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 .
Status of Claims
Pending and under examination: claims 1-2
Rejected: claims 1-2
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 1-2 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 “…at least one kind of metal selected from the group consisting of…”, which is exemplary claim language (see MPEP 2173.05(d)); it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are, because although the claim uses closed-ended Markush language, it is unclear if stating “at least one kind” of metal means metals that are in “kind” to gold or palladium. Because the instant specification lists metals other than gold or palladium such as platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, osmium, and iridium (see paragraph [0015] of instant spec), it is unclear if the metes and bounds extend to these elements as well, which are in “kind” to gold and palladium.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the metal adsorbent comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a cell and a cell-derived article of microorganism belonging to Cyanidiales, a processed article of the cell and the cell-derived article, and an artificial substance mitigating the cell, the cell-derived article, and the processed article…”. It is unclear which of the listed items are included in the Markush grouping. Applicant should use proper punctuation and grammar to properly delineate the Markush grouping limitation from the surrounding limitations.
Claim 2 recites “…the processed article is a dried article, a pulverized article, and a dried powder of the cell and the cell-derived article of microorganism belonging to Cyanidiales.” It is unclear which of the limitations are describing the processed article and whether “the cell-derived article…” limitation is part of “the processed article” or not. Applicant should use proper grammar and punctuation to correctly delineate limitations from one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minoda et al. (US 20190024209 A1).
Regarding claim 1, with regard to the claimed “A method for recovering at least one kind of metal selected from the group consisting of gold (Au) and palladium (Pd),” Minoda teaches a method for metal recovery (Abstract), wherein the metals may be gold or palladium [0015].
With regard to the claimed “the method comprising:
an addition process of adding a metal adsorbent to a solution containing the metal; and
an adsorption process of causing the metal to be adsorbed on the metal adsorbent,
wherein the metal adsorbent comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a cell and a cell-derived article of microorganism belonging to Cyanidiales, a processed article of the cell and the cell-derived article, and an artificial substance mitigating the cell, the cell-derived article, and the processed article,” Minoda teaches an addition step of adding a material derived from an alga belonging to the order Cyanidiales [0018], wherein the metal is adsorbed into the alga adsorbent [0024]-[0029].
With regard to the claimed “and wherein the solution is a nitric acid solution or a sulfuric acid solution”, Minoda teaches using aqua regia solution as the acid [0071], which is an acid mixture of nitric acid and hydrochloric acid.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations only further limit one of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping of claim 1, but does not actually require that the metal adsorbent be “a processed article”, which is one option from a list of many options. Thus, because it is an optional limitation due to the “metal adsorbent” limitation already being met, Minoda already satisfies the “metal adsorbent” limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights