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 Group I, Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 20 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 have been amended to depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Therefore, the restriction requirement between Groups I-III as set forth in the Office action mailed on 23 September 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 20 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 13-20 are amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 2 March 2023 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 4, "uranium feedstock, , and" should read "uranium feedstock, and".
Claim 15, lines 1-3, “wherein heating the reaction mixture to a temperature of from about 600°C to about 850°C comprises” should read “wherein the heating the reaction mixture comprises heating to a temperature of from about 600°C to about 850°C”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The term “about” in claims 1, 4, 8, 15, 17, and 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The quantities associated with the temperatures of claims 1 and 15, the concentrations of claims 4 and 20, the purities of claims 8, 17, and 19, are therefore rendered indefinite by the use of the term "about".
Claim 1, lines 6-7, recite "separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from the reaction mixture". It is unclear if "the reaction mixture" of lines 6-7 is the reaction mixture of lines 2-3, as the reaction mixture of lines 2-3 appears to be heated to form a uranium chloride product. This limitation is interpreted as requiring separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from byproducts produced by the heating the reaction mixture (the reaction) of line 4.
Claim 2, lines 1-3, recite "wherein combining a uranium feedstock, a chlorinating agent, and a metal salt comprises combining a highly enriched uranium feedstock, a transition metal chloride, and the metal salt." It is unclear if the combining of claim 2, line 1 is the same as the combining of the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and the metal salt of claim 1, line 2. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the combining of claim 1, line 2. It is further unclear if the highly enriched uranium feedstock is the uranium feedstock, and if the transition metal chloride is the chlorinating agent. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the uranium feedstock is a highly enriched uranium feedstock and the chlorinating agent is a transition metal chloride.
Claim 3, lines 1-3, recite "wherein combining a uranium feedstock, a chlorinating agent, and an alkali metal salt comprises combining the uranium feedstock, iron (II) chloride, and the metal salt". It is unclear if the combining of claim 3, line 1 is the same as the combining of the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and the metal salt of claim 1, line 2. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the combining of claim 1, line 2. It is further unclear if the iron (II) chloride is the chlorinating agent. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the chlorinating agent is iron (II) chloride. It is further unclear if the alkali metal salt is the metal salt. It is further unclear if the metal salt of claim 3, line 3 is the same as the metal salt of claim 1, line 2. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the metal salt of claim 1, line 2, and requiring the metal salt is an alkali metal salt.
Claim 4, lines 1-3, recite "wherein heating the reaction mixture comprises producing the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprising less than about 200 parts per million of iron (II) chloride." It is unclear if the heating of claim 4, line 1 is the same as the heating of claim 1, line 4. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the heating of claim 1, line 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprising less than about 200 parts per million of iron (II) chloride" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprises less than about 200 parts per million of iron (II) chloride.
Claim 5, lines 1-3, recite "wherein combining a uranium feedstock, a chlorinating agent, and a metal salt comprises combining the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and an alkali metal salt or an alkaline earth metal salt." It is unclear if the combining of claim 5, line 1 is the same as the combining of the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and the metal salt of claim 1, line 2. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the combining of claim 1, line 2. It is further unclear if the alkali metal salt or the alkaline earth metal salt is the metal salt. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the metal salt is an alkali metal salt or an alkaline earth metal salt.
Claim 6, lines 1-4, recite “wherein combining a uranium feedstock, a chlorinating agent, and a metal salt comprises combining a highly enriched uranium feedstock, a depleted uranium feedstock, a natural uranium feedstock, or a low-enriched uranium feedstock with the chlorinating agent and the metal salt”. It is unclear if the combining of claim 6, line 1 is the same as the combining of the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and the metal salt of claim 1, line 2. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the combining of claim 1, line 2. It is further unclear if the highly enriched uranium feedstock, etc. is the uranium feedstock. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the uranium feedstock is a highly enriched uranium feedstock, a depleted uranium feedstock, a natural uranium feedstock, or a low-enriched uranium feedstock.
Claim 7, lines 1-5, recite “wherein combining a uranium feedstock, a chlorinating agent, and a metal salt comprises combining the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and a metal salt selected from the group consisting of sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium chloride (KCl), lithium chloride (LiCI), magnesium chloride (MgC2), a combination thereof, or a eutectic mixture thereof”. It is unclear if the combining of claim 7, line 1 is the same as the combining of the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and the metal salt of claim 1, line 2. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the combining of claim 1, line 2. It is further unclear if a metal salt selected from the group consisting of NaCl, etc. is the metal salt. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the metal salt is selected from the group consisting of sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium chloride (KCl), lithium chloride (LiCI), magnesium chloride (MgC2), a combination thereof, or a eutectic mixture thereof.
Claim 8, line 1, recites “wherein heating the reaction mixture”. It is unclear if the heating of claim 8, line 1 is the same as the heating of claim 1, line 4. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the heating of claim 1, line 4.
Claim 9, line 1, recites “wherein heating the reaction mixture”. It is unclear if the heating of claim 9, line 1 is the same as the heating of claim 1, line 4. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the heating of claim 1, line 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprising a lithium chloride-potassium chloride-uranium chloride eutectic mixture" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the uranium chloride eutectic mixture is a lithium chloride-potassium chloride-uranium chloride eutectic mixture.
Claim 10, line 1, recites “wherein heating the reaction mixture”. It is unclear if the heating of claim 10, line 1 is the same as the heating of claim 1, line 4. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the heating of claim 1, line 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprising a sodium chloride-uranium chloride eutectic mixture" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the uranium chloride eutectic mixture is a sodium chloride-uranium chloride eutectic mixture.
Claim 11, line 1, recites “wherein separating” and line 2 recites “comprises separating”. It is unclear if the separating of claim 11, line 1 and 2 is the same as the separating of claim 1, line 6. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the separating of claim 1, line 6.
Claim 11, lines 2-3, recite “separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from solids in the reaction mixture”. It is unclear if "the reaction mixture" of claim 11, line 3 is the reaction mixture of claim 1, lines 2-3, as the reaction mixture of claim 1, lines 2-3 appears to be heated to form a uranium chloride product. This limitation is interpreted as requiring separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from solids produced by the heating the reaction mixture of claim 1, line 4.
Claim 12, line 1, recites “wherein separating”. It is unclear if the separating of claim 12, line 1 is the same as the separating of claim 1, line 6. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the separating of claim 1, line 6.
Claim 12, lines 2-3, recite “comprises heating the reaction mixture”. It is unclear if the heating of claim 12, line 2 is the same as the heating of claim 1, line 4. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the heating of claim 1, line 4.
Claim 12, lines 1-3, recite “wherein separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from the reaction mixture comprises heating the reaction mixture to form the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture as a liquid”. However, claim 12 appears to be drawn to the heating (line 2), NOT the separating, as recited in line 1. Claim 12 is interpreted as requiring the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture is a liquid.
Claim 13, lines 2-3, recite “wherein: combining a uranium feedstock, a chlorinating agent, and a metal salt”. It is unclear if the combining of claim 13, line 3 is the same as the combining of the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and the metal salt of claim 1, line 2. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the combining of claim 1, line 2.
Claim 13, lines 4-5, recite “a reaction mixture”. It is unclear if the reaction mixture of claim 13, lines 4-5 is the same as the reaction mixture of claim 1, line 3. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the reaction mixture of claim 1, line 3.
Claim 13, lines 10-11, recite “separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprises separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture”. It is unclear if the separating of claim 13, line 10 is the same as the separating of claim 1, line 6. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the separating of claim 1, line 6. It is further unclear what the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture are being separated from. This limitation is interpreted as requiring separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from byproducts produced by the heating the reaction mixture.
Claim 14, line 1, recites “wherein combining the uranium feedstock, a transition metal chloride, and the metal salt comprises combining a highly enriched uranium feedstock, the metal salt, and a transition metal chloride comprising iron chloride”. It is unclear if the combining of claim 14, line 1 is the same as the combining of the uranium feedstock, the chlorinating agent, and the metal salt of claim 1, line 2. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the combining of claim 1, line 2. It is further unclear if the highly enriched uranium feedstock is the uranium feedstock, if the transition metal chloride is the chlorinating agent, and if the iron chloride is the transition metal chloride. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the uranium feedstock is a highly enriched uranium feedstock and the chlorinating agent is iron chloride.
Claim 15, lines 1-2, recite “wherein heating”. It is unclear if the heating of claim 15, line 2 is the same as the heating of claim 1, line 4. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the heating of claim 1, line 4.
Claim 16, line 1, recites “wherein separating”. It is unclear if the separating of claim 16, line 1 is the same as the separating of claim 1, line 6. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the separating of claim 1, line 6.
Claim 16, lines 3-4, recite “filtering the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from solid components of the reaction mixture”. It is unclear if the reaction mixture of claim 16 is the reaction mixture of claim 1, lines 2-3, as the reaction mixture of claim 1, lines 2-3 appears to be heated to form a uranium chloride product. This limitation is interpreted as requiring filtering the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from solid components produced by the heating the reaction mixture (the reaction) of claim 1, line 4.
Claim 17, lines 1-4, recite “wherein separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprises producing the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture at a purity of greater than about 99.9%”. It is unclear if the separating of claim 17, lines 1-2 is the same as the separating of claim 1, line 6. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the separating of claim 1, line 6.
Claims 18-20 recites the limitation "the composition" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the method of claim 1.
Claim 18, line 1, recites “wherein separating”. It is unclear if the separating of claim 18, line 1 is the same as the separating of claim 1, line 6. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the separating of claim 1, line 6.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprising a eutectic mixture of uranium chloride and one or more metal salts" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the uranium chloride eutectic mixture compris.
Claim 19, line 1, recites “wherein separating”. It is unclear if the separating of claim 19, line 1 is the same as the separating of claim 1, line 6. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the separating of claim 1, line 6.
Claim 20, line 1, recites “wherein separating”. It is unclear if the separating of claim 20, line 1 is the same as the separating of claim 1, line 6. This limitation is interpreted as referring to the separating of claim 1, line 6.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the uranium chloride or the ura" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture comprises less than about 200 parts per million of iron chloride.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites all of the same features as claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is not further limiting.
Claim 15 recites all of the same features as claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is not further limiting.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ("High temperature UCl3 synthesis in molten salt mixtures via reaction of U metal with iron chlorides").
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses a method of producing UCl3 (uranium chloride), comprising: combining a uranium rod (uranium rod meets the limitation of a uranium feedstock), FeCl2 or FeCl3 (FeCl2 or FeCl3 meets the limitation of a chlorinating agent), and LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl (LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl meets the limitation of a metal salt; pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3), such that a reaction mixture is formed. Zhang further discloses the reaction was carried out in a stainless steel crucible (stainless steel crucible meets the limitation of a reaction vessel) in a modified muffle furnace (pg. 384, Col. 2, par. 3; pg. 285, Col. 1, par. 2-3). Zhang further discloses the reaction was performed at 500°C with LiCl-KCl eutectic, 600°C with equimolar NaCl-CaCl2, and 850°C with NaCl (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1).
Regarding the temperature in claim 1, it appears that 500-850°C taught by Zhang overlaps the claimed range of 600-850°C such that the range taught by Zhang obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Zhang discloses heating the salt mixtures and FeCl2 or FeCl3 powder were heated to the set point, followed by adding the U rod (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 3).
Zhang is silent to heating the U rod, salt mixture, and FeCl2 or FeCl3 powder to the set temperature after forming a reaction mixture comprising the U rod, salt mixture, and FeCl2 or FeCl3 powder.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to combine a uranium feedstock, a chlorinating agent, and a metal salt in a reaction vessel to form a reaction mixture, followed by heating the reaction mixture, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Zhang further discloses forming UCl3 in eutectic LiCl-KCl (aka LiCl-KCl-UCl3 salt mixture, LKU) (UCl3 in eutectic LiCl-KCl meets the limitation of a uranium chloride eutectic mixture; pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 3), and forming a NaCl-UCl3 salt mixture (aka NU) (pg. 387, Col. 1, par. 2), and a NaCl-CaCl2-UCl3 salt mixture (aka NCU1) (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3), such that Zhang meets the limitation of forming uranium chloride. Zhang further discloses placing a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 2), and after the desired reaction period, while the salt was still molten, the stainless-steel crucible was pulled out of the furnace and tipped to pour molten salt from the crucible onto a clean stainless-steel pan at room temperature to cause the salt to rapidly cool down and freeze as a thin solid (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1). Zhang further discloses the purpose of putting the magnet under the stainless-steel crucible is to keep the iron particles on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible, so they can be separated from the recovered salt (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1). Zhang further discloses after pouring, freezing, and cooling to room temperature, the salt was converted to powder using a lab mill (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), such that Zhang meets the limitation of separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from byproducts produced by the heating the reaction mixture (aka the iron particles).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang discloses the use of FeCl2 or FeCl3 (FeCl2 meets the limitation of iron (II) chloride), and LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl (LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl meets the limitation of an alkali metal salt; pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang discloses putting a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible to keep the iron particles on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), and after pouring out the molten salt, there appears to be metallic particulate material left in the bottom of the crucible, such that the magnet is effective at retaining the formed metallic iron particles (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3). Zhang further discloses a measured Fe in NaCl-UCl3 as low as 0.00100 wt% (pg. 386, Table 2), which is approximately 30 ppm (parts per million) iron.
Regarding the iron chloride concentration in claim 4, it appears that 0.00100 wt% iron taught by Zhang, in the alternative, overlaps or is close to the claimed range of less than 200 ppm of iron (II) chloride such that the range taught by Zhang obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang discloses the use of LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl (LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl meet the limitation of an alkali metal salt; pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang discloses the use of LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang discloses forming UCl3 in eutectic LiCl-KCl (aka LiCl-KCl-UCl3 salt mixture, LKU) (UCl3 in eutectic LiCl-KCl meets the limitation of a lithium chloride-potassium chloride-uranium chloride eutectic mixture; pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang discloses putting a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible to keep the iron particles (iron particles meet the limitation of solids) on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), and after pouring out the molten salt, there appears to be metallic particulate material left in the bottom of the crucible, such that the magnet is effective at retaining the formed metallic iron particles (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3), such that Zhang meets the limitation of separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from solids in the reaction mixture.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang discloses pouring molten salt from the crucible onto a stainless-steel pan to cause the salt to rapidly cool down and freeze as a thin solid (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture of Zhang is a liquid.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang discloses a method of producing UCl3 (uranium chloride), comprising: combining a uranium rod (uranium rod meets the limitation of a uranium feedstock), FeCl2 or FeCl3 (FeCl2 or FeCl3 meets the limitation of a chlorinating agent), and LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl (LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl meets the limitation of a metal salt; pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3), such that a reaction mixture is formed. Zhang further discloses the reaction was carried out in a stainless steel crucible (stainless steel crucible meets the limitation of a reaction vessel) in a modified muffle furnace (pg. 384, Col. 2, par. 3; pg. 285, Col. 1, par. 2-3). Zhang further discloses placing a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 2), and after the desired reaction period, while the salt was still molten, the stainless-steel crucible was pulled out of the furnace and tipped to pour molten salt from the crucible onto a clean stainless-steel pan at room temperature to cause the salt to rapidly cool down and freeze as a thin solid (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1). Zhang further discloses the purpose of putting the magnet under the stainless-steel crucible is to keep the iron particles on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible, so they can be separated from the recovered salt (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1). Zhang further discloses after pouring, freezing, and cooling to room temperature, the salt was converted to powder using a lab mill (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), such that Zhang meets the limitation of separating the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from byproducts produced by the heating the reaction mixture the iron particles).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang further discloses the reaction was performed at 500°C with LiCl-KCl eutectic, 600°C with equimolar NaCl-CaCl2, and 850°C with NaCl (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1).
Regarding the temperature in claim 15, it appears that 500-850°C taught by Zhang overlaps the claimed range of 600-850°C such that the range taught by Zhang obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Zhang discloses heating the salt mixtures and FeCl2 or FeCl3 powder were heated to the set point, followed by adding the U rod (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 3).
Zhang is silent to heating the U rod, salt mixture, and FeCl2 or FeCl3 powder to the set temperature after forming a reaction mixture comprising the U rod, salt mixture, and FeCl2 or FeCl3 powder.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to combine a uranium feedstock, a chlorinating agent, and a metal salt in a reaction vessel to form a reaction mixture, followed by heating the reaction mixture, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang discloses placing a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 2), and after the desired reaction period, while the salt was still molten, the stainless-steel crucible was pulled out of the furnace and tipped to pour molten salt from the crucible onto a clean stainless-steel pan at room temperature to cause the salt to rapidly cool down and freeze as a thin solid (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1). Zhang further discloses the purpose of putting the magnet under the stainless-steel crucible is to keep the iron particles (iron particles meet the limitation of solid components) on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible, so they can be separated from the recovered salt (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), such that using the magnet to separate the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from iron particles, as taught by Zhang, meets the broad limitation of filtering the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from solid components.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang discloses forming UCl3 in eutectic LiCl-KCl (aka LiCl-KCl-UCl3 salt mixture, LKU) (UCl3 in eutectic LiCl-KCl meets the limitation of a eutectic mixture of uranium chloride and one or more metal salts; pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang discloses putting a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible to keep the iron particles on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), and after pouring out the molten salt, there appears to be metallic particulate material left in the bottom of the crucible, such that the magnet is effective at retaining the formed metallic iron particles (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3). Zhang further discloses a measured Fe in NaCl-UCl3 as low as 0.00100 wt% (pg. 386, Table 2), which is approximately 30 ppm (parts per million) iron.
Regarding the iron chloride concentration in claim 20, it appears that 0.00100 wt% iron taught by Zhang, in the alternative, overlaps or is close to the claimed range of less than 200 ppm of iron (II) chloride such that the range taught by Zhang obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ("High temperature UCl3 synthesis in molten salt mixtures via reaction of U metal with iron chlorides") in view of Czerwinski (US 2018/0047467; PG Pub of IDS Doc US 10,566,096).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Zhang discloses combining a uranium rod (uranium rod meets the limitation of a uranium feedstock), FeCl2 or FeCl3 (FeCl2 or FeCl3 meets the limitation of a chlorinating agent and a transition metal chloride), and LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl (LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl meets the limitation of a metal salt; pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3).
Zhang is silent to the uranium rod being a highly enriched uranium feedstock.
Czerwinski discloses a method of synthesizing UCl3 (Abstract), as well as generating enriched uranium-chlorides, which can be easily achieved by starting with U235 enriched UCl4 [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Czerwinski to use a highly enriched uranium feedstock in order to produce an enriched uranium chloride product, which is easily achieved by starting with U235 enriched UCl4, as recognized by Czerwinski [0053].
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang discloses combining a uranium rod (uranium rod meets the limitation of a uranium feedstock), FeCl2 or FeCl3 (FeCl2 or FeCl3 meets the limitation of a transition metal chloride comprising iron chloride), and LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl (LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl meets the limitation of a metal salt; pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3).
Zhang is silent to the uranium rod being a highly enriched uranium feedstock.
Czerwinski discloses a method of synthesizing UCl3 (Abstract), as well as generating enriched uranium-chlorides, which can be easily achieved by starting with U235 enriched UCl4 [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Czerwinski to use a highly enriched uranium feedstock in order to produce an enriched uranium chloride product, which is easily achieved by starting with U235 enriched UCl4, as recognized by Czerwinski [0053].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ("High temperature UCl3 synthesis in molten salt mixtures via reaction of U metal with iron chlorides") in view of Westphal (US 8,475,756).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Zhang discloses combining a uranium rod (uranium rod meets the limitation of a uranium feedstock), FeCl2 or FeCl3 (FeCl2 or FeCl3 meets the limitation of a transition metal chloride comprising iron chloride), and LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl (LiCl-KCl, NaCl-CaCl2, or NaCl meets the limitation of a metal salt; pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3).
Zhang is silent to the uranium rod being a highly enriched uranium feedstock, a depleted uranium feedstock, a natural uranium feedstock, or a low-enriched uranium feedstock.
Westphal discloses combining various structures of uranium, including rods, a eutectic salt, preferably LiCl-KCl, and metal chlorides, such as CuCl2, MnCl2, or ZrCl4 to form uranium chloride, wherein the uranium metal is preferably natural or depleted uranium (Col. 3, lines 23-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Westphal to use a uranium rod comprising depleted uranium or natural uranium feedstock, because the type of uranium in the uranium rod of Zhang is not limited, and both Zhang (pg. 385, Col. 1, par. 1-3) and Westphal (Col. 3, lines 23-33) disclose the use of uranium rods as a feedstock when forming UCl3, and the use of natural or depleted uranium as the uranium metal feedstock is preferable, as recognized by Westphal (Col. 3, lines 23-33).
Claims 8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ("High temperature UCl3 synthesis in molten salt mixtures via reaction of U metal with iron chlorides") in view of Yoon (“Chlorination of uranium metal to uranium trichloride using ammonium chloride”).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Zhang discloses putting a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible to keep the iron particles on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), and after pouring out the molten salt, there appears to be metallic particulate material left in the bottom of the crucible, such that the magnet is effective at retaining the formed metallic iron particles (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3). Therefore, Zhang teaches the removal of iron impurities using the magnet.
Zhang is silent to the purity of the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture.
Yoon discloses a UCl3 product with a purity ranging from 92.5 to 100.8% (Abstract). Yoon further discloses the input ratio of initial materials and temperature control are important factors in producing pure UCl3 (pg. 2211, Col. 2, par. 1) and no special impurity should be produced when the stoichiometric ratio is properly adjusted (pg. 2215, Col. 1, par. 2).
Regarding the purity in claim 8, it appears that 92.5 to 100.8% taught by Yoon overlaps the claimed range of greater than about 99.9% such that the range taught by Yoon obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Yoon to teach the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture has a purity of greater than about 99.9%, because the purity can be optimized through routine experimentation, absent a showing of unexpected results, as the input ratio of initial materials and temperature control are important factors in producing pure UCl3 (pg. 2211, Col. 2, par. 1) and no special impurity should be produced when the stoichiometric ratio is properly adjusted (pg. 2215, Col. 1, par. 2), as recognized by Yoon.
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang discloses putting a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible to keep the iron particles on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), and after pouring out the molten salt, there appears to be metallic particulate material left in the bottom of the crucible, such that the magnet is effective at retaining the formed metallic iron particles (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3). Therefore, Zhang teaches the removal of iron impurities using the magnet.
Zhang is silent to the purity of the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture.
Yoon discloses a UCl3 product with a purity ranging from 92.5 to 100.8% (Abstract). Yoon further discloses the input ratio of initial materials and temperature control are important factors in producing pure UCl3 (pg. 2211, Col. 2, par. 1) and no special impurity should be produced when the stoichiometric ratio is properly adjusted (pg. 2215, Col. 1, par. 2).
Regarding the purity in claim 17, it appears that 92.5 to 100.8% taught by Yoon overlaps the claimed range of greater than about 99.9% such that the range taught by Yoon obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Yoon to teach the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture has a purity of greater than about 99.9%, because the purity can be optimized through routine experimentation, absent a showing of unexpected results, as the input ratio of initial materials and temperature control are important factors in producing pure UCl3 (pg. 2211, Col. 2, par. 1) and no special impurity should be produced when the stoichiometric ratio is properly adjusted (pg. 2215, Col. 1, par. 2), as recognized by Yoon.
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang discloses putting a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible to keep the iron particles on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), and after pouring out the molten salt, there appears to be metallic particulate material left in the bottom of the crucible, such that the magnet is effective at retaining the formed metallic iron particles (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3). Therefore, Zhang teaches the removal of iron impurities using the magnet.
Zhang is silent to the purity of the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture.
Yoon discloses a UCl3 product with a purity ranging from 92.5 to 100.8% (Abstract). Yoon further discloses the input ratio of initial materials and temperature control are important factors in producing pure UCl3 (pg. 2211, Col. 2, par. 1) and no special impurity should be produced when the stoichiometric ratio is properly adjusted (pg. 2215, Col. 1, par. 2).
Regarding the purity in claim 19, it appears that 92.5 to 100.8% taught by Yoon overlaps the claimed range of greater than about 99.95% such that the range taught by Yoon obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Yoon to teach the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture has a purity of greater than about 99.95%, because the purity can be optimized through routine experimentation, absent a showing of unexpected results, as the input ratio of initial materials and temperature control are important factors in producing pure UCl3 (pg. 2211, Col. 2, par. 1) and no special impurity should be produced when the stoichiometric ratio is properly adjusted (pg. 2215, Col. 1, par. 2), as recognized by Yoon.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ("High temperature UCl3 synthesis in molten salt mixtures via reaction of U metal with iron chlorides") in view of Williamson (US 2020/0010335).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Zhang discloses forming a NaCl-UCl3 salt mixture (aka NU) (pg. 387, Col. 1, par. 2).
Zhang is silent to producing a sodium chloride-uranium chloride eutectic mixture.
Williamson discloses producing a eutectic mixture of NaCl-UCl3 (Abstract, [0049]). Williamson further discloses a eutectic mixture is preferred over the binary chlorides within this process because it leads to a lower liquid temperature for the fluid, thus mitigating corrosion reactions and allowing the use of less costly structural materials [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Williamson to produce a sodium chloride-uranium chloride eutectic mixture, as a eutectic mixture is preferred because it leads to a lower liquid temperature for the fluid, thus mitigating corrosion reactions and allowing the use of less costly structural materials, as recognized by Williamson [0006].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ("High temperature UCl3 synthesis in molten salt mixtures via reaction of U metal with iron chlorides") in view of Kimura (US 6,010,671).
An alternative rejection of claim 16 is provided in case separating using a magnet does not meet the limitation of filtering.
Alternatively, regarding Claim 16, Zhang teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Zhang discloses putting a magnet under the stainless-steel crucible to keep the iron particles on the bottom of the stainless-steel crucible (pg. 385, Col. 2, par. 1), and after pouring out the molten salt, there appears to be metallic particulate material left in the bottom of the crucible, such that the magnet is effective at retaining the formed metallic iron particles (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3).
Zhang is silent to filtering the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from solid components (such as iron particles) of the reaction mixture.
Kimura discloses passing a dissolved uranium containing slurry through the cellulose coated filtration device (passing through a filtration device meets the limitation of filtering) such that solids in the uranium containing slurry are captured in the filtration device and dissolved uranium passes therethrough in a liquid filtrate (claim 1), wherein the slurry comprises a sludge including uranium, as well as solid waste containing various ingredients including but not limited to metal compounds (Col. 2, lines 12-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Kimura to filter the uranium chloride or the uranium chloride eutectic mixture from solid components of the reaction mixture in order to increase the purity of the uranium chloride product, as both Zhang (pg. 387, Col. 2, par. 3) and Kimura (claim 1; Col. 2, lines 12-18) teach removing metal particles from a liquid uranium mixture, and filtering a uranium chloride mixture to remove metal compounds is a process parameter well-known in the art of uranium recovery, as recognized by Kimura.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735