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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 24 August 2023 and 23 January 2024 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-15 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-5 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 1, line 4, recites "the multi-component system from step a) is extracted with an organic solvent". It is unclear what the multi-component system is being extracted from. This limitation is interpreted as requiring extracting the Fe3+ ions and Cl- ions from the multi-component system with an organic solvent.
Claim 1, line 5, recites “the organic solvent from step b) is extracted with water”. It is unclear how an organic solvent can be extracted with water as organic solvents are immiscible with water. This limitation is interpreted as requiring extracting the Fe3+ ions and Cl- ions from the organic solvent with water.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation the molar ratio of aqueous HCl to Fe, and the claim also recites the range from 1.8: 1 to 2.3: 1 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 2-4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 is indefinite as it depends from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Omote (US 3,795,727).
Regarding Claim 1, Omote discloses a process for recovering an aqueous solution of ferric chloride (FeCl3) from an aqueous solution containing ferric chloride by solvent extraction which comprises subjecting an aqueous solution of metal chlorides (an aqueous solution of metal chlorides meets the limitation of an aqueous multi-component system) containing ferric chloride to a liquid-liquid contact with an alkyl, aryl, or aralkyl ketone or ether having 4-10 carbon atoms (ketone or ether meets the limitation of an organic solvent), transferring ferric chloride in said aqueous solution to the organic ketone or ether extractant phase, and contacting the organic extractant phase with water and transferring the ferric chloride from the organic extractant phase to the aqueous phase, thus obtaining an aqueous solution of ferric chloride (Col. 1, lines 29-46). Omote further discloses the aqueous solution of metal chlorides containing ferric chloride comprises HCl (hydrochloric acid) and ferric ions (Fe3+) (Col. 2, lines 33-49). Omote further discloses the concentration of hydrochloric acid in the aqueous phase be low in the step of extracting FeCl3 from the organic phase to the aqueous phase by contacting the organic phase with an aqueous medium such as water (Col. 3, lines 21-26), such that the aqueous solution of ferric chloride of Omote comprises hydrochloric acid and therefore meets the limitation of an aqueous hydrochloric acid solution of FeCl3.
Omote further discloses in example 5 the aqueous hydrochloric acid multi-component system comprises 233 g/l FeCl3 and 98 g/l HCl (Col. 6, lines 63-71). The molar ratio of HCl to Fe3+ was calculated as follows:
98
g
H
C
l
233
g
F
e
C
l
₃
×
1
m
o
l
H
C
l
36.4
g
H
C
l
×
162.2
g
F
e
C
l
₃
1
m
o
l
F
e
C
l
₃
×
1
m
o
l
F
e
C
l
₃
1
m
o
l
F
e
3
+
=
1.87
m
o
l
H
C
l
m
o
l
F
e
C
l
₃
Therefore, the molar ratio of HCl to Fe3+ is 1.87: 1, which meets the limitation of ≥ 1.3: 1.
Omote further discloses in example 9 the aqueous hydrochloric acid multi-component system comprises 235 g/l FeCl3 and 159 g/l HCl (Col. 8, lines 27-35), which results in a molar ratio of HCl to Fe3+ of 3: 1, which meets the limitation of ≥ 1.3: 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Omote discloses in example 5 the aqueous hydrochloric acid multi-component system comprises 233 g/l FeCl3 and 98 g/l HCl (Col. 6, lines 63-71). The molar ratio of HCl to Fe3+ was calculated as follows:
98
g
H
C
l
233
g
F
e
C
l
₃
×
1
m
o
l
H
C
l
36.4
g
H
C
l
×
162.2
g
F
e
C
l
₃
1
m
o
l
F
e
C
l
₃
×
1
m
o
l
F
e
C
l
₃
1
m
o
l
F
e
3
+
=
1.87
m
o
l
H
C
l
m
o
l
F
e
C
l
₃
Therefore, the molar ratio of HCl to Fe3+ is 1.87: 1, which meets the limitation of in the range from 1.5: 1 to 2.5: 1 and the range from 1.8: 1 to 2.3: 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Omote discloses subjecting an aqueous solution of metal chlorides containing ferric chloride to a liquid-liquid contact with an alkyl, aryl, or aralkyl ketone or ether having 4-10 carbon atoms (ketone or ether meets the limitation of an organic solvent comprising molecules comprising heteroatoms, wherein the heteroatoms are oxygen atoms), transferring ferric chloride in said aqueous solution to the organic ketone or ether extractant phase (Col. 1, lines 29-40).
Regarding Claim 4, Omote discloses subjecting an aqueous solution of metal chlorides containing ferric chloride to a liquid-liquid contact with an alkyl, aryl, or aralkyl ketone or ether having 4-10 carbon atoms (ketone or ether meets the limitation of an organic solvent comprising ethers or ketones), transferring ferric chloride in said aqueous solution to the organic ketone or ether extractant phase (Col. 1, lines 29-40). Omote further discloses the use of diisopropyl ether for extraction (Col. 6, lines 72-75).
Regarding Claim 5, Omote discloses the use of methylisobutyl ketone (aka 4-methylpentan-2-one) as the organic solvent for extraction (Col. 1, lines 60-63; Col. 2, lines 5-7), which was utilized in example 9 (Col. 8, lines 37-38).
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
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735