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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (“Chemical Garden Membranes in Temperature-Controlled Microfluidic Devices”, Langmuir, Volume 37, Pages 2485-2493, 2021).
In regards to claim 1, Wang teaches a laminar co-flow method for chemical extraction comprising a first and second flow path of a flow cell chamber (Fig. 1)
For a mineral source solution and a reactant solution ( Chemicals and Materials, “Nickel chloride (NiCl2·6H2O, Fisher Chemical), cobalt chloride (CoCl2·6H2O, Sigma-Aldrich), cupric sulfate (CuSO4·5H2O, Fisher Chemical), zinc sulfate (ZnSO4, Fisher Chemical), and sodium hydroxide (NaOH, Macron Fine Chemicals) were used as received”; Results and Discussion, “ Figure2a–d shows representative precipitate structures in four different divalent metal salt solutions containing Co2+, Cu2+, Zn2+, and Ni2+, respectively”), where the metal salt solutions are the mineral source and the chloride, sulfate, and hydroxides are the reactant solutions.
Wang also teaches that the solutions contact along a flow path interface to form a precipitate (Fig. 1; Results and Discussion, “In our experiments, a green precipitate forms at the interface of the two coflowing solutions”)
And that the mineral comprises a cation and the reactant comprises the anion, where Ni is the cation and OH is the anion (Results and Discussion, “The reactant concentrations are stoichiometric (0.50 M OH– and 0.25 M Ni2+) with respect to the formation of Ni(OH)2”).
In regards to claim 2, Wang teaches where the flow within the flow cell chamber is a laminar flow characterized by a Reynolds number less than 2,500 (Results and Discussion, “The resulting fluid flow is laminar as indicated by small Reynolds numbers (Re < 1)”).
In regards to claim 4, Wang teaches that the width of the flow path interface is less than 10% that of a widest cross-sectional length of the flow chamber. In Fig. 1C, it can be seen per the scale that the overall size of the apparatus is about 8cm, while the flow path interface is 2mm wide, which would be about 2% of the cross-sectional length of the flow chamber. Additionally, a change in size for an apparatus does not constitute an inventive step. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
In regards to claim 5, Wang teaches a concentration gradient where the first concentration in the mineral source is greater than the second concentration within the reactant solution. At the flow path interface, the mineral source would mix with the reactant source to form a mineral precipitate, which would dilute the concentration of the mineral source compared to the initial flow path.
In regards to claim 7, Wang teaches that the mineral source solution comprises a transition metal or post transition metal, such as Co, Cu, Zn, and Ni (Results and Discussion, “Figure2a–d shows representative precipitate structures in four different divalent metal salt solutions containing Co2+, Cu2+, Zn2+, and Ni2+, respectively”).
In regards to claim 8, Wang teaches that the concentration of the cation in the mineral source solution is in the range from about 0.1 g/L to about 10 g/L. Wang teaches that 0.05 M CoCl2 is used (Fig. 2). As the molar mass of CoCl2 is 129.84, converting 0.05M as follows:
0.05
m
o
l
L
x
129.84
g
m
o
l
=
6.482
g
L
In regards to claim 9, Wang teaches that the reactant source solution is a sulfate or hydroxide (Experimental Section, “Nickel chloride (NiCl2·6H2O, Fisher Chemical), cobalt chloride (CoCl2·6H2O, Sigma-Aldrich), cupric sulfate (CuSO4·5H2O, Fisher Chemical), zinc sulfate (ZnSO4, Fisher Chemical), and sodium hydroxide (NaOH, Macron Fine Chemicals) were used as received”).
In regards to claim 10, Wang teaches that the reactant source solution is NaOH with a OH-- concentration in a range from 0.01M to 1M (Results and Discussion, “The reactant concentrations are stoichiometric (0.50 M OH– and 0.25 M Ni2+) with respect to the formation of Ni(OH)2”).
In regards to claim 11, Wang teaches that the reactant source solution has a pH difference greater than 2.0 compared to the mineral source. Wang teaches a Nickel Chloride mineral source, which has a pH of 4-7 as evidenced by SigmaAldrich (see attached) and a reactant source of sodium hydroxide, which has a pH of 14 as evidenced by SigmaAldrich (see attached).
In regards to claim 12, Wang teaches that the reactant source solution has a flow rate of the mineral source solution to the reactant solution in a range from 2:1 to 1:2. Wang teaches that the individual flow rates in the channels are 0.53 mm/s (Results and Discussion, “The average fluid velocities are 0.53 mm/s in the individual channels and 1.07 mm/s in the combined reaction channel”), which would be a 1:1 ratio.
In regards to claim 14, Wang teaches the extraction of the mineral precipitate from the flow cell chamber (Results and Discussion, “In addition, we noticed that the nickel-based membranes display a shiny and smooth surface after extraction from the microfluidic channel”).
In regards to claim 15, Wang teaches that the mineral precipitate comprises a cobalt, copper, and zinc cation (Results and Discussion, “Figure2a–d shows representative precipitate structures in four different divalent metal salt solutions containing Co2+, Cu2+, Zn2+, and Ni2+, respectively”).
In regards to claim 18, Wang teaches that the mineral precipitate is formed in about 2 to about 4 hours (Results and Discussion, “With a steady injection of reactant solutions at 20 °C, the membrane wall thickens over time and reaches a width of w = 350 μm after 4 h (see Figure3a and Movie S2 in the Supporting Information)”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (“Chemical Garden Membranes in Temperature-Controlled Microfluidic Devices”, Langmuir, Volume 37, Pages 2485-2493, 2021).
In regards to claim 3, Wang teaches a volume from 0.01mL to 10L, calculated as follows from the width of 8cm from Fig. 1:
8
c
m
x
10
c
m
x
0.15
c
m
=
12
c
m
3
=
12
m
L
=
0.012
L
,
a flow path interface having a width of 0.1mm to 10cm (Fig. 1),
and the reactant/mineral source solution flow rate in range from 0.1 mL/h to 100 mL/h. Calculating the reactant/mineral source solution flow rate is as follows:
A
=
π
d
2
4
=
π
(
1.6
m
m
)
2
4
=
2.0106
m
m
2
A
r
e
a
F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
=
A
x
f
l
u
i
d
v
e
l
o
c
i
y
=
2.0106
m
m
2
x
0.53
m
m
s
=
1.065618
m
m
3
s
1.065618
m
m
3
s
0.001
m
l
1
m
m
3
3600
s
1
h
r
=
3.836
m
l
H
r
In regards to claim 6, Wang does not teach that the mineral source solution is seawater, a mined material dispersion, a recycling stream, industrial waste, or a geothermal brine. However, Wang does teach that seawater is mineral-rich (Introduction, “These systems entail tall, chimney-like precipitate structures that form when hot, mineral-rich water surges into the cold ocean. The dissolved minerals as well as simple hydrocarbon species, CO, and H2 result from the serpentinization of the rock underneath the ocean floor and determine the complex composition of the precipitates, which include insoluble Ca, Ba, Fe, and Ni compounds”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use seawater as a mineral source in the extraction as it is containing elements that can be used for precipitation purposes.
In regards to claim 13, Wang does not teach recycling the outflow of the mineral source solution. However, as the mineral source is present in the apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the mineral source present in order to eliminate any waste produced in the reaction as well as maximize the amount of product formed.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (“Chemical Garden Membranes in Temperature-Controlled Microfluidic Devices”, Langmuir, Volume 37, Pages 2485-2493, 2021) in view of Kapp (“The precipitation of calcium and magnesium from sea water by sodium hydroxide”, The Biological Bulletin, 1928).
In regards to claim 16, Wang does not teach that the mineral precipitate comprises the magnesium or calcium components as claimed.
Kapp teaches that calcium and magnesium can be precipitated from seawater using sodium hydroxide (“In the course of an investigation water into the modification of sea for use as a perfusion medium (Kapp, `28), it became necessary to know something of the relative amounts of calcium and magnesium precipitated by sodium hydroxide”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the calcium or magnesium compounds claimed as the mineral source along with NaOH as it is already well known in the art to do so and the compounds have the necessary Ca or Mg that needs to be precipitated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Wang (“Chemical Garden Membranes in Temperature-Controlled Microfluidic Devices”, Langmuir, Volume 37, Pages 2485-2493, 2021) and Kapp (“The precipitation of calcium and magnesium from sea water by sodium hydroxide”, The Biological Bulletin, 1928) are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention in the instant application. Wang teaches a mineral precipitate that is formed using a mineral source and a reactant source within a Y-shape microfluidic device. However, Wang does not teach that the mineral precipitate formed has a purity greater than 95%.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights