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 the Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending wherein claims 1-20 are currently under examination and claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected metal recovery method. Applicant’s election of claims 1-20 was made without traverse in the Response filed on June 15, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hekselman et al. (WO 2020/025970).
In regard to claims 1 and 4, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses a continuous process for extraction of lead from lead based materials using a deep eutectic solvent including acids such as oxalic acid or citric acid that is carried out in three continuous stir tank reactors (metal recovery apparatus) where in the first reactor (leaching unit) the lead-based material is fed to the deep eutectic solvent; in the second tank, a carboxylic acid is introduced to precipitate the lead; and in the third tank (recovery unit) there would be a rotary vacuum-drum filter to separate the liquid-solid suspension (pages 4 and 18-19). As such, separation would occur in the third tank and would not occur between the first tank (leaching unit) and the third tank (recovery unit).
With respect to the recitation “the metal element-containing composition is solid at 25°C and does not contain an inorganic acid, the metal compound is a metal, a metal compound, or metal ions” in claim 1, the Examiner notes that material worked upon by an apparatus would not further limit apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
With respect to the recitation “the deep eutectic solvent does not contain an inorganic acid” in claim 1, the Examiner notes that neither oxalic acid, citric acid or carboxylic acid would be inorganic acids.
In regard to claim 2, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) uses oxalic acid (page 4) as a deep eutectic solvent similarly to how the instant invention uses oxalic acid and water [0070]. Therefore, a hydrophobicity of 1 g/100 mL or less in terms of solubility in water at 25°C would be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claims 3 and 5, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses adding an organic solvent to the oxalic acid such as ethylene glycol, which has a boiling point of about 197°C and the combination would be a liquid at room temperature (page 11).
In regard to claim 6, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses a continuous process for extraction of lead from lead based materials using a deep eutectic solvent including acids such as oxalic acid or citric acid that is carried out in three continuous stir tank reactors (pages 4 and 18-19).
With respect to the recitation “wherein the metal element-containing composition contains two or more types of metal components” and “among two or more types of metal components at a higher concentration than other types of metal components” in claim 6, the Examiner notes that material worked upon by an apparatus would not further limit apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
In regard to claim 14, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses the up to 50 weight percent of eutectic may be water (weak oxidizing agent).
With respect to the recitation “wherein the metal-element containing composition contains a platinum group metal or a platinum group metal compound” in claim 14, the Examiner notes that material worked upon by an apparatus would not further limit apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hekselman et al. (WO 2020/025970) as evidenced by Rablen et al. (Ab initio study of hydrogen-bonded complexes of small organic molecules with water) and Chitra et al. (Hydrogen bonding in oxalic acid and its complexes: A database study of neutron structures).
In regard to claim 7, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses adding oxalic acid and up to 50% by weight water (page 4). However, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) does not specify whether the oxalic acid and water would be hydrogen bond donors or hydrogen bond acceptors.
Rablen et al. teaches that water may be a strong hydrogen bond donor or a weak hydrogen bond acceptor (page 3786, right column). Chitra et al. teaches that oxalic acid may also be a hydrogen bond donor or a hydrogen bond acceptor (page 269).
Therefore, it would have been expected that the oxalic acid and water, as disclosed by Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) would have each been capable of being a hydrogen bond donor and a hydrogen bond acceptor, as disclosed by Rablen et al. (page 3786, right column) and Chitra et al. (page 269).
With respect to the recitation “at 25°C, the hydrogen bond donor and the hydrogen bond acceptor before mixing are in the form of solid particles, the metal component is brought into contact with the deep eutectic solvent by directly contacting the solid particulate hydrogen bond donor and the hydrogen bond acceptor with the metal element containing composition” in claim 7, the Examiner notes that this is a recitation pertaining to the processing, whereas the claim is drawn to an apparatus and the process of forming the apparatus or the solutions set forth therein would not patently distinguish from an apparatus and its components derived in a different way.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hekselman et al. (WO 2020/025970) as evidenced by Rablen et al. (Ab initio study of hydrogen-bonded complexes of small organic molecules with water) and Chitra et al. (Hydrogen bonding in oxalic acid and its complexes: A database study of neutron structures).
In regard to claim 9, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses adding oxalic acid or citric acid (page 4). Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses that up to 50 weight percent of eutectic may be water (weak oxidizing agent) (page 4). However, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) does not specify whether the oxalic acid and water would be hydrogen bond donors or hydrogen bond acceptors.
Rablen et al. teaches that water may be a strong hydrogen bond donor or a weak hydrogen bond acceptor (page 3786, right column). Chitra et al. teaches that oxalic acid may also be a hydrogen bond donor or a hydrogen bond acceptor (page 269).
Therefore, it would have been expected that the oxalic acid and water, as disclosed by Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) would have each been capable of being a hydrogen bond donor and a hydrogen bond acceptor, as disclosed by Rablen et al. (page 3786, right column) and Chitra et al. (page 269). Additionally, the oxalic acid and water may be present in a 1:1 ratio, thereby reading on the claim.
Claims 10-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hekselman et al. (WO 2020/025970).
In regard to claims 10-11, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses adding oxalic acid or citric acid (page 4). However, adding these two together would be obvious since they are present for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the meal-element containing composition contains a metal oxide” in claim 10, the Examiner notes that material worked upon by an apparatus would not further limit apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the reducing agent has a concentration controlled to 0.03 to 0.30 mol/L, with respect to the deep eutectic solvent” in claim 12 and in regard to claim 15, Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970) discloses that up to 50 weight percent of eutectic may be water (weak oxidizing agent) (page 4). Thus, if 50% of the eutectic solvent is oxalic acid, citric acid or oxalic and citric acid as set forth above, then the content of the citric acid added with the presence of oxalic acid would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the metal element-containing composition contains LiCoO2 or LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2” in claim 13, the Examiner notes that material worked upon by an apparatus would not further limit apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
In regard to claim 16, in the scenario where oxalic acid, citric acid and water are all present in the deep eutectic solvent of Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970), the water may be the hydrophilic agent (page 4).
With respect to the recitation “to separate and recover the metal component in the hydrophilic solvent” in claim 16, this would be an intended result of adding the hydrophilic agent. MPEP 2111.02 II. Additionally, the Examiner notes that material worked upon by an apparatus would not further limit apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
In regard to claim 17, in the scenario where oxalic acid, citric acid and water are all present in the deep eutectic solvent of Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970), the oxalic acid may be the chelating agent (page 4).
With respect to the recitation “and the metal component is precipitated as a salt in the hydrophilic solvent to be separated and recovered” in claim 17, the Examiner notes that “precipitated as a salt in the hydrophilic solvent to be separated and recovered” would be intended result of adding the chelating agent. MPEP 2111.02 II. Additionally, the Examiner notes that material worked upon by an apparatus would not further limit apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 8, neither Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970), the evidentiary references, nor the remainder of the prior art specify a metal recovery apparatus using a hydrogen bond donor of benzoyltrifluoroacetone or decanoic acid and a hydrogen bond acceptor of tri-n-octylphosphine oxide.
In regard to claim 18, neither Hekselman et al. (WO ‘970), the evidentiary references, nor the remainder of the prior art specify a recycle unit that returns the deep eutectic solvent from which the metal component has been separated in the recovery unit to the leaching unit to recycle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights