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 .
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 6 and 7 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected due to the presence of the language “preferably.” The inclusion of this language makes it unclear if this is required or optional such that the metes and bounds of the claims are not definite.
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, 3-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,980,378 of Burgess in view of US 2,915,441 of Pruvot.
As to claim 1, Burgess teaches of a method for refining beryllium, comprising:
(1) Constructing an electrochemical system: the electrolytic cell is divided into an anode chamber and a cathode chamber, wherein the anode chamber contains an anode molten salt electrolyte, an anode is inserted in the anode molten salt electrolyte, the cathode chamber contains a cathode molten salt electrolyte, a cathode is inserted in the cathode molten salt electrolyte, a liquid alloy is at the bottom of the inside of the electrolytic cell; the anode molten salt electrolyte and the cathode molten salt electrolyte are not in contact with each other but are connected via the liquid alloy at the bottom of the inside of the electrolytic cell (Burgess, p. 1 line 15 thru p. 2 line 13 and Fig. 1) ;
(2) Applying a current for electrolysis, the beryllium in the anode is oxidized to beryllium ions, the beryllium ions from the anode are moved into the anode molten salt electrolyte, the beryllium ions in the anode molten salt electrolyte are reduced to beryllium metal at the interface between the anode molten salt electrolyte and the liquid alloy, the beryllium metal at the interface between the anode molten salt electrolyte and the liquid alloy is dissolved into the liquid alloy, meanwhile the beryllium metal in the liquid alloy is oxidized to beryllium ions at the interface between the liquid alloy and the cathode molten salt electrolyte, the beryllium ions at the interface between the liquid alloy and the cathode molten salt electrolyte are moved into the cathode molten salt electrolyte, the beryllium ions in the cathode molten salt electrolyte are reduced to beryllium metal on the cathode surface (Burgess, p. 1 line 88 thru p. 2 line 49).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Fig. 1, there is an anode (10) that electrolyzes the molten electrolyte (6) such that beryllium ions flow into the electrolyte (6). The liquid alloy (5) act as a cathode to reduce beryllium and then as an anode to oxidize the beryllium into the liquid alloy (5). The system has a cathode (14) that allows the beryllium metal (16) to be deposited thereon.
Burgess does not specifically teach a crude beryllium anode, however, Burgess does teach that beryllium is replenished into the electrolyte (6) (Burgess, p. 2 lines 115-121).
Pruvot teaches of refining metals, including beryllium, in molten salt systems (Pruvot, col 3 line 69 thru col 4 line 9).
Pruvot additionally teaches that a crude anode is used to dissolve the metal being deposited on the cathode into the electrolyte, thus disclosing replenishing the metal into the electrolyte for continuous operation (Pruvot, col 3 line 69-73, col 5 lines 51-64).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess as per Pruvot so as to utilize a crude beryllium anode in order to allow for continued operation in replenishing electrolyte from the anode with the metal being deposited at the cathode.
As to claim 3, Burgess in view of Pruvot teaches to the method of claim 1.
Burgess additionally teaches the liquid alloy comprises beryllium and copper or silver (Burgess, p. 1 lines 34-44).
As to claim 4, Burgess in view of Pruvot teaches to the method of claim 3.
Burgess does not teach the specific composition of the liquid alloy, however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Burgess teaches that the liquid alloy comprises beryllium and copper (Burgess, p. 2 lines 16-33), such that the concentration of beryllium vs. copper can be modified by routine experimentation to obtain the desired concentration in producing a predictable result in refining the beryllium within the system.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess to obtain the desired liquid alloy composition in producing a predictable result in refining beryllium.
As to claims 6 and 7, Burgess in view of Pruvot teach to the method of claim 1.
Burgess teaches the molten salt electrolyte (anode and cathode electrolytes) contain beryllium ions and alkali (sodium, potassium) or alkaline earth (magnesium, calcium) fluoride compounds (Burgess, p. 1 line 55-80, p. 2 line 65-84).
As to claim 8, Burgess in view of Pruvot teach to the method of claim 1.
Burgess teaches that the anode molten salt electrolyte and cathode molten salt electrolyte are less dense (thus float) on the liquid alloy (Burgess, p. 1 lines 31-41 and Fig 1).
As to claim 9, Burgess in view of Pruvot teach to the method of claim 1.
Burgess in view of Pruvot do not teach the specific composition of the crude anode, however, this would be obvious in view of the art.
Pruvot teaches that scrap metal of the specific composition is refined by molten salt electrolysis, such that impurity contaminants are removed by the electrolysis process (Pruvot, col 3 lines 55-75).
As the scrap metal has impurity contaminants, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as per Pruvot to purify the desired crude composition (or higher) to obtain a purer metal composition by electrolysis as a predictable result of the process at hand.
As to claim 10, Burgess in view of Pruvot teach to the method of claim 1.
Burgess additionally teaches the applied current density is 1000 A/ft2 which is equivalent to 1.076 A/cm2 and a temperature of between 90-1250 °C (Burgess, p. 2 lines 21-25 and p. 2 lines 42-44).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess in view of Pruvot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 1,809,442 of Fischer.
As to claim 2, Burgess in view of Pruvot teach to the method of claim 1.
Burgess in view of Pruvot do not teach the specific composition of the cathode.
Fischer teaches of molten salt beryllium electrolysis (Fischer, p. 1 lines 1-5).
Fischer additionally teaches that the cathode of the system should comprise a metal that has a higher melting point than beryllium such as tungsten or molybdenum (Fischer, p. 2 lines 34-43).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Pruvot as per Fischer so as to utilize a cathode that won’t melt in the molten salt while allowing beryllium to deposit thereon.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess in view of Pruvot as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2,861,030 of Slatin.
As to claim 5, Burgess in view of Pruvot teach to the method of claim 3.
Burgess teaches that the liquid alloy can comprise heavier metals which are less electropositive than beryllium like copper or silver (Burgess, p. 1 lines 31-48).
Burgess does not teach gold as the alloy component with beryllium.
It is noted that Pruvot teaches that both beryllium and titanium or other refractory metals can be purified/produced by molten salt electrolysis (Pruvot, col 1 lines 15-19 and col 3 lines 55-74).
Slatin teaches of fusion electrolysis for refractory metals (Slatin, col 1 lines 15-20).
Slatin additionally teaches that when using a liquid alloy composition in addition to the molten salt electrolyte, to utilize metallic elements that are nobler and denser than the desired component being reduced such as silver, copper and gold (Slatin, col 1 lines 33-36 and claim 3). These types of metals being the same as those suggested by Burgess (Burgess, p. 1 lines 31-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Pruvot as per Slatin so as to utilize gold as the alloying metal in the cathode so to produce a predictable result in refining the element at hand.
As modified, Statin does not teach the specific composition of the liquid alloy, however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Burgess teaches that the liquid alloy comprises beryllium (Burgess, p. 2 lines 16-33), such that the concentration of beryllium vs. gold (or other alloy component) can be modified by routine experimentation to obtain the desired concentration in producing a predictable result in refining the beryllium within the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights