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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to: Claim 24 recites a “rare earth phosphate, carbonate, fluorocarbonate, oxide, hydroxide, or oxyhydroxide.” This is interpreted to refer specifically to rare earth phosphates, rare earth carbonates, rare earth fluorocarbonates, rare earth hydroxides, and rare earth oxyhydroxides. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 27 recites a “rare earth element salt;” this term will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of a compound comprising of a rare earth ion that has formed a non-covalent bond with an anion.
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.
Claim 13, 26, and 27 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.
Claim 13 recites “the electrolyte composition is admixed with the rare earth element source at a pH,” which lack antecedent basis. The electrolyte composition of claim 1 is admixed with the first composition, and is not admixed with the rare earth element source directly. As a result, the additional limitation of claim 13 renders unclear the relationship of the electrolyte composition to the rare earth element source.
Claim 26 recites “the rare earth element that is isolated;” this phrase lacks antecedent basis in claim 1, which only recites a rare earth element that is extracted. Claim 26 additionally recites a “rare earth element metal ionic compound,” which is not a commonly used term of the art and is not defined in the instant specification, and relies on the definition of an ionic bond, which is a relative term in the art and is as a result indefinite in scope. To proceed with further examination, the interpretation of a compound having a rare earth metal ion forming at least one bond with a nonmetal ion, will be applied.
Claim 27 recites “the rare earth element that is isolated;” this phrase lacks antecedent basis in claim 1, which only recites a rare earth element that is extracted.
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 1-5, 8-13, 17-18, 22-24, 26-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by non-patent literature Doyle and Lapidus, Selective thorium and uranium extraction from monazite: II. Approaches to enhance the removal of radioactive contaminants, 2015, Hydrometallurgy 155 (2015) 161–167, herein referred to as Doyle. Additionally, "Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook" by Robert H. Perry, Don Green, Sixth Edition, 1984, publicly available at handymath.com at least since 24 September 2010, is cited with regard to claim 5.
Regarding claim 1, Doyle discloses a method for extracting one or more rare earth elements from rare earth element source (treatment strategies to improve the ability to selectively remove actinides from monazite, p. 161/C2), comprising a. admixing the rare earth element source in water with a base at temperature less than or equal to 100°C to produce a first composition (monazite was contacted with 40 mL of 20 wt.% NaOH solution and heated to 80 °C, p. 163/C1), b. admixing the first composition with an electrolyte composition comprising a plurality of cations, anions, or a combination thereof to produce a second composition (the residues were rinsed, air-dried and weighed before leaching; leaching solutions were prepared with reagent grade oxalic acid dihydrate, dibasic ammonium citrate or Na4EDTA and ammonium hydroxide, p. 163/C1), and c. extracting the rare earth elements from the second composition (the solid samples were digested with aqua regia and also analyzed by ICP-MS for the rare earth and actinide elements, p. 163/C1).
Regarding claim 2, Doyle discloses the composition containing oxalate solution having a pH of 3.3, Figure 5, which anticipates the range of pH from about 3 to about 10 required in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Doyle discloses the use of NaOH, p. 163/C1; this anticipates the alkali metal required in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Doyle discloses NaOH, p. 163/C1.
Regarding claim 5, Doyle discloses that 2 g (−270 + 400 mesh) monazite was contacted with 40 mL of 20 wt.% NaOH solution, p. 163/C1; the volume of NaOH in the solution is determined as 40 mL * 0.2 = 8 g NaOH / a* = 6.8 mL NaOH, where the value of a* = 1.1833 g/mL is taken from "Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook" by Robert H. Perry, Don Green, Sixth Edition. 6.8 mL / 40 mL = 0.17 = 17%, which anticipates the instant claimed range of about 5% to about 80% by volume.
Regarding claim 8, the composition disclosed by Doyle contains ammonium as discussed above for claim 1. Doyle further discloses the addition of aluminum sulfate, p. 163/C1.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Doyle discloses the addition of ferric chloride or aluminum sulfate, p. 163/C1.
Regarding claim 11, Doyle discloses the composition containing reagent grade oxalic acid dihydrate (99%, Sigma Aldrich), dibasic ammonium citrate (98%, J.T. Baker analyzed) or Na4EDTA ((99%, J.T. Baker analyzed) and ammonium hydroxide, the latter to adjust the solution pH. Each of these are known organic chelating agents or complexing agents in the art. Doyle additionally discloses the addition of ferric chloride or aluminum sulfate was added to some tests, p. 163/C1, and chloride and sulfate ions are also known in the art to function as complexing agents.
Regarding claim 12, Doyle discloses oxalic acid, Na4EDTA, ammonium citrate, p. 163/C1, as applied to claim 11 above; this anticipates the phosphoric acid, organic acid, diamine, and polyamine required of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Doyle discloses the electrolyte composition admixed with the rare earth element composition at a pH of 5, Figure 12. This anticipates the range of pH from about 3.5 to about 7.5 required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Doyle discloses a class of −270 + 400 mesh (37–53 μm) particles, p. 163/C1. This anticipates the range of less than about 100 μm regarding particle size as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Doyle discloses that the extraction occurs via leaching as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding claims 22, 23, and 24, Doyle discloses that the rare earth element source is monazite as discussed above for claim 1. It is noted that monazite is a salt of lanthanide ions and phosphate ions, as defined in the instant specification (00134).
Regarding claim 26, Doyle discloses that rare earth oxalates are precipitated before a second leaching treatment (rare earth oxalates that had been formed during the first treatment, p. 163/C2). Using the interpretation of “metal ionic compound” recited previously, a rare-earth oxalate forms a metal-nonmetal bond that has significantly ionic character, thus anticipating the metal ionic compound required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 27, Doyle discloses the precipitated rare earth oxalate as discussed above for claim 26, which anticipates the rare earth element salt required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 28, Doyle discloses monazite as discussed above for claim 1; this anticipates the content of Ce, Nd, and La required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 31, Doyle discloses sonication to disrupt passivating product layers during oxalate leaching, p. 164/C1. This process is used to separate layers to facilitate separation of rare earth-bearing matrix from the source, p. 164/C1-C2, which anticipates the physical separation process to separate the rare earth minerals from the rare earth source required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 32, Doyle discloses the "monazite matrix," p. 164/C1; this anticipates the mineral comprising of monazite required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 33, Doyle discloses 40 mL of 20 wt.% NaOH solution, p. 163/C1; this anticipates the range of about 1% to about 50% by volume of the first composition required by the instant claim. Doyle additionally discloses that these compositions are "leaching solutions," p. 163/C1; this anticipates the lixiviant required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 34, Doyle discloses NaOH as applied to claim 33.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, as applied above to claim 1, in view of Zhang et al. 2017, CONCENTRATION OF RARE EARTH MINERALS FROM COAL BY FROTH FLOTATION, referred to herein as Zhang.
Regarding claim 25, Doyle discloses a method for extracting one or more rare earth elements from rare earth element source, as discussed previously.
Doyle does not disclose the rare earth element source being derived from fine coal refuse.
However, Zhang discloses obtaining concentrated rare earth minerals (REM) such as monazite (abstract) from the flotation of fine coal refuse (abstract; introduction, pp. 3).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Doyle with the additional step of sourcing the material from fine coal refuse, as taught in Zhang. One would be motivated to do so to obtain high concentrations of rare earth elements, which are easily found in Far East coalfields in Russia, motivation taught by Zhang (introduction, pp. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738