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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). However, no certified English translation has been provided.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2024, is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “synergistic solvent extraction” in line 2, and then “synergetic solvent extraction” in line 2 of claimed step (e), while “synergetic” is a common term, but the term “synergistic” is far more common and “synergistic solvent extraction” is the standard usage in the conventional art and scientific publications as for example the prior art, Chu Yong Cheng, et.al. [US7935322B2] used to reject the claims in this office action discloses the term “synergistic solvent extraction” throughout the discloser.
It is to be further noted, use of “synergistic solvent extraction” and “synergetic solvent extraction” in the same claim would raise confusion, whether both of these terms are the same or they have different meaning or purpose. The paragraph [0053] of the instant specification describes “synergistic solvent extraction (SSX) in the step (e)”, then again paragraph [0054] of the instant specification describes “synergetic solvent extraction (SSX) in the step (e)”.
Therefore, applicant is advised to replace the term “synergetic” with “synergistic” to make this term uniform throughout the claims as well as disclosure, wherever applicable.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 also recites “synergetic” in line 1 and is objected to because of the same above reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further recites “cooper” in line 2 of step (d), Examiner interpreted this as a typographical error, “cooper” should be “copper”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title, abstract, and paragraph [0001], [0015], [0053] and some other part of the instant specification describes “synergistic solvent extraction (SSX)”, then again paragraph [0010], [0014], [0054] and some other part of the instant specification describes “synergetic solvent extraction (SSX)”.
Therefore, applicant is advised to replace the term “synergetic” with “synergistic” to make it uniform throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 recites the term “high” in line 4 and 5 which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because it is unclear which temperature or which pressure will consider as high temperature or high pressure.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 2-5 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu Yong Cheng, et.al. [US7935322B2] (Cheng hereafter) and in view of Smit Jan, et.al. [CA3209577A1] (Smit hereafter).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Step (a))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Step (b))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Step (c))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Step (e))][AltContent: arrow]Regarding claims 1, Cheng discloses a method for recovering a precursor metal for secondary cell cathode material (Ni cathode, in FIG. 1-3, 10, claim 1 and Co cathode in Col. 13, line 5, line 43, Example 10 and 11) using synergistic solvent extraction (Col. 6, line 10, Claim 1) applied with an extractant degradation preventing technology (use of a suitable stabilizer advantageously be used to slow any degradation reaction (Col. 5, line 41-45, Claim 11)). Cheng’s process, comprising:
a step of leaching a nickel and cobalt containing ore, such as a laterite ore with acid by high-pressure oxidation reaction (Cheng’s Figure 1 (as annotated by the Examiner) show step (a) is PAL, i.e. pressure acid leaching (pressure acid leaching in accordance with standard procedures known in the art (Col. 11, line 55, FIG. 1, Example 9));
a step of separating a solution leached by the oxidation reaction and precipitant of an impurity containing iron (Fe) (impurity elements Fe(III) precipitate from the leach solution of Cheng (Neutralization in FIG. 1, Col. 11, line 58-60, Example 9, Claim 16));
a step of recovering copper as a copper sulfate solution by solvent extraction from the leached solution of the step (b) (after Cheng’s iron precipitation step, pregnant leach solution (PLS) is subjected to the synergistic solvent extraction (SX) step (Col. 11, line 62-67, FIG. 1, Example 9), Cheng further teaches the scrubbed organic solution is subjected to stripping 1 (selective strip) using a sulfuric acid solution and the selective stripping stage suitably involves the use of the nickel and copper sulphate solution from the subsequent stripping stage (Col. 7, line 58-61, Col. 12, line 20-30, FIG. 1, Example 9));
a step of recovering zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co), and nickel (Ni) from a solution from which some impurities are removed in the step (d) by means of the synergetic solvent extraction (SSX) to be selectively separated as a raffinate containing manganese (Mn), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) (the solvent extraction step effects extraction of a large proportion of the nickel, cobalt, and zinc into an organic phase, to the extent that these elements are present, with a large proportion of the calcium, magnesium, manganese and chloride being rejected to the aqueous phase, and Cheng’s Fig.1 also shows SSX is performed while a raffinate contains Mn, Ca, and Mg (Claim 1 and 14, Fig.1 Example 9).
Cheng’s invention provides a process for the separation of nickel, cobalt or both from impurity elements contained in a leach solution, and comprising the step of subjecting the leach solution to solvent extraction (Col. 2, line 39-42) and the process applied to the pressure acid leaching of any suitable ore type such as a laterite or sulfide (Col. 5, line 65-67) and (Col. 11, line 55, FIG. 1, Example 9). But Cheng is silent about whether laterite is a low grade ore .
But Cheng is also silent about
about the sulfuric acid and “high temperature” in step (a)
“oxidation reaction” in step (a) and (b) and
the step “(d) a step of precipitating and removing some impurities by injecting a neutralizing agent into a raffinate after solvent extraction of cooper in the step (c)”.
However, Smit discloses a process to treat both a sulfide concentrate containing copper and a nickel laterite ore in a single pressure leaching step to recover copper from both feed sources as copper cathode and nickel and cobalt from both sources as a salable precipitate (e.g. mixed hydroxide or mixed sulfide) (Page 5, line 8-11).
Smit discloses a pressure vessel, a feed of a copper-containing sulfide concentrate a laterite ore containing nickel and cobalt in a pressure oxidative leaching step under conditions including mixing, and an introduction of oxygen, to produce sulfuric acid to leach nickel, cobalt, copper and acid soluble impurities into a liquid phase of an acidic leach slurry, to precipitate iron compounds and a majority of the arsenic, antimony and bismuth as solids, and to produce heat to heat the incoming feeds to a temperature in the pressure vessel above 230°C (Abstract, Page 5, line 14-22). Smit teaches the operating temperature is maintained between 230 and 270°C, so that the feeds are added directly to the autoclave, without any form of preheating (Page11. Line 1-5) and oxygen pressure is controlled between 200 and 1000 kPa to oxidize the sulfide minerals, ferrous iron, and other reducing components of the laterite ore (Page11. Line 1-5) and all the oxidation reactions sulfide, mixed hydroxides and ferrous to ferric reactions in the autoclave (Page 11-12).
Smit’s process is applicable to low grade or high impurity ore, such as Limonite ore refers to a laterite ore that is primarily a mixture of metal oxides and hydroxides, (i.e. is a mixed hydroxide product or MHP) and/or a laterite ore that is a mixture of oxide/hydroxide and silicate minerals (a mixed hydroxide product or MHP) (Figure 1-6, Page 7, line 3-6, Page 9). Smit’s Example 9, a test process feed is a mixed hydroxide (38.7 wt.% Ni, 2.9 wt.% Co, 0.8 wt.% Zn, 6 wt.% Mn, 3 wt.% Mg and 4 wt.% S) a filter cake (MHP) and additions of MHP correspond to additions of 10 g/L Ni and 0.8 g/L Co to the recovery system) (page 41, line 14-22, Example 9);
Smit teaches (in Smit’s step b and c) a reacted slurry comprising the liquid phase and the solids is withdrawn from the pressure vessel and is separating the solids from the liquid phase to produce a pregnant leach solution (PLS) containing the nickel, cobalt, copper and the acid soluble impurities and (in Smit’s step d) conducting a first solution purification stage on the PLS to neutralize free acid and to precipitate iron and other impurities, (Abstract, Page 5, line 23-30, Page 38, line 8-11, Example 6). Smit teaches (Smit’s step e, and f) separating copper from the first purified solution (Abstract, Page 5, line 31-34) and is recovered as a copper sulfate solution (10 to 30 g/L Cu, 3 g/L H2SO4)) (Page 38, Example 6) and then (Smit’s step h) conducting a second solution purification stage on the raffinate solution from Smit’s step e) by one or both of neutralizing at least a portion of free acid and precipitating one or more impurities selected from iron, aluminum, chromium and silicon, followed by separating as solids, the precipitated impurities and other solids from a second purified solution (Abstract, Page 6, line 1-5) and Smit’s step h is conducted after Smit’s step f, i.e. after copper recovery by solvent extraction step (Page38, line 20-21, Example 6).
Smit finally teaches some advantages, to meet the challenges in the profitability of processing laterite with HPAL and the feasibility of processing complex, low purity intermediate products from high pressure acid leaching (HPAL), (page 24, line 16-25), Smit’s HPAL process copper, nickel, cobalt and zinc in the concentrate are leached along with the copper, nickel, cobalt and zinc from the laterite ore into a single leach solution, typically over 95% from both the sulfide and laterite feeds, allowing them to be recovered in common metals recovery steps. This allows the potential to recover metals values from the copper concentrates that may not normally be possible in a pyrometallurgical copper refinery. Because of the high iron content of the laterite ore added in the pressure leach, the resulting solids are highly stable environmentally, and with the process operating above 230°C, elemental sulfur formation from the sulfide concentrates is minimal, the surfaces of the sulfide minerals are not passivated. Because of the rapid kinetics at these temperatures, sulfide oxidation and leaching of base metals can occur, generally without regrinding of the flotation concentrate prior to leaching, or the addition of chlorides or other additives to the autoclave to prevent passivation and the sulfuric acid is generated, that required to leach the sulfide concentrate, is used for leaching nickel laterite in the same autoclave system, such that another separate leaching circuit is not required to consume the majority of the acid produced. The laterite ore acts effectively as a neutralizing agent for the acid produced by oxidation of the sulfides and the nickel and cobalt values leached from the laterite ore values offset the cost of the neutralization and precipitation of the sulphate and metals values. Copper is recovered from the leach solution using solvent extraction. While the concentrations of copper and free acid in the leach solution may be high, there are several stages of neutralization (i.e., slurry neutralization after the autoclave, and two stages of solution purification), where the free acid concentration is lowered effectively to allow for high extractions of copper from the solution (Page 25).
Smit is analogous to both Cheng and the instant claim, as Smit’s teaching are in the field of recycling material recovery from low grade ore laterite, using pressure acid leaching by solvent extraction from the leached solution.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention was made, to have Smit’s teachings of HPAL conditions, like high temperature, generation of sulfuric acid and oxidation reaction for extracting all the material in the autoclave from single leaching, and second neutralization for lowering free acid concentration to modify step (a), (b) and (d) of Cheng’s process for a profitable and feasible way for recycling cell cathode material using high pressure acid leaching (HPAL) for low grade ore laterite.
Regarding claims 2, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, Cheng teaches pressure acid leaching in the step (a)(FIG.1), it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, that the pressure acid leaching would need to carry at least in a pressure vessel (equivalent to autoclave).
Smit also discloses in the step (a), an autoclave is the reaction container and is being used for controlling the oxygen flow rate, high pressure and high temperature (page 6, line 10, Page 11, line 6-13).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Smit’s teachings of autoclave to combine with in step (a) in the synergistic solvent extraction of metal recovery process of Cheng, for completing all the oxidation reaction and the precipitation reaction in the autoclave so that all the materials are in the leaching solution.
Regarding claim 4, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, but Cheng is silent about the neutralizing agent in the step (d) is any one of caustic soda or soda ash.
However, Smit discloses the neutralizing agent in the step (d) (Smit’s step h) is soda ash (sodium carbonate) and is added to make a pH of the solution 3.5 (a concentration of H2SO4 in solution, such as measured at the discharge from the autoclave or in subsequent process steps by titrating of an aliquot of acidic solution with sodium carbonate solution to pH 3.5) (page 6, line 9-12). Smit’s Stage II (equivalent to the instant claimed step (d)) is operating at higher pH (pH 4.5 to 5.5) to remove the remaining iron and aluminum in solution while precipitating all or a portion of the copper from the solution and limiting the amount of coprecipitation of nickel and cobalt precipitation (Page 19, line 26-29). Smit further teaches zinc is removed from the solution in the second stage of solution purification (Smit’s step h, which is equivalent to the instant claimed step (d)), depending on the concentration of zinc in solution, zinc is removed from the second stage of solution purification and prior to metals recovery prior, by precipitation as a metal hydroxide with the addition of NaOH to reduce the zinc concentration in the Ni and Co recovery (Page, 20, line 30-35 and page 21, line 1). Smit further teaches in stage II of solution purification, the majority of the aluminum and ferrous iron precipitate by pH 4.4, with over 99% removal of both elements by pH 4.9. Coprecipitation of nickel and cobalt increases significantly above pH 5 (Page 45).
Smit’s pH value is also incorporating within the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Smit’s teachings of neutralizing agents and corresponding pH value selected based on the presence and concentration of the element to modify step (d) in the synergistic solvent extraction of metal recovery process of Cheng for removing additional materials without precipitating nickel and cobalt to ensure higher recovery rate.
Regarding claim 5, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, Cheng teaches a synergistic solvent extraction step is effective for extraction of a large proportion of the nickel, cobalt, copper and zinc into an organic phase with a large proportion of the calcium, magnesium, manganese and chloride being rejected to the aqueous phase. The solvent extraction is conducted by contacting the leach solution with an organic solution comprising a combination of carboxylic acid, a hydroxyoxime synergist, and a kinetic accelerator (Col. 3, line 43-52).
Cheng then teaches the synergetic solvent extraction (SSX) of the step (e) is a mixture of kerosene which is a diluent and a mixture of kerosene which is a diluent and hydroxyalkyloxime, versatic acid, and tributyl phosphate extractants is used (a solvent extraction solution comprising a Versatic 10 acid (carboxylic acid), 5,8- diethyl-7-hydroxy-6-dodecanone oxime-(LIX63) (hydroxyalkyloxime), tributyl phosphate (TBP) (a kinetic accelerator) extractant, in organic diluent Kerosene (Shellsol 2046 is Kerosene, see Col. 6, line 10-15) is contacted with the PLS to obtain an aqueous raffinate containing almost all the manganese, magnesium, calcium and chloride and a loaded organic solution containing almost all the nickel, cobalt, copper, zinc (Col. 3, line 43-52, Col. 12, line 1-10, Example 5-7 and Example 9).
Cheng further teaches Versatic 10, a cationic exchange extractant have hydrogen ions which are exchanged with metal ions in the aqueous solution (Col. 4 line 13-15), hydroxyalkyloxime, preferably each of R' and R" are unsubstituted alkyl groups, such a compound is 5,8-diethyl-7-hydroxy-6-dodecanone oxime (the active component of a commercial agent LIX 63) (Col. 5, line 14-18), a kinetic accelerator improves the extraction and/or stripping kinetics of metals, specially tri n-butyl phosphate (TBP) improves the extraction and/or stripping kinetics of nickel (Col. 5, line 28-32), and Kerosene (Shellsol 2046) is the most common solvent/diluent used for this purpose due to its low cost and availability (Col. 6, line 10-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Cheng’s teachings to have a synergistic solvent extraction step for effective extraction of large proportion of the nickel, cobalt, copper and zinc into an organic phase with a large proportion of the calcium, magnesium, manganese and chloride are being rejected into the aqueous phase, i.e. raffinate.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chu Yong Cheng, et.al. [US7935322B2] (Cheng hereafter) and in view of Smit Jan, et.al. [CA3209577A1] (Smit hereafter) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of E. Jaaskelainen, et.al. [“Adsorption of hydroxyoxime-based extractants on silica and mica particles in copper extraction processes” Hydrometallurgy 49 (1998) 151–166] (Jaaskelainen, hereafter).
Regarding claims 3, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, Cheng further teaches in the solvent extraction in the step (c), a mixture of kerosene which is a diluent (Kerosene is the most common solvent/diluent used for this purpose due to its low cost and availability) (Col. 6, line 10-17).
But Cheng is silent about the 2-Hydroxy-5-Nonylacetophenone Oxime and 4-Nonylphenol extractants is used.
Smit is also silent about the 2-Hydroxy-5-Nonylacetophenone Oxime and 4-Nonylphenol extractants is used.
However, Jaaskelainen teaches copper solvent extraction and a mixture of kerosene and 2-Hydroxy-5-Nonylacetophenone Oxime and 4-Nonylphenol extractants is used for copper solvent extraction (the common extractants for copper solvent extraction are based on different β-hydroxyoximes that very selectively form a chelate with Cu2+ ions, and modifiers and a kerosene-type diluent which is a mixture of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. Jaaskelainen’s experiment is carried out, using the commercial LIX 860 reagent Henkel, composed of 5-dodecylsalicylaldoxime and 2-hydroxy-5-nonylacetophenone oxime (HNAO) and 4-nonylphenol in a kerosene-type diluent (Page, 151-152, Introduction), wherein the as received LIX 860 extractant is loaded with copper for in a stirred reactor with a Cu sulfate solution containing Cu and the extraction is repeated performed until no pH change is observed then the extractant phase is then repeatedly stripped using aqueous H2SO4 solution (Page 152, Experimental).
Jaaskelainen teaches in hydrometallurgical solvent extraction plants, the accumulation of fine solids at the interface between the aqueous and organic phases in the process, such deposits are often called crud. Solvent extraction circuit may contain a high concentration of suspended solids, air-borne dust and sometimes the aqueous raffinate returning to the leach solution also transports the solids from the SX mixer-settlers. Consequently, smaller amounts of solids would be carried over into the solvent phase to avoid severe crud accumulation in the SX/EW circuit. The formation of crud is undesirable as it causes operational instability, phase inversion, loss of reagent, harmful waste, etc. The most common solids found in cruds constitute quartz and mica. (Page 152, Introduction). Jaaskelainen teaches additives mainly nonylphenol in the commercial extractant LIX 860 decrease the adsorption of hydroxyoxime on a silica surface. Compared to the free extractant the copper complex of the oxime has less tendency to adsorb on silica (Conclusion).
Jaaskelainen’s teaching is directed to recovering copper as a copper sulfate solution by solvent extraction from the leached solution and thus analogous to a step of (c) of instant claim as well as Cheng and Smit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Jaaskelainen’s teachings of using 2-hydroxy-5-nonylacetophenone oxime (HNAO) and 4-nonylphenol in a kerosene-type diluent to modify Cheng’s synergistic solvent extraction step for copper recovery to avoid the accumulation of the crud in the solvent extraction plant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2005073416A1 (this reference is the PCT equivalent of the Chu Yong Cheng, et.al. US7935322B2).
Ha Jung Hun, et.al. [KR20200078199A] (machine translation) (Original provided in the IDS) Hun teaches a method of manufacturing nickel sulfate used for a secondary battery positive electrode material, more particularly, manufacturing high purity nickel sulfate, which can: extract 97% or more of nickel components from a nickel, cobalt and manganese-mixed sulfide raw material containing calcium under a continuous process including a recycling process; minimize the use of an organic solvent and discharge of wastewater; additionally recover cobalt, zinc, manganese components, etc. as by-products; and produce high-purity sodium sulfate (Abstract).
Hun teaches (a) a step of leaching a low grade MHP with sulfuric acid by high temperature and high-pressure oxidation reaction (Hun’s step (S20) is performed in a slurry reactor, for obtaining a nickel sulfate aqueous solution by injecting oxygen into the first pressurized and heated reaction tank to react with sulfide to generate metal ions and sulfuric acid, so that the raw material is leached, and an excessive amount of oxygen is injected to maintain the pressure of the reaction tank in the range of 11 to 15 bar, and the pH of the reaction tank is maintained at 3 to 4 and the temperature at 150 to 180°C to extract the metal ions in the raw material with generated sulfuric acid) ([0024], [0049], [0050], Claim 1).
Hun teaches (b) a step of separating a solution leached by the oxidation reaction and precipitant of an impurity containing iron (Fe) (in Hun’s leaching step (S20), leaching reaction Equation 1-9 are all oxidation reaction [0058]-[0067], wherein metal sulfates (wherein Me refers to metal components contained in raw materials such as Ni, Co, Cu, Zn, Fe, and Al) are produced due to oxidation of metal sulfide raw material with sulfuric acid and oxygen, then Fe is precipitated as oxyhydroxide (FeOOH) [0066]-[0067] and or ferric oxide ([0068]).
Hun teaches step (d) a step of precipitating and removing some impurities by injecting a neutralizing agent into a raffinate (In order to remove manganese ions and cobalt ions from the nickel sulfate aqueous solution, the aqueous solution is introduced into an 8-stage mixed sedimentation tank using CYANEX272 (bis/2,4,4-trimethyl pentyl/phosphinic acid) solvent, and at this time, the solvent extraction process is performed while maintaining pH 5.0 to 5.5 with NaOH aqueous solution and the solvent stripping process was performed under pH 1.0 to 3.0 conditions with sulfuric acid aqueous solution. As a result of analyzing the components of the obtained cobalt sulfate aqueous solution and manganese sulfate aqueous solution, it was confirmed that 59.1% of manganese ions were removed and 98.4% of cobalt ions were removed) ([0075]).
Hun teaches (e) a step of recovering zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co), and nickel (Ni) from a solution from which some impurities are removed in the step (d) by means of the synergetic solvent extraction (SSX) to be selectively separated as a raffinate containing manganese (Mn), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) ([0075]).
Hun teaches To remove various types of metal ions, a multi-stage mixed settler is used, and solvent extractants such as D2EHPA (Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid), CYANEX272 (bis/2,4,4- trimethyl pentyl/phosphinic acid), LIX84i (5-dodecylsalicylaldoxime and 2-hydroxy-5-nonylacetophenone oxime), and Versatic10 (neodecanoic acid) are used, along with ESCAID10 (Exxon Mobil Co.) and KEROSENE (Nippon Petrochemical Co.) ([0075]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738