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 1-4, 6-10, and 15 are currently amended, Claims 5 and 11-14 are as previously presented, and Claims 16-20 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim of Claim 16. 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
In Claim 5, it is not clear if the pH recited in line 1 refers to both or one of the pH during reduction of the dissolved noble metal or prior to the addition of the non-noble metal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron et al (US 7,972,412 B2) in view of Aktas et al in Trans Indian Inst Met.
Bergeron et al teaches recovering at least one platinum group metal species as represented below in the annotated drawing and regarding the teaching in the box:
PNG
media_image1.png
416
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bergeron et al teaches digesting a solution comprising platinum group metals including iridium and ruthenium (column 1, lines 31-33). A concentration of 0.1-3 M HCl is a pH range of +0.477 to +1 and overlaps the claimed range. However, Bergeron et al does not teach zinc is added in an amount that exceeds the amount stoichiometrically necessary to reduce the dissolved noble metal as in Claim 1.
Aktas et al teaches zinc is a cementing agent historically used for recovering all precious metals including ruthenium (page 698). Ten times excess zinc over the theoretical amount is found to be adequate for reduction of ruthenium ions (page 699). The pH rises due to the consumption of hydronium ions, and Fig. 2 teaches the relationship between pH and the amount of zinc of a pH of 2.0 with 10 mg Zn to up to 2.5 with 20 mg Zn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an excess amount of zinc in the process of Bergeron et al as taught by Aktas et al, since Aktas et al teaches a large excess of zinc powder addition was required to reach desired Ru recovery (page 702). Additionally, In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, Bergeron et al teaches wet-chemical noble metal refining and noble metal recycling based on the regenerate step.
Regarding Claim 3, Bergeron et al teaches dissolved gaseous Cl2 forms metallic salts of platinum group metals (column 9,lines 40-41), which reads on oxidizing.
Regarding Claim 4, Bergeron et al teaches regenerating “rinse water” from ion exchange resins (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Bergeron et al and Aktas et al both overlap or teach the claimed range. It is not clear if the pH refers to prior to the addition of the non-noble metal or during reduction as addressed in the rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 6, Bergeron et al teaches HCl is the only acid.
Regarding Claim 7, Bergeron et al teaches in Table 1 an amount of ruthenium of 55 to 68 parts per billion but does not teach the amount in terms of mg per liter as claimed. A particular parameter, in this case the mass per liter of ruthenium, must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B.
Regarding Claim 8, Bergeron et al teaches the platinum group metals include iridium, platinum, palladium, and osmium (column 1, lines 31 and 33).
Regarding Claim 9, Bergeron et al teaches the ore is ground (column 4, line 54), which reads on a powder.
Regarding Claim 11, Bergeron et al teaches zinc.
Regarding Claim 12, Aktas et al teaches 5.31 mg of zinc will be sufficient, and teaches 10-100 mg in Fig. 2, which overlaps the claimed range of 2- to 20-fold.
Regarding Claim 13, Aktas et al teaches adding zinc to a bath solution by shaking (page 698), which reads on uniform addition.
Regarding Claim 14, Aktas et al teaches between greater than zero to 240 minutes (page 701), or up to 4 hours, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 15, Bergeron et al teaches a temperature range of 20-100 °C.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Aktas et al teaches ruthenium.
Regarding Claim 19, Aktas et al teaches using zinc powder (page 698) but does not teach the powder absolute grain size as claimed. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B. In this case, Aktas et al teaches the size of the powder is directly related to the available surface area as discussed on page 698.
Regarding Claim 20, Bergeron et al teaches aqueous FeCl-3 (column 12, line 6), which is acidic, during chlorination.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2019-147990, based on the machine translation.
Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al does not teach an additional non-noble metal as in Claim 10.
JP 2019-147990 (JP ‘990) teaches recovering ruthenium from a hydrochloric acid liquid containing at least one of arsenic or antimony (abstract). JP ‘990 preferentially teaches copper (page 1), but it is known that ruthenium is reduced to metallic ruthenium by a metal that generates hydrogen with an acid such as zinc, magnesium and aluminum (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include either magnesium or aluminum as reducing agents in Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al, since JP ‘990 teaches these metals are equivalent in reducing ruthenium.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crozier et al (US 5,165,901).
Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al does not teach a chelating agent as in Claim 18.
Crozier et al teaches recovering platinum group metals with a polyamine, especially diethylene-triamine (abstract) including ruthenium and iridium (column 1, line 42) with a hydrochloric acid feedstock (column 2, line 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a chelating agent to the process of Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al as taught in Crozier et al, since Crozier et al teaches a clear advantage in selectivity (column 6, line 10) and high yields (abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights