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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/15/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant is notified that Cite No. 1 under the Foreign Patent Documents section is annotated to correct the document number (WO 2015015472 A1). The correct document number is WO 2015/105472 (A1).
Applicant is notified that Cite No. 3 under the Foreign Patent Documents section is lined through because a copy of the document could not be located in the file. The Examiner has provided a copy of the document, which is cited in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Duplicate Claims Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 7, 8, 9, and 1 be found allowable, claims 13, 14, 15, and 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being respective substantial duplicates thereof. 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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims are objected to because of the verb tense of the term “dissolves” (line 3 in claims 1 and 19; line 2 in claim 10). The phrase should be “a leaching process to selectively dissolve metals from solids.”
With respect to claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 19, a slash (“/”) is missing from the phrase “and or” in the phrase “gaseous oxygen and or hydrogen” (line 2 in claims 2 and 11; line 3 in claims 3 and 12; line 7 in claim 19).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-6, 11, and 12 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.
Regarding claims 2-4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the leaching step.” Parent claim 1 recites the phrase “a leaching process,” but does not refer to the process as a step. Since a process could comprise multiple steps, it is unclear to which particular step of the leaching process that “the leaching step” refers.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the claims are likewise rejected, as they depend on rejected claim 4.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the leaching step.” Parent claim 10 recites the phrase “a leaching process,” but does not refer to the process as a step. Since a process could comprise multiple steps, it is unclear to which particular step of the leaching process that “the leaching step” refers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0145420 (A1) (also WO 2020/165502 (A1)) to Rinne et al. (“Rinne”) in view of US 2022/0340997 (A1) to Ziemkiewicz et al. (“Ziemkiewicz”).
Regarding claim 10, Rinne discloses a method for recovering metal from metal-containing waste material by leaching. Abstract; para. [0001]. The leaching extracts rare earth metal (REM or REE) in soluble form and impurities are made insoluble (leaching process to selectively extract rare earth; leaching process to selectively dissolve metals from solids). Para. [0054], [0056], [0058]. Various other materials can be recovered (extraction of critical minerals). Para. [0057]-[0059]. Leaching involves monitoring, controlling, and adjusting the redox potential (leaching through a series of operating conditions via redox potential control to separate out rare earth elements and critical minerals). Para. [0068], [0069], [0107], [0108].
Rinne discloses that the source of the waste may be ore from the mining industry, such as ore concentrate. Para. [0002], [0056]; claim 13. Rinne is silent regarding the specific claimed source (acid mine drainage sludge, laterite, or soil).
Ziemkiewicz is directed to processes for treating acid mine drainage (AMD) for recovering high-grade rare earth preconcentrate. Abstract; para. [0004]. AMD refers to acidic water that outflows from mines such as, for example, metal mines or coal mines. Para. [0072]. A mine is understood to mean active, inactive, or abandoned mining operations for removing minerals, metals, ores, or coal from the earth. Para. [0072]. AMD contains trace amounts of REEs. Para. [0004].
Because water pollution caused by AMD is the single greatest cause of stream impairment and AMD contains REEs (Ziemkiewicz at para. [0004]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used AMD as the source of rare earth elements in the process of Rinne in order to reduce AMD in the environment and lessen pollutants in streams.
Regarding claim 11, Rinne discloses that the leaching reaction is aqueous or water-based. Para. [0060]. Ozone and oxygen are used to control the redox reaction and redox potential (controlling redox reactions through use of water and gaseous oxygen and/or hydrogen to control Eh conditions). Para. [0068], [0069], [0077], [0078], [0100], [0107], [0111], [0112].
Ziemkiewicz discloses that oxidizing agent enhances the efficiency of gangue metal separation from rare earth elements in the aqueous phase. Para. [0122]. Thus, the oxidation in Rinne would result in the separation of gangue materials from REEs and critical minerals.
Regarding claim 12, Rinne discloses that the leaching reaction is aqueous or water-based. Para. [0060]. Ozone and oxygen are used to control the redox reaction and redox potential (controlling redox reactions through use of water and gaseous oxygen and/or hydrogen to control Eh conditions). Para. [0068], [0069], [0077], [0078], [0100], [0107], [0111], [0112].
Ziemkiewicz discloses that oxidizing agent enhances the efficiency of gangue metal separation from rare earth elements in the aqueous phase. Para. [0122]. Thus, the oxidation in Rinne would result in the separation of gangue materials from REEs and critical minerals.
The use of multiple containers to recover metal are known (multiple redox reactions). Rinne at para. [0074]; Ziemkiewicz at para. [0112], [0127]. REE isolation are known to take place over one or more extraction steps. Ziemkiewicz at para. [0108], [0109], claim 27.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2014/0166788 (A1) to Pearse et al. (“Pearse”).
Regarding claim 16, Rinne does not teach performing a magnetic separation process to separate magnetic metals from non-magnetic minerals.
Pearse is directed to a method and system for magnetic separation of rare earth elements. Title; abstract. There is a need to separate individual rare earth element compounds from mixed rare earth compounds resulting from hydrometallurgical processes, such as leaching. Para. [0005], [0006], [0013]. Nonmagnetic materials can be separated from other magnetic materials. Para. [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed magnetic separation, as taught by Pearse, to the method of Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz because magnetic separation would yield a more precisely sorted product produced by the leaching process, thereby creating uniform piles of product for each material obtained.
Regarding claim 18, Pearse teaches magnetic separation by applying magnetic fields of varying strengths. Para. [0016]. The magnets are arranged from weakest to strongest (first magnetic separation process at a first magnetic field level and second magnetic separation process at a second magnetic field level, the second magnetic field level being higher than the first magnetic field level). Para. [0047], [0064]-[0070].
Regarding claim 17, Rinne does not teach performing a magnetic separation process to separate magnetic metals from non-magnetic minerals.
Pearse is directed to a method and system for magnetic separation of rare earth elements. Title; abstract. There is a need to separate individual rare earth element compounds from mixed rare earth compounds resulting from hydrometallurgical processes, such as leaching. Para. [0005], [0006], [0013]. Separation separates ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, and diamagnetic materials from one another. Para. [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed magnetic separation, as taught by Pearse, to the method of Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz because magnetic separation would yield a more precisely sorted product produced by the leaching process, thereby creating uniform piles of product for each material obtained.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz and further in view of Pearse.
Regarding claim 19, Rinne discloses a method for recovering metal from metal-containing waste material by leaching. Abstract; para. [0001]. The leaching extracts rare earth metal (REM or REE) in soluble form and impurities are made insoluble (leaching process to selectively extract rare earth; leaching process to selectively dissolve metals from solids). Para. [0054], [0056], [0058]. Various other materials can be recovered (extraction of critical minerals). Para. [0057]-[0059]. Leaching involves monitoring, controlling, and adjusting the redox potential (leaching through a series of operating conditions via redox potential control to separate out rare earth elements and critical minerals). Para. [0068], [0069], [0107], [0108].
Rinne discloses that the leaching reaction is aqueous or water-based. Para. [0060]. Ozone and oxygen are used to control the redox reaction and redox potential (controlling redox reactions through use of water and gaseous oxygen and/or hydrogen to control Eh conditions). Para. [0068], [0069], [0077], [0078], [0100], [0107], [0111], [0112].
Rinne discloses that the source of the waste may be ore from the mining industry, such as ore concentrate. Para. [0002], [0056]; claim 13. Rinne is silent regarding the specific claimed source (acid mine drainage sludge, laterite, or soil).
Ziemkiewicz is directed to processes for treating acid mine drainage (AMD) for recovering high-grade rare earth preconcentrate. Abstract; para. [0004]. AMD refers to acidic water that outflows from mines such as, for example, metal mines or coal mines. Para. [0072]. A mine is understood to mean active, inactive, or abandoned mining operations for removing minerals, metals, ores, or coal from the earth. Para. [0072]. AMD contains trace amounts of REEs. Para. [0004].
Because water pollution caused by AMD is the single greatest cause of stream impairment and AMD contains REEs (Ziemkiewicz at para. [0004]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used AMD as the source of rare earth elements in the process of Rinne in order to reduce AMD in the environment and lessen pollutants in streams.
Ziemkiewicz discloses that oxidizing agent enhances the efficiency of gangue metal separation from rare earth elements in the aqueous phase. Para. [0122]. Thus, the oxidation in Rinne would result in the separation of gangue materials from REEs and critical minerals.
The use of multiple containers to recover metal are known (multiple redox reactions). Rinne at para. [0074]; Ziemkiewicz at para. [0112], [0127]. REE isolation are known to take place over one or more extraction steps. Ziemkiewicz at para. [0108], [0109], claim 27.
Rinne does not teach performing a magnetic separation process to separate magnetic metals from non-magnetic minerals.
Pearse is directed to a method and system for magnetic separation of rare earth elements. Title; abstract. There is a need to separate individual rare earth element compounds from mixed rare earth compounds resulting from hydrometallurgical processes, such as leaching. Para. [0005], [0006], [0013]. Nonmagnetic materials can be separated from other magnetic materials. Para. [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed magnetic separation, as taught by Pearse, to the method of Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz because magnetic separation would yield a more precisely sorted product produced by the leaching process, thereby creating uniform piles of product for each material obtained.
Regarding claim 20, Pearse teaches magnetic separation by applying magnetic fields of varying strengths. Para. [0016]. The magnets are arranged from weakest to strongest (first magnetic separation process at a first magnetic field level and second magnetic separation process at a second magnetic field level, the second magnetic field level being higher than the first magnetic field level). Para. [0047], [0064]-[0070].
Claims 1-5, 7, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz and further in view of Pearse.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Rinne discloses a method for recovering metal from metal-containing waste material by leaching. Abstract; para. [0001]. The leaching extracts rare earth metal (REM or REE) in soluble form and impurities are made insoluble (leaching process to selectively extract rare earth; leaching process to selectively dissolve metals from solids). Para. [0054], [0056], [0058]. Various other materials can be recovered (extraction of critical minerals). Para. [0057]-[0059]. Leaching involves monitoring, controlling, and adjusting the redox potential (leaching through a series of operating conditions via redox potential control to separate out rare earth elements and critical minerals). Para. [0068], [0069], [0107], [0108].
Rinne discloses that the source of the waste may be ore from the mining industry, such as ore concentrate. Para. [0002], [0056]; claim 13. Rinne is silent regarding the specific claimed source (acid mine drainage sludge, laterite, or soil).
Ziemkiewicz is directed to processes for treating acid mine drainage (AMD) for recovering high-grade rare earth preconcentrate. Abstract; para. [0004]. AMD refers to acidic water that outflows from mines such as, for example, metal mines or coal mines. Para. [0072]. A mine is understood to mean active, inactive, or abandoned mining operations for removing minerals, metals, ores, or coal from the earth. Para. [0072]. AMD contains trace amounts of REEs. Para. [0004].
Because water pollution caused by AMD is the single greatest cause of stream impairment and AMD contains REEs (Ziemkiewicz at para. [0004]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used AMD as the source of rare earth elements in the process of Rinne in order to reduce AMD in the environment and lessen pollutants in streams.
Rinne does not teach performing a magnetic separation process to separate magnetic metals from non-magnetic minerals.
Pearse is directed to a method and system for magnetic separation of rare earth elements. Title; abstract. There is a need to separate individual rare earth element compounds from mixed rare earth compounds resulting from hydrometallurgical processes, such as leaching. Para. [0005], [0006], [0013]. Nonmagnetic materials can be separated from other magnetic materials. Para. [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed magnetic separation, as taught by Pearse, to the method of Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz because magnetic separation would yield a more precisely sorted product produced by the leaching process, thereby creating uniform piles of product for each material obtained.
Regarding claim 2, Rinne discloses that the leaching reaction is aqueous or water-based. Para. [0060]. Ozone and oxygen are used to control the redox reaction and redox potential (controlling redox reactions through use of water and gaseous oxygen and/or hydrogen to control Eh conditions). Para. [0068], [0069], [0077], [0078], [0100], [0107], [0111], [0112].
Ziemkiewicz discloses that oxidizing agent enhances the efficiency of gangue metal separation from rare earth elements in the aqueous phase. Para. [0122]. Thus, the oxidation in Rinne would result in the separation of gangue materials from REEs and critical minerals.
Regarding claim 3, Rinne discloses that the leaching reaction is aqueous or water-based. Para. [0060]. Ozone and oxygen are used to control the redox reaction and redox potential (controlling redox reactions through use of water and gaseous oxygen and/or hydrogen to control Eh conditions). Para. [0068], [0069], [0077], [0078], [0100], [0107], [0111], [0112].
Ziemkiewicz discloses that oxidizing agent enhances the efficiency of gangue metal separation from rare earth elements in the aqueous phase. Para. [0122]. Thus, the oxidation in Rinne would result in the separation of gangue materials from REEs and critical minerals.
The use of multiple containers to recover metal are known (multiple redox reactions). Rinne at para. [0074]; Ziemkiewicz at para. [0112], [0127]. REE isolation are known to take place over one or more extraction steps. Ziemkiewicz at para. [0108], [0109], claim 27.
Regarding claim 4, Rinne discloses that the redox potential is monitored (and therefore set or selected) and adjusted to ensure that the desired metal is extracted (leaching comprising redox reaction using a set electric potential to drive dissolution of desired REE or critical mineral metal into solution). Para. [0069], [0104], [0107], [0166].
Regarding claim 5, Rinne discloses adding ozone and oxygen to the aqueous solution, which are oxidants that adjust the redox potential, particularly voltage or Eh value. Para. [0107], [0111]. Rinne shows that metal is leached with addition of oxidant (set electric potential of solution increased through oxygen contact causing dissolution of desired REE or critical mineral metal into the solution) (e.g., para. [0196]).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Rinne discloses that the desired metal to leached includes iron. Para. [0058], [0105]. AMD contains iron, and a precipitate derived therefrom includes mostly iron and aluminum to be transferred for disposal or further processing as desired (para. [0004], [0072], [0073], [0091], [0117], [0131]). In Rinne, the solution is aqueous or water-based. Para. [0060].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz and Pearse, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2018/0171434 (A1) to Berggren et al. (“Berggren”).
Regarding claim 6, Rinne teaches that the Eh must be controlled and/or adjusted (para. [0107]), but does not specifically teach decreasing the Eh value by adding hydrogen.
Berggren is directed to methods of recovering neodymium and related rare earth elements. Abstract; para. [0011], [0073]. By targeting specific conditions of pH, Eh, temperature, and pressure, REE-containing materials may be processed to selectively dissolve constituents or to dissolve all constituents. Para. [0014]. In an embodiment, CO2, air, oxygen, and hydrogen peroxide are examples for changing the pH and Eh to cause precipitation. Para. [0055]. In an embodiment, H2 (hydrogen gas), CO, carbon, or other reducing agents adjust pH and Eh to cause precipitation. Para. [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added any of the Eh-modifying agents, such as hydrogen, listed by Berggren to the process of Rinne because these agents achieve Rinne’s objective of adjusting/controlling the Eh value to optimize the recovery process.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz and Pearse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2010/022480 (A1) to Mitov et al. (“Mitov”).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Rinne discloses that the desired metal to leached includes iron. Para. [0058], [0105]. AMD contains iron, and a precipitate derived therefrom includes mostly iron and aluminum to be transferred for disposal or further processing as desired (para. [0004], [0072], [0073], [0091], [0117], [0131]).
In Rinne, the solution is aqueous or water-based. Para. [0060]. The pH may be in the range of 4-7 (para. [0055], [0108]), which overlaps the claimed range. The temperature of the solution can be 40oC or less, such as 20-40oC (para. [0076]), which contains the claimed temperature. Examples appear to take place under ambient pressure (about 1 bar) (e.g., Rinne at para. [0190]). Atmospheric pressure (i.e., one atmosphere = about 1 bar) or near atmospheric pressure is used for recovering rare earth elements (e.g., Ziemkiewicz at para. [0078], [0702]).
Rinne is silent regarding the Eh value for leaching metals from Fe-based mineral structure.
Mitov is directed to a method for nickel and cobalt extraction from oxide ores. Title; abstract; p. 1, lines 3-7. In addition to extracting nickel and cobalt, iron is removed from the ore. Page 2, lines 22-23; page 3, lines 10-15. To reduce the Fe3+ in the ore Fe2O3 to Fe2+, the redox potential is 200-300 mV (0.200-0.300 V) (p. 4, lines 8-11), which contains the claimed Eh value of 0.250 V.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art have incorporated the Eh value of Mitov as a target Eh value for the process of Rinne because it is a redox potential adequate for recovering iron, which would thereby achieve Rinne’s goal of extracting iron as a desired material.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne in view of Ziemkiewicz, Pearse, and Mitov, as applied to claims 8 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2015/0104361 (A1) to Boudreault et al. (“Boudreault”).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Rinne is silent regarding the Eh of the solution for selectively leaching desired REEs and critical minerals from solution while keeping Fe and other gangue minerals in solid phase.
Boudreault is directed to processes for recovering at least one rare earth element. Abstract; para. [0002], [0005]. The redox potential for the selective precipitation of rare earth element is about +380 mV. Para. [0246]; claim 310. This potential value is higher than the Eh value of 200-300 mV in Mitov. In Rinne, the gold extraction redox/ORP voltage is, for example, 570-630 mV. Para. [0190], [0191].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have exceeded the Eh beyond 200-300 mV, as shown in Boudreault, in the process of Rinne because a higher Eh would facilitate recovery of rare earth elements or other elements (e.g., gold). Since iron is reduced at a lower Eh, it and gangue would be expected to remain intact if the Eh is raised beyond that required for iron reduction, as suggested by Ziemkiewicz, which teaches that addition of oxidizing agent enhances the efficient of separating gangue from REE in the aqueous phase (para. [0122]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
December 31, 2025