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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 contains the limitation “preferably” and therefore it is unknown if the limitations that follow are required or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slatin (US 2861030 A) as submitted on Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement filed 7 November 2023.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim(s) 1, Slatin discloses a method for preparing metallic titanium (col. 1, lines 28-46) by molten salt electrolysis reduction of titanium dioxide (col. 1, lines 28-46),
wherein the method is implemented with an electrolytic cell (Fig. 1); the electrolytic cell comprises an anode chamber (reductor compartment, where reductor electrolyte 31 is; col. 2, lines 49-50) and a cathode chamber (refining compartment, where refiner electrolyte 32 is; col. 3, lines 9-10), the anode chamber is filled with an anodic molten salt electrolyte (31) and inserted with an anode (36), the cathode chamber is filled with a cathodic molten salt electrolyte (32) and inserted with a cathode (44), and a liquid alloy (liquid alloy bipolar electrode 15; col. 1, lines 28-46), is accommodated at an inner bottom of the electrolytic cell; the anodic molten salt electrolyte and the cathodic molten salt electrolyte are connected through the liquid alloy without contacting with each other (divided by 30/33/34; col. 2, lines 37-48); and the method comprises: adding titanium dioxide to the anode chamber (col. 4, lines 39-41) and powering on the electrolytic cell (col. 4, lines 58-62), the titanium dioxide in the anode chamber is reduced into titanium atoms at an interface between the anodic molten salt electrolyte and the liquid alloy and dissolved in the liquid alloy (col. 4, lines 72-75), the titanium atoms in the liquid alloy are oxidized into titanium ions at an interface between the liquid alloy and the cathodic molten salt electrolyte and enter the cathodic molten salt electrolyte, and the titanium ions to be reduced into titanium atoms on a surface of the cathode, thereby forming the metallic titanium (col. 6, lines 11-48).
In regards to claim(s) 2, Slatin discloses both the anolyte and the catholyte as halide molten salts (col. 11, lines 11-17).
In regards to claim(s) 3, Slatin discloses CaCl2 as anolyte (col. 11, lines 11-17).
In regards to claim(s) 4, Slatin discloses the catholyte comprising TiCl2, NaCl and CaCl2 (col. 11, lines 13-29).
In regards to claim(s) 5, Slatin discloses a graphite anode (col. 2, lines 49-50) and a molybdenum cathode (col. 4, lines 45-52).
In regards to claim(s) 6, Slatin discloses Ti-Cu alloy (col. 11, lines 4-6).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slatin in view of Hu (CN 104947152 A – see translation).
In regards to claim(s) 7, Slatin discloses an anode current density of below about 1.55 A/cm2 (col. 6, lines 70-74) and a temperature of 950°C (col. 11, lines 8-10).
However, Slatin does not disclose the wherein an area of the cathode is 1 to 20 times an area of the anode.
Hu pertains to electrolytic refining of titanium ([0004]) and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as Slatin. Hu discloses wherein the cathode current density is 0.05 A/cm2 and the anode current density is 0.45 A/cm2 ([0045]), which means that the cathode is 9 times larger than the anode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrode sizes of Slatin with Hu’s electrode sizes because the substituted components were known, their functions were known in the art (to perform electrolysis to produce titanium), one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/287658 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the reference application are slightly broader, wherein the feed material includes titanium raw material, which be titanium-containing slag or a titanium-rich slag (claim 2).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johansen (US 20070215483 A1) discloses a system and method of electrolytic refining of metals wherein the lower molten alloy layer includes a metal more noble than the target produced metal (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571)272-7769. 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.
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights