DETAILED ACTION This detailed action is in response to the application filed on August 5, 2023, and any subsequent filings. Claims 35-55 stand rejected. Claims 35-55 are pending. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), i n view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang") , and further view of “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"). Regarding Claim 35 , Adams discloses a method for the recovery of vanadium (recovery of valuable metals, Adams, pg 1, line 5-17), the method comprising the steps of a vanadium-containing ore (low- sulphur polymetallic ores, Adams, pg 1, line 5-17) to a beneficiation step incorporating a sequence of medium-intensity magnetic separation (magnetic fields, Adams, pg 4, line 20-26), high-intensity magnetic separation (magnetic fields, Adams, pg 4, line 20-26) and to form a vanadium-containing concentrate ( concentrate the valuable metals, Adams, pg 4, line 20-26) . Adams further discloses roasting the vanadium-containing concentrate (roasting the residue, Adams, pg 1, line 28-33); leaching a product of the roasting step (leaching, Adams, pg 2, line 1-3) to extract vanadium into a pregnant leach liquor ( p regnant lech solution, Adams, pg 4 line 27-32 to pg 5 line 1-2); passing the pregnant leach liquor of leaching to a precipitation step (precipitation, Adams, pg 5, line 6-11); t reating a precipitate to obtain a vanadium product (precious metal recovery 24, Adams, pg 5, line 6-11, Figure 1), where an iron-titanium product is recovered (storable iron product, Adams, pg 5, line 17-20) . Adams is silent on the reverse silica flotation process . Wang teaches about a reverse silica flotation process (reverse flotations, Wang, 2.2 Flotation, pg 1146) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of A dams and add the reverse flotation process of Wang because the reverse flotation process can increase the concentration of the desired metal and recovery of the desired metal (Bada, Abstract). Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and further view of “ A literature review on leaching and recovery of vanadium .” Peng, et al ("Peng"). Regarding Claim 36 , paragraphs 9 -1 1 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada , and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35 . The combination of references discloses a vanadium product ; however, the combination of references does not disclose a purity greater than 99% . Peng teaches a purity of the vanadium product that is greater than 99% (Peng, pg 2, 2.1 Roasting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of A dams, Wang, and Bada, and add the reference of Peng because the vanadium recovery process of Peng improve s the leaching efficiency of vanadium (peng, pg 3, 2.2 Leaching) and high recovery efficiency of va nad ium (peng, pg 1, Abstract) which is important in regards to the vanadium recovery process . Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), and further view of “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"). Regarding Claim 37 , paragraphs 9-11 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses the vanadium-containing concentrate that is subjected to pelletisation before the roasting step (finer grain size, Adams, pg 9, line 5-15) . Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and further view of Moreira Da Costa , et al. U.S. Patent No. 9421556 B2 (" Moreira Da Costa "). Regarding Claim 38 , paragraphs 9-11 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses a vanadium-containing concentrate ; however, the combination of references does not disclose a reduced silica content . Moreira Da Costa discloses a vanadium-containing concentrate with a reduced silica content ( Moreira Da Costa , Column 12, line 3-9, Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of A dams, Wang, and Bada, and add the reference of Moreira Da Costa because the vanadium flotation process provides improved selectivity compared to other depressants such as starch which increases flotation process selectivity and decrease s collector consumption ( Moreira Da Costa , Column 2, line 38-46). Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and further view of “ A literature review on leaching and recovery of vanadium .” Peng, et al ("Peng"). Regarding Claim 39 , paragraphs 12-15 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses the high purity vanadium product prepared by the vanadium recovery process p roducing high-purity vanadium pentoxide (Peng, pg 2, 2.1 Roasting). Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"). Regarding Claim 40 , paragraphs 9-11 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses a vanadium-containing ore that contains titanium and iron in addition to the vanadium (Adams, pg 1, line 10-17). Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and further view of Moreira Da Costa , et al. U.S. Patent No. 9421556 B2 (" Moreira Da Costa "). Regarding Claim 4 1 , paragraphs 18-21 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, and Moreira Da Costa , and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses a reverse flotation (reverse flotation systems, Moreira Da Costa , column 1, line 27-28) of the silica content is achieved with an optimized combination of causticized starch depressant (causticized starch, Moreira Da Costa , column 1, line 55-56), diamine silica collector (diamines, Moreira Da Costa , column 8, line 9-28), frother ( frother , Moreira Da Costa , column 7, line 52-55) and operating pH (pH, Moreira Da Costa , column 10, line 64-67). Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and further view of “ Preparation, Sintering Behavior and Consolidation Mechanism of Vanadium-Titanium Magnetite Pellets .” Chen, et al ("Chen"). Regarding Claim 4 2 , paragraphs 16-17 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 37. The combination of references discloses the pelletisation method; however, the combination of references does not disclose an organic binder used in the pelletisation method. Chen teaches an organic binder used in the pelletisation method (Bentonite, Chen, Abstract) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of A dams, Wang, and Bada, and add the reference of Chen because bentonite improve s metallurgical properties when roasted by improving the compressive strength of the pellets ( C hen, Abstract) . Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and further view of Moreira Da Costa , et al. U.S. Patent No. 9421556 B2 (" Moreira Da Costa "). Regarding Claim 4 3 , paragraphs 16-17 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references and paragraphs 18-21 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, and Moreira Da Costa , and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 37. The combination of references discloses sodium hydroxide is added during pelletisation (sodium hydroxide, Moreira Da Costa , column 9, line 3-8). Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and further view of Zhao, et al., International Publication No. CN 112126780 A ("Zhao"). The machine translation for Zhao is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action. Regarding Claim 44 , paragraphs 9-11 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses the roasting step . The combination of references does not disclose the grate kiln . Zhao teaches the roasting step is conducte d in a grate kiln (grate rotary kiln system, Zhao, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of A dams, Wang, and Bada, and add the reference of Zhao because the grate-rotary kiln process improves the air permeability and heat uniformity of the pellets, reduces the temperature and time of pellet roasting, thereby reducing the energy consumption and thus reducing the production cost of enterprises (grate rotary kiln system, Zhao, Abstract). Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"). Regarding Claim 45 , paragraphs 9-11 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses the leaching step is conducted at alkaline pH (Adams, pg 7, line 16-17). Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), Liddell, et al. U.S. Patent No. 20160145715 A1 ("Liddell"), and further view of Sun, et al., International Publication No. CN 1952192 A ("Sun"). The machine translation for Sun is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action. Regarding Claim 46 , paragraphs 9-11 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses the leaching step that comprises of the product roasting step (thermal treatment, Adams) is leached with a mixture of recycled pregnant leach liquor (pregnant leach solution and process water (wash water contained in the residue, Adams, pg 15, liner 24-26), producing a slurry (Adams, pg 6, line 1-30); a pregnant leach solution from the leach is passed to a sequence of nanofiltration (nanofiltration, Adams, pg 6, line 5-9, Figure 1) and solvent extraction steps to yield a vanadium solution (Adams, pg 6, line 18-22, Figure 1) and a barren raffinate (final residues, Adams, pg 15, line 3-9); and the barren raffinate (final residues) is returned (recycled) (Adams, pg 15, line 3-9). The combination of references does not disclose the slurry is dewatered to obtain a pregnant leach liquor and a filter cake, the filter cake being washed and the wash liquor recycled to the leach ; and the filter cake stacked into one or more heaps and washed to remove soluble metals from the residue . Liddell teaches the slurry of step is dewatered to obtain a pregnant leach liquor and a filter cake, the filter cake being washed and the wash liquor recycled to the leach (Liddell, Pr 92) . Sun teaches the filter cake (filter cake) is stacked into one or more heaps and washed to remove soluble metals from the residue (residue stack memory) (Sun, Pr 9) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of A dams, Wang, and Bada, and add the reference of Liddell because using filter cake from pregnant leaching solution produce s saleable high-grade value metals (Liddell, Pr 14) through the increased purity and recovery of the valuable metals . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of A dams, Wang, and Bada, and add the reference of Sun because stacking the filter cake and washing the filter cake improv es the cleaning of the leaching rate of vanadium, which largely reduce influence to environment, and improves recovery rate of vanadium, so as to reduce the production cost (Sun, Pr 4). Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), Liddell, et al. U.S. Patent No. 20160145715 A1 ("Liddell"), Sun, et al., International Publication No. CN 1952192 A ("Sun"), and further view of Moreira Da Costa , et al. U.S. Patent No. 9421556 B2 (" Moreira Da Costa "). The machine translation for Sun is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action. Regarding Claim 47 , paragraphs 40-45 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, Liddell, and Sun, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 46. The combination of references discloses the product of roasting step ; however, the combination of references does not disclose the quench ing and rotating mill steps . Moreira Da Costa discloses the quench ing (water) and rotating mill (grinding mill) steps ( Moreira Da Costa , column 9, line 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of Adams, Wang, Bada, Liddell, and Sun, and add the reference of Moreira Da Costa because the vanadium flotation process provides improved selectivity compared to other depressants such as starch which increases flotation process selectivity and decreased collector consumption ( Moreira Da Costa , Column 2, line 38-46). Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), Liddell, et al. U.S. Patent No. 20160145715 A1 ("Liddell"), and further view of Sun, et al., International Publication No. CN 1952192 A ("Sun"). The machine translation for Sun is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action. Regarding Claim 48 , paragraphs 40-45 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, Liddell, and Sun, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 46. The combination of references discloses t he leach step is undertaken in a rotating drum (rotary kiln, Adams, pg 20, line 6-10). Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), Liddell, et al. U.S. Patent No. 20160145715 A1 ("Liddell"), Sun, et al., International Publication No. CN 1952192 A ("Sun"), and further view of “ A literature review on leaching and recovery of vanadium .” Peng, et al ("Peng"). The machine translation for Sun is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action. Regarding Claim 49 , paragraphs 40-45 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, Liddell, and Sun, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 46. The combination of references discloses the method where the filter cake is sacked in heaps (residue stack memory) and washed (Sun, Pr 9) however, the combination of references does not disclose the heaps are washed in a counter-current manner . Pang teaches the heaps are washed in a counter-current manner (counter-current, Peng, pg 4, 3.4 Solvent extraction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of Adams, Wang, Bada, Liddell, and Sun, and add the reference of Peng because the vanadium recovery process of Peng improve s the leaching efficiency of vanadium (peng, pg 3, 2.2 Leaching) and high recovery efficiency of va na dium (peng, pg 1, Abstract) . Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), Liddell, et al. U.S. Patent No. 20160145715 A1 ("Liddell"), Sun, et al., International Publication No. CN 1952192 A ("Sun"), Moreira Da Costa , et al. U.S. Patent No. 9421556 B2 (" Moreira Da Costa "), and further view of Zhu, et al., International Publication No. CN 104988338 A ("Zhu"). The machine translations for Sun and Zhu are used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translations used are attached in this office action. Regarding Claim 50 , paragraphs 46-49 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, Liddell, Sun, and Moreira Da Costa , and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 47. The combination of references vanadium solution ; however, the combination of references does not disclose an ultra-high purity vanadium solution . Zhu teaches an ultra-high purity vanadium solution (99.6% vanadium, Zhu, Pr 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of Adams, Wang, Bada, Liddell, Sun, and Moreira Da Costa , and add the reference of Zhu because the vanadium recovery process of Zhu improves the vanadium grade vanadium-titanium magnetite ore concentrate by reducing the subsequent processing process of consumption , production cost of ferrovanadium concentrate directly to reinforce the acid leaching operation which avoids blast furnace iron-sodium vanadium roasting operation . The vanadium recovery process of Zhu reduces the air pollution , simplifies the technical process , improves the leaching rate of the reaction rate of vanadium , reduces the vanadium loss caused by emulsification phenomenon, reduc ing the impurity species and content in the vanadium-enriched solution , and improves the product purity (vanadium, Zhu, Pr 13). Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), Cardarelli, et al. U.S. Patent No. 10947630 B2 ("Cardarelli") , and further view of “ Cleaner production of ammonium poly-vanadate by membrane electrolysis of sodium vanadate solution: The effect of membrane materials and electrode arrangements .” Pan, et al ("Pan") . Regarding Claim 51 , paragraphs 9-11 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses precipitation step ; however, the combination of references does not disclose an APV precipitation to precipitate ammonium polyvanadate . Cardarelli teaches an APV precipitation to precipitate ammonium polyvanadate (APV, Cardarelli, column 2, line 28-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of Adams, Wang, and Bada, and add the reference of Cardarelli because the vanadium recovery process of Cardarelli improves the production of vanadium to achieve a clean product with no wastewater or solid waste generation (Pan, Abstract) . Claim 52 - 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), Cardarelli, et al. U.S. Patent No. 10947630 B2 ("Cardarelli"), “ Cleaner production of ammonium poly-vanadate by membrane electrolysis of sodium vanadate solution: The effect of membrane materials and electrode arrangements .” Pan, et al ("Pan"), and further view of Jaing , et al., International Publication No. CN 109666789 A (" Jaing "). The machine translation for Jaing is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action. Regarding Claim 52 , paragraphs 60-6 3 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, Cardarelli, and Pan, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 51. The combination of references discloses an ammonium sulphate ; however, the combination of references does not disclose an APV precipitation where the ammonium sulphate being at pH 2-3 and 80-90°C . Jiang teaches an APV precipitation where the ammonium sulphate being at pH 2-3 and 80-90°C (Jiang, Pr 14) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vanadium recovery process of Adams, Wang, Bada, Cardarelli, and Pan, and add the reference of Jiang because the vanadium recovery process of Jiang improves efficien cy in the separation of vanadium pentoxide and increases the vanadiu m purity which effectively saves the production cost (J ia ng, Abstract ) . Regarding Claim 53 , paragraphs 6 4 -6 7 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, Cardarelli, Pan, and Jiang, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 51. The combination of references discloses the APV precipitate is repulped in acidified ammonium sulphate solution at pH 2-3 and 60-90°C and dewatered for sodium impurity removal (Jiang, Pr 9). Regarding Claim 54 , paragraphs 6 4 -6 7 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, Bada, Cardarelli, Pan, and Jiang, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses the APV precipitate formed in the precipitation step is dried and subjected to ammonia removal at 600-660°C to form V20s powder (600 C, Jiang, Pr 9). Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Adams, et al., International Publication No. AU 2013263848 A1 ("Adams"), “ Effect of reverse flotation on magnetic separation concentrates .” Bada, et al ("Bada"), and in view of “ Flotation recovery of vanadium from low-grade stone coal .” Wang, et al ("Wang"). Regarding Claim 55 , paragraphs 9-11 in the office action discuss the references from Adams, Wang, and Bada, and the motivation of combining the references to achieve the method of claim 35. The combination of references discloses the iron-titanium product is subject to reductive roasting (rotary kiln, Adams, pg 20, line 6-10), regrinding (milling process, Adams, pg 4, line 20-26) and magnetic separation (magnetic separation, Adams, pg 4, line 20-26) to produce iron-rich by- product and titanium-rich by-product (saleable elements, Adams, pg 4, line 13-19). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DeMarkus J Hodge whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3593 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3240 . 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. /DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/ Examiner, Art Unit 1779 /Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779