.
Fogel discloses an electrolytic method for the recovery of precious metals, such as palladium, from a spent or worn catalyst comprising cerium. The method further comprises recycling the electrolyte comprising cerium in an acidic solution, to a paste formation stage or to a leaching stage (col. 5, lines 42-50; col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 15). This provides the advantage of making it possible to dissolve the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield (col. 8, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a further electrolytic step to recover palladium while reusing the electrolyte for the leaching reaction in the method of Cuif because as taught by Fogel, this provides the advantage of making it possible to recover the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield.
Regarding claim 9, Cuif further teaches wherein the concentration of the acidic solution is adjusted as desired (col. 6, lines 30-38). It has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A
Regarding claim 11, it has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 13, Cuif teaches the steps of mixing a palladium-containing material, a Ce4+-containing acidic solution (abstract; col. 2, lines 29-33 and 58-63 – the composition comprising palladium and cerium are admixed with sulfuric acid; col. 4, lines 26-42), and an additive, i.e. chlorine, to obtain a mixed solution (col. 6, lines 8-15), and subjecting the mixed solution to the leaching reaction at a temperature of at least 50°C to obtain the Pd2-containing solution (col. 5, lines 13-33 and 52-58), wherein the concentration of the acidic solution is adjusted as desired (col. 6, lines 30-38). It has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Cuif fails to teach a second step of subjecting the Pd2+-containing solution obtained in step (1) to an electrolysis, such that palladium from the electrolysis is produced at a cathode and a Ce4+-containing acidic solution from the electrolysis reusable for the leaching reaction is produced at an anode.
Fogel discloses an electrolytic method for the recovery of precious metals, such as palladium, from a spent or worn catalyst comprising cerium. The method further comprises recycling the electrolyte comprising cerium in an acidic solution, to a paste formation stage or to a leaching stage (col. 5, lines 42-50; col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 15). This provides the advantage of making it possible to dissolve the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield (col. 8, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a further electrolytic step to recover palladium while reusing the electrolyte for the leaching reaction in the method of Cuif because as taught by Fogel, this provides the advantage of making it possible to recover the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield.
Regarding claim 14, Cuif teaches the steps of mixing a palladium-containing material, a Ce4+-containing acidic solution (abstract; col. 2, lines 29-33 and 58-63 – the composition comprising palladium and cerium are admixed with sulfuric acid; col. 4, lines 26-42), and an additive, i.e. chlorine, to obtain a mixed solution (col. 6, lines 8-15), and subjecting the mixed solution to the leaching reaction at a temperature of at least 50°C to obtain the Pd2-containing solution (col. 5, lines 13-33 and 52-58), wherein the concentration of the acidic solution is adjusted as desired (col. 6, lines 30-38). It has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A
Cuif fails to teach a second step of subjecting the Pd2+-containing solution obtained in step (1) to an electrolysis, such that palladium from the electrolysis is produced at a cathode and a Ce4+-containing acidic solution from the electrolysis reusable for the leaching reaction is produced at an anode.
Fogel discloses an electrolytic method for the recovery of precious metals, such as palladium, from a spent or worn catalyst comprising cerium. The method further comprises recycling the electrolyte comprising cerium in an acidic solution, to a paste formation stage or to a leaching stage (col. 5, lines 42-50; col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 15). This provides the advantage of making it possible to dissolve the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield (col. 8, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a further electrolytic step to recover palladium while reusing the electrolyte for the leaching reaction in the method of Cuif because as taught by Fogel, this provides the advantage of making it possible to recover the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield.
Regarding claim 15, Cuif teaches the steps of mixing a palladium-containing material, a Ce4+-containing acidic solution (abstract; col. 2, lines 29-33 and 58-63 – the composition comprising palladium and cerium are admixed with sulfuric acid; col. 4, lines 26-42), and an additive, i.e. chlorine, to obtain a mixed solution (col. 6, lines 8-15), and subjecting the mixed solution to the leaching reaction at a temperature of at least 50°C to obtain the Pd2-containing solution (col. 5, lines 13-33 and 52-58), wherein the concentration of the acidic solution is adjusted as desired (col. 6, lines 30-38). It has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A
Cuif fails to teach a second step of subjecting the Pd2+-containing solution obtained in step (1) to an electrolysis, such that palladium from the electrolysis is produced at a cathode and a Ce4+-containing acidic solution from the electrolysis reusable for the leaching reaction is produced at an anode.
Fogel discloses an electrolytic method for the recovery of precious metals, such as palladium, from a spent or worn catalyst comprising cerium. The method further comprises recycling the electrolyte comprising cerium in an acidic solution, to a paste formation stage or to a leaching stage (col. 5, lines 42-50; col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 15). This provides the advantage of making it possible to dissolve the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield (col. 8, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a further electrolytic step to recover palladium while reusing the electrolyte for the leaching reaction in the method of Cuif because as taught by Fogel, this provides the advantage of making it possible to recover the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield.
Regarding claim 16, Cuif teaches the steps of mixing a palladium-containing material, a Ce4+-containing acidic solution (abstract; col. 2, lines 29-33 and 58-63 – the composition comprising palladium and cerium are admixed with sulfuric acid; col. 4, lines 26-42), and an additive, i.e. chlorine, to obtain a mixed solution (col. 6, lines 8-15), and subjecting the mixed solution to the leaching reaction at a temperature of at least 50°C to obtain the Pd2-containing solution (col. 5, lines 13-33 and 52-58), wherein the concentration of the acidic solution is adjusted as desired (col. 6, lines 30-38). It has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A
Cuif fails to teach a second step of subjecting the Pd2+-containing solution obtained in step (1) to an electrolysis, such that palladium from the electrolysis is produced at a cathode and a Ce4+-containing acidic solution from the electrolysis reusable for the leaching reaction is produced at an anode.
Fogel discloses an electrolytic method for the recovery of precious metals, such as palladium, from a spent or worn catalyst comprising cerium. The method further comprises recycling the electrolyte comprising cerium in an acidic solution, to a paste formation stage or to a leaching stage (col. 5, lines 42-50; col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 15). This provides the advantage of making it possible to dissolve the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield (col. 8, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a further electrolytic step to recover palladium while reusing the electrolyte for the leaching reaction in the method of Cuif because as taught by Fogel, this provides the advantage of making it possible to recover the precious metals and cerium simultaneously in a single stage and with very high yield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights