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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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, 2, 4, 7, 8, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Preparation of chitosan-graft-benzo-15-crown-5 ether film
for heavy metal ions separation” to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang at __”; cited and provided by Applicants).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8, 14 and 17, Wang discloses a method for recovering silver (Wang at 150 L col) comprising:
Mixing (for 12 hours) a tris-benzo-15-crown-5 compound (144 L col) with a first solution comprising silver ions (wastewater containing Ag+, 145 R col);
Separating the AC5-silver ion complex from a second solution (via filtration, Id.); and
Regenerating the AC5 (5 times) by dissociating the silver iosn from the AC5-silver ion complex to cover the silver (via thiourea washing, 150 L col).
Turning to claim 2, a Schiff base bridge is added (144 L col).
Turning to claim 7, Wang discloses C0=25ppm Ce=12.7 (from 148 L col) m=0.1 V=25 mL such that K=242.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Simultaneous separation and extraction of Ag(I), Pb(II) and Pd(II) ons by solid phase method and determination of these ions by flame atomic absorption spectrometry” to Khayatian et al. (hereinafter, “Khayatian at __”).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Wang does not expressly state that the source is sea water or e-waste streams.
Khayatian in a method involving separating silver ions discloses that sources of silver can be sea water or e-waste watter (Khayatian at 155 R col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the source of Wang for that of Khayatian. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being removal of silver waste from possible drinking water sources (151 R col).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 10-13, 15, 16 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.
As to claim 3, Wang is the closest piece of prior art and while it discloses a 15-crown-5 ether it does not disclose tris(4-methylbenzyl-4’aminobenzo-15-crown-5 ether) amine and nor does it suggest usage of such. CN114832654 (cited by Applicants) discloses a benzo 15-crown-5 grafted PVA without regeneration nor silver separation. EP2540746 (cited by Applicants) discloses a wholly different crown ether to separate silver ions. CN110394166 (cited by Applicants) discloses a benzo-15-crown-5 ether but not the one claimed and is not drawn to silver separation.
As to claims 9 and 10, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses or reasonably suggests regeneration with dithizone, an acid, and ethanol. Wang is the closest piece of prior art and it utilizes thiourea.
As to claims 11, 2 and 13, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses mixing the AC5 with a second solution especially with a first solution which is immiscible with the first solution. Wang is the closest piece of prior art and does not disclose a second solution.
As to claim 15, Wang is the closest piece of prior art and it discloses mixing for 12 hours.
As to claim 16, Wang is the closest piece of prior art and only discloses mixing, not ultrasonication.
As to claim 18, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination disclose that the silver coordinates to the phi-2 or phi-3 position and there is no suggestion in Wang that such occurs.
As to claim 19, Wang is the closest piece of prior art and it discloses less than 30mg/g uptake.
As to claim 20, Wang is the closest piece of prior art and its heavy metal solution does not comprise lithium, sodium, potassium, or calcium ions.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 14 and 17 are rejected. Claims 3, 9, 10-13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759