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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 18 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 6-15 are amended; claims 2-5 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1 and 6-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 24 February 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 24 February 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed certified copies of the English Translation of EP21158868.6 or PCT/EP2022/054206 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 28 May 2026 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11, “from about 1.3: 1 to about 1.5:1” should read “from about 1.3:1 to about 1.5:1” or “from about 1.3: 1 to about 1.5: 1”. There is a space after the colon in the first ratio and no space after the colon in the second ratio. The spacing should be the same for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 (organic extractant phase meets the limitation of the organic solvent extract comprising FeCl3) 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 the aqueous solution of metal chlorides has a concentration of HCl of about 3-8 N (Col. 3, lines 1-3). 3-8 N is equivalent to 3-8 M because there is 1 H+ ion in HCl. Omote further discloses the concentration of FeCl3 in the aqueous solution of metal chlorides should be preferably at least more than 100 g/l (Col. 2, lines 61-63). The molar ratio of HCl to Fe3+ was calculated as follows:
3
-
8
m
o
l
H
C
l
>
100
g
F
e
C
l
₃
×
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
+
=
<
12.98
m
o
l
H
C
l
1
m
o
l
F
e
3
+
Regarding the molar ratio of HCl to Fe3+ in claim 1, it appears that less than 13:1 taught by Omote overlaps the claimed range of from about 1.3: 1 to about 1.5:1 such that the range taught by Omote obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Omote further 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Omote discloses extracting FeCl3 into the organic phase by countercurrent extraction operation in at least 2 stages and usually less than six stages (Col. 3, lines 8-20).
Regarding Claim 7, Omote discloses extracting FeCl3 into the organic phase by countercurrent extraction operation in at least 2 stages and usually less than six stages (2-6 stages meets the limitation of multi-stage extraction; Col. 3, lines 8-20).
Regarding Claim 8, Omote discloses the FeCl3 is reversely extracted to the aqueous phase by contacting the organic phase with an aqueous medium such as water in a countercurrent extraction operation in 2 to 6 stages (Col. 3, lines 21-28).
Regarding Claim 9, Omote discloses the FeCl3 is reversely extracted to the aqueous phase by contacting the organic phase with an aqueous medium such as water in a countercurrent extraction operation in 2 to 6 stages (2-6 stages meets the limitation of multi-stage extraction; Col. 3, lines 21-28).
Regarding Claim 10, Omote discloses the extraction with organic solvent and extraction with water take place at room temperature (room temperature meets the limitation of 0 to 80°C; Col. 5, lines 42-53).
Regarding Claim 12, Omote discloses these ketones and ethers can be very easily purified by distillation and they can be reused in the extraction operation easily, thus making the process of the present invention economically advantageous (Col. 4, lines 39-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Omote wherein the organic solvent extract remaining after the extraction with water in step c) is reused in step b), because reusing the organic solvent is economically advantageous, as recognized by Omote (Col. 4, lines 39-42).
Regarding Claim 13, Omote discloses the concentration of FeCl3 in the aqueous solution of metal chlorides should be preferably at least more than 100 g/l (Col. 2, lines 61-63), which, in the alternative, results in a concentration of Fe3+ in the aqueous multi-component system of step a) which overlaps or, in the alternative, is close to the claimed range of 0.01 to 2.3 mol/kg such that the range taught by Omote obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 14, Omote discloses the aqueous solution obtained by leaching ilmenite, titanium slag, or other titaniferous material with hydrochloric acid contains other metal chlorides such as magnesium chloride (magnesium chloride meets the limitation of an alkaline earth metal salt; Col. 3, lines 64-69).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omote (US 3,795,727) in view of Kim (US 4,261,959).
Regarding Claim 11, Omote teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 6.
Omote is silent to the method being carried out continuously.
Kim discloses a process for removing ferric iron from an aqueous chloride solution containing other cations comprising contacting the aqueous chloride solution with an organic liquid extractant to extract ferric iron into said organic liquid extractant, separating the organic liquid extractant containing the ferric iron from the aqueous chloride solution containing other cations, and stripping the ferric iron from the organic liquid extractant to recover an aqueous ferric chloride solution (Col. 2, lines 1-13). Kim further discloses contacting the aqueous chloride solution containing ferric iron with the solvent extractant may be carried out by any of the well-known procedures employed in solvent-extractions; although continuous counter current methods are preferred (Col. 3, lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Omote to incorporate the teachings of Kim wherein the method is carried out continuously, because in similar methods of removing ferric iron via solvent extraction, continuous counter current methods are preferred, as recognized by Kim (Col. 3, lines 55-60).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omote (US 3,795,727) in view of Alessandroni (US 2,406,577).
Regarding Claim 15, Omote teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 14.
Omote discloses the aqueous solution of metal chlorides is obtained by leaching titaniferous ores/materials (Col. 3, lines 64-65).
Omote is silent to the aqueous multi-component system of step a) comprising dissolved NaCl in the range of 0.01 to 3.5 mol/kg.
Alessandroni discloses a method for increasing the recovery of iron from iron-containing titaniferous ores (Col. 1, lines 6-8). Alessandroni further discloses improved results when chloride salts are added to hydrochloric acid so that the treated acid will more effectively remove iron form iron-containing titaniferous ores (Col. 1, lines 49-54). Alessandroni further discloses the chloride is a chloride of alkali metals (Col. 2, lines 1-4), for example, sodium chloride (NaCl) may be used (Table 1).
Alessandroni further discloses the minimum amount of salt which may be added to produce improved results is about 0.5 mol per liter of hydrochloric acid (Col. 2, lines 4-7) and the specific gravity of the hydrochloric acid is about 1.10, which results in an aqueous multi-component system comprising dissolved NaCl which overlaps or, in the alternative, is close to the claimed range of 0.01 to 3.5 such that the range taught by Alessandroni 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 Omote to incorporate the teachings of Alessandroni, wherein the aqueous multi-component system of step a) comprising dissolved NaCl in the range of 0.01 to 3.5 mol/kg, because adding NaCl to hydrochloric acid will more effectively remove iron from iron-containing titaniferous ores, as recognized by Alessandroni (Col. 1, lines 49-54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", pg. 6, par. 1-3, filed 18 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Omote (US 3,795,727) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 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
Prosecution Insights