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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-23, in the reply filed on January 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
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)(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 1-3, 5, 6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pham et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0380918).
Regarding claim 1, Pham discloses a method of producing iron metal by electrolysis of iron ore (abstract; paragraphs 5, 30, 165), comprising:
introducing iron ore/feedstock into an anode chamber (138; figure 3), wherein the anode chamber includes a first electrolyte/anolyte and an anode (140; paragraphs 216, 285 - the ferrous feedstock enters the plating subsystem into ⅓ (catholyte) and ⅔ (anolyte) portions of the initial ferrous feedstock);
oxidizing water at the anode to form O2 gas and H+ ions in the anode chamber
(138; paragraphs 168, 204);
dissolving the iron ore to form Fe3+ and/or Fe2+ ions in the anode chamber
(paragraphs 216, 218, 230 – the acid formed at the anode is used to dissolve the iron feedstock, converting it to ferric salt);
transferring the Fe3+ and/or Fe2+ ions from the anode chamber (138) to a cathode
chamber (134) through a cation exchange membrane (114) that separates the anode chamber (138) from the cathode chamber (134), wherein the cathode chamber (134) includes a second electrolyte (142) and a cathode (136; paragraphs 216, 223-225); and
reducing the Fe3+ and/or Fe2+ ions to form iron metal at the cathode (paragraphs 204-206).
Regarding claim 2, Pham teaches wherein the first electrolyte has a pH less than 1, and wherein the second electrolyte has a pH from about 4 to about 5 (paragraph 185 – the pH may be adjusted as desired, i.e. from less than 0 to 7; paragraphs 199, 207, 242).
Regarding claim 3, the first electrolyte and the second electrolyte of Pham are both aqueous (paragraphs 170-171; 185).
Regarding claim 5, Pham discloses wherein the second aqueous electrolyte includes a dissolved iron salt and a dissolved co-salt/supporting salt, wherein the co-salt comprises magnesium, calcium, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 157, 200).
Regarding claim 6, absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine suitable concentration ranges of the dissolved co-salt is present in the second aqueous electrolyte. It has been held by courts that generally, differences in concentration not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 15, Pham further discloses wherein the Fe3+ and/or Fe2+ ions are reduced to iron metal at the cathode with a faradaic efficiency of 90% or greater (paragraphs 147; 204-205).
Regarding claim 16, Pham discloses wherein the second electrolyte has a temperature from about 20 °C to about 100 °C (paragraphs 237, 302).
Regarding claim 17, the iron ore of Pham comprises hematite, magnetite, goethite, limonite, siderite, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 160, 218, 221-222).
Regarding claim 18, Pham teaches wherein the iron ore is introduced as particles within a desired range (paragraph 219, 253 – may be sufficiently small to promote desired reactions with the solution).
Regarding claim 19, the iron metal of Pham forms iron particles and the method further comprises collecting the iron particles in a non-aqueous liquid that is substantially immiscible with the second electrolyte, wherein the iron particles flow by gravity from the cathode to the non-aqueous liquid (many techniques may be used, i.e. gravity settling, solid-liquid separation, among others; paragraph 249).
Regarding claim 20, Pham discloses flowing the second electrolyte through a recycle flow line (125, 123) connected to the cathode chamber (134; figure 3).
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 4, 7-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Vecitis et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0389601).
Regarding claim 4, Pham teaches all the features discussed above wherein the second aqueous electrolyte comprises a chloride (paragraphs 187, 299), but fails to disclose wherein the first aqueous electrolyte comprises a perchlorate.
Vecitis discloses a method for the recovery of iron from an ore (paragraph 147) wherein the electrolyte solution for the anodic and/or cathodic compartments may comprise a perchlorate to selectively precipitate an individual metal from a mixture (paragraph 181).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a perchlorate to the first electrolyte of Pham in order to selectively precipitate an individual metal from the solution, as taught by Vecitis.
Regarding claim 7, Vecitis discloses wherein the electrolyte solution for the anodic and/or cathodic compartments may include a deep eutectic solvent (DES - paragraphs 181-182).
Regarding claim 8, the DES of Vecitis includes an iron salt mixed with an organic molecule, wherein the iron salt includes an anion and the organic molecule is capable of donating protons to form hydrogen bonds with the anion (paragraphs 181-182).
Regarding claim 9, the iron salt of Pham is at least one of an iron chloride, and sulfate (paragraphs 134, 146, 187, 238).
Regarding claim 10, the organic molecule of Vecitis is at least one of citric acid, and acetic acid (paragraphs 173, 181).
Regarding claim 11, the electrolyte of Vecitis may be non-aqueous (paragraph 182).
Regarding claim 12, the first electrolyte and second aqueous electrolytes of Pham (paragraphs 170-171; 185) would form a hybrid aqueous DES electrolyte with the eutectic solvent of Vecitis (paragraph 182).
Regarding claim 13, Vecitis teaches wherein the cation exchange membrane is a first cation exchange membrane (274; figure 32; paragraphs 127, 205), wherein the anode chamber (292) includes a second cation exchange membrane (284) dividing the anode chamber into a water oxidation compartment (288) and an iron ore feed compartment (286), wherein the anode (16) is in the water oxidation compartment and the iron ore is introduced (via 270) into the iron ore feed compartment (286), the method further comprising transferring H+ ions from the water oxidation compartment to the feed compartment (286) across the second cation exchange membrane (paragraph 127) .
Regarding claim 14, Vecitis further teaches wherein the feed is introduced through an inlet (270) formed in the feed compartment (286), and wherein the O2 gas exits the water oxidation compartment (288) through an outlet (296) formed in the water oxidation compartment (288; figure 32).
Regarding claim 21, the cation exchange membrane (274) of Vecitis is positioned at least partially above the anode chamber (292) and in contact with the first electrolyte, and wherein the cathode chamber (130) is positioned at least partially above the cation exchange membrane (274; as shown in figure 32).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham in view of Vecitis as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Mayer et al. (US Patent no. 6,964,792).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Pham teaches all the features discussed above wherein the anode chamber (292) comprises an outlet (296) at an upper portion of the anode chamber (292), but fails to disclose, wherein the cation exchange membrane is inclined upward toward the O2 gas outlet to direct rising O2 gas bubbles toward the O2 gas outlet.
Mayer discloses an electrolytic cell comprising a membrane (213) allowing migration of cation species (col. 7, lines 1-5), wherein the membrane (213) is inclined upward toward a gas outlet (225) to direct rising gas bubbles toward the gas outlet (figure 2A; col. 7, lines 47-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an inclined cation exchange membrane in the method of the modified Pham, as taught by Mayer, to effectively provide a bubble/gas removal path.
Regarding claim 23, Pham discloses wherein the cathode chamber comprises an iron metal collector comprising a non-aqueous liquid that is substantially immiscible with the second electrolyte (paragraphs 162, 250, 259). Mayer discloses an electrolytic cell comprising a membrane (213) allowing migration of cation species (col. 7, lines 1-5), wherein the membrane (213) is inclined upward toward a gas outlet (225) to direct rising gas bubbles toward the gas outlet (figure 2A; col. 7, lines 47-67 – the inclined surface of the membrane would inherently direct metal particles toward the metal collector).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794