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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recites inter alia "hydrous ore material, which size reduction is performed..." which is likely a typographic error since the use of the word “which” appears to render claim 2 an incomplete sentence. Appropriate correction is required; to proceed with examination the interpretation “hydrous ore material, wherein size reduction is performed…” is applied.
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites inter alia "seperation" which is likely a typographic error. 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 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 provides information within parentheses in several places (for example, in a crystallization step, the information “FeCl2*xH2O, wherein x>1” is provided within parentheses). The definitions are provided within the instant specification, but the language of the claim is unclear as to whether they are to be treated as preferential or limiting within the claim. Claims 2-5 do not rectify the issue and are therefore similarly rejected for indefiniteness.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreault US 9353425 B2 in view of non-patent literature Yi et al. 2019, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry (2019) 138:1633–1640, herein referred to as Yi.
Regarding claim 1, Boudreault teaches processes for treating materials comprising at least one metal chosen from aluminum, iron, zinc, copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, cobalt, magnesium, lithium, manganese, nickel, palladium, platinum, thorium, phosphorus, uranium and titanium, and/or at least one rare earth element and/or at least one rare metal (C1/L20-25), comprising:
in a digestion step, producing a solution of ferrous chloride (FeCl2) and a divalent chloride of the at least one other metal (C8/L44-46, C14/L12-14, Fig. 9) by contacting the hydrous ore material with a digestion reagent in the form of gaseous hydrochloric acid (C45/L49-60)
reducing any ferric iron (Fe3+) in solution to ferrous iron (Fe2+), present as FeCl2 in solution, using a reducing agent (Boudreault teaches the addition of HCl, which is capable of functioning as a reducing agent to reduce ferric ions to ferrous ions)
in a crystallisation step, crystallising a solid ferrous chloride hydrate (FeCl2-xH20, wherein x> 1) and a solid divalent chloride hydrate of the at least one other metal (M2+Cl2-zH20, wherein z>1) (Figure 8, step 4, the first metal chloride can be precipitated or crystallized, C44/L56-58; where Boudreault teaches that the first metal may be a mixture of Fe and Co, Ni, or other metals, C44/L41-42; Boudreault teaches that the aluminum chloride hexahydrate that is formed in step 4 of Figure 3, may be replaced by nickel or cobalt, C45/L65-66)
from the FeCl2-M2+Cl2 solution (from steps 2/3, Figure 8);
in a dehydration step, subjecting the FeCl2-xH20 and the M2+Cl2-zH20 to temperature treatment (steps 5 & 7, Figure 8)
in a thermal decomposition step, subjecting the FeCl2-yH20 and the M2+Cl2-aH20 to temperature treatment and thus decomposing the FeCl2-yH20 to produce solid ferric oxide (step 6, Figure 8, C26/L12-27) anhydrous gaseous hydrochloric acid (HCl) (C20/L9-12, step 107, Figures 6 and 7) and solid divalent chloride of the at least one other metal (step 106, Figures 6 and 7)
Boudreault does not teach:
in a dehydration step, subjecting the FeCl2-xH20 and the M2+Cl2-zH20 to temperature treatment to produce a solid partially dehydrated ferrous chloride hydrate (FeCl2-yH20, wherein x>y>0) and at least one of a solid partially dehydrated divalent chloride hydrate and a solid divalent chloride of the at least one other metal (M2+Cl2-aH20, wherein z>a>0)
in a thermal decomposition step, using the anhydrous gaseous hydrochloric acid thus produced as the digestion reagent in the digestion step.
However, regarding limitation I, Yi teaches a several-step dehydration under N2 gas of metal chlorides such as cobalt chloride, through the range of 77 to 227 degrees Celsius (Table 9), to obtain partially dehydrated metal salts. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Boudreault to add an intermediate dehydration step of the hydrated metal chlorides in an inert environment such as N2 gas, as Yi teaches. One would be motivated to do so in order to obtain stable forms of various metal chlorides before obtaining completely anhydrous solids, since Yi teaches that the stability of certain metal chlorides in hydrated form is greater than their anhydrous form, such as MnCl2*4H20 (p. 1638, column 1) and thus the presence of water in the crystal structure can improve the stabilities of some compounds (p. 1638, column 1).
Regarding limitation II, Boudreault teaches that the leaching step can also be carried out by adding dry highly concentrated acid in gas phase into the aqueous solution (C11/L61-63). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to recycle the anhydrous gas formed in step 107 to be used in the digestion (leaching) step; one would be motivated to do so in order to achieve semi-continuous leaching, which has the advantage of reducing reaction time and improving kinetics, as Boudreault teaches (C25/L14-20). Thus one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Boudreault teaches that the aluminum-containing material is reduced to an average particle size of about 50 to about 80 μm, C23/L21; this step is capable of performing the function of size reduction of the hydrous ore material.
Regarding claim 3, Boudreault teaches that the process can be continuous (C50/L52-53). Boudreault also teaches that the particle size established provides the advantage, at the leaching stage, of allowing optimal contact between the minerals and the acid and then allowing faster kinetics of reaction (C51/L4-6). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to perform the contacting with digestion simultaneously with the size reduction being performed, as required by the instant claim; one would be motivated to do so in order to optimize the reaction time and kinetics, as Boudreault teaches (C51/L4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Boudreault teaches that nickel or cobalt chloride can thus replace aluminum chloride in FIGS. 1, 3, 6, 7, 13 and 14, C45/L65. See Figure 9 as well.
Regarding claim 5, Boudreault teaches laterite, C13/L30.
Regarding claim 6, Boudreault teaches a crystallization step, step 4. Boudreault additionally teaches that evaporation can reduce energy consumption (C18/L56-57). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the crystallization step by using evaporative crystallization, and arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date; one would be motivated to do so in order to reduce energy consumption of the crystallization step, as Boudreault teaches (C18/L56-57).
Regarding claim 7, Boudreault teaches solid-liquid separation to recover the solution containing FeCl2 and M(2+)Cl2 free of solids, step 3, Figure 8 (C23/L30-32).
Regarding claim 8, Boudreault teaches that the precipitate of step 4 can be separated from the liquid (C23/L39-40); this meets the limitation of recovering the solids from the crystallization step, as required by the instant claim. Boudreault modified by Yi would necessarily teach this step before the dehydration, since the teaching of Yi offers motivation for dehydration of metal chloride products, which Boudreault teaches are formed from the crystallization step, step 4.
Regarding claim 9, Yi modifying Boudreault teaches that the dehydration is performed under N2 flowing atmosphere within the temperature range of 298.15 to 500 K (p. 1635, column 1), which corresponds to 25 to 227 Celsius. While this range is broader than the instant claimed range of 70 to 150 C, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the method as taught by Yi where the temperature is maintained at any workable or optimum range within the taught range, including the claimed range, and arrive at the claimed invention, barring evidence of unexpected results of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Boudreault teaches that step 6 comprises the iron chloride being hydrolyzed at a temperature of about 155 to 350 C (C14/L37-38). This meets the limitation of being performed under oxidizing conditions required by the instant claim. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art," a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the method for treating hydrous ores as suggested by Boudreault and Yi where the temperature of the thermal decomposition step is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with 155 to 350 C as taught by Boudreault including the claimed range in order to obtain a temperature suitable to generate ferric oxide (hematite) as a product, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3518054 A, Kulling 1970, discloses as analogous art a process for treating ilmenite ore (abstract) in which iron and titanium go together into partial solution, HCl is added and brought to a boil, metallic iron is added (C3/L34), and FeCl2*4H2O is crystallized from solution (C3/L37).
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 5712726297. 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
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738