6 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1 and 3-5 are 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. The term “ FILLIN "Enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT high-pressur e” in claim FILLIN "Identify the claim." \* MERGEFORMAT 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ FILLIN "Re-enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT high-pressure ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. FILLIN "Explain which parameter or quantity or other limitation in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term appearing in bracket 1." \* MERGEFORMAT The instant specification provides an exemplary range of 3.0 MPa to 6.5 MPa [0019], which is not a limiting definition . As a result, the requisite range of pressures for one skilled in the art to successfully conduct the S1 step of the claimed invention is not disclosed, and further one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the range of pressure that would infringe on the scope of the invention as currently claimed. Claims 3-5 are dependent upon claim 1 and do not rectify the issue by defining a range of pressures, and are as a result similarly rejected due to an indefiniteness in the scope of the claim. Claim 2 appears to rectify the issue of indefiniteness of claim 1 by further limiting the range of pressures to 3.0-6.5 MPa. Accordingly, claim 2 has not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, for indefiniteness. 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 -5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" CN 106829907 A, Li et al. 2017, in view of US 4128416 A, Rappas et al. 1978 , referred to herein as Li and Rappas , respectively. A Machine English translation of Li, as provided with this office action, is cited herein. Regarding claim 1, Li teaches: A method for preparing nickel sulfate from ferronickel ( a method for preparing nickel sulfate solution and battery-grade iron phosphate from nickel-containing pig iron, 0011 ) , comprising the following steps: S1: mixing crushed ferronickel with sulfuric acid, ( 0012, 0013, wherein the acid contains sulfuric acid, 0019 ) and conducting solid-liquid separation to obtain a filtrate and a filter residue , 0013 (it is noted that a solid-liquid separation must, by definition, obtain a solid and a liquid, therefore meeting the limitation of obtaining a residue) the sulfuric acid has a concentration of 3 mol/L to 8 mol/L , 0020 S2: adding an oxidizing agent to the filtrate, then adding a precipitating agent, controlling a pH of the filtrate, and conducting solid-liquid separation to obtain a nickel-containing filtrate , 0014 S3: subjecting the nickel-containing filtrate to extraction , 0016, and back-extraction to obtain a nickel sulfate solution, 0017; a process of the extraction and back-extraction comprises: adding an extracting agent to the nickel-containing filtrate for nickel extraction to obtain a nickel-containing organic phase , 0016 and adding a sulfuric acid solution to the nickel-containing organic phase for nickel back-extraction to obtain the nickel sulfate solution , 0017 ; the extracting agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of P204, P507, DEHPA, and Cyanex272 ( P204, P507, DEHPA and Cyanex272 , 0024) . Li does not teach, in S1: a high-pressure oxygen environment, introducing a carbon monoxide gas to allow a reaction, the reaction is conducted in a closed space, the carbon monoxide gas is introduced through a bottom of the crushed ferronickel, and a volume concentration of the carbon monoxide gas in the closed space is controlled at ≤ 2.5% or that the reaction is conducted at 40°C to 200°C . Furthermore, in S2, Li does not teach : that an iron hydroxide precipitate is obtained. However, regarding limitation I, Rappas teaches a process for recovering nickel metal in the presence of carbon monoxide to produce nickel carbonyl (abstract) in which pressures slightly elevated above atmospheric pressure are used (3 atm, C2/L2) and discloses that it is known in the art that this carbonylation reaction can take place at higher pressures, C2/L5-6 . It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Li by conducting S1 at higher pressures . Rappas teaches bubbling oxygen through the closed reactor in Example 2 ( C6/L4); this meets the limitation of the high-pressure environment being an oxygen environment. Regarding limitation II, Rappas teaches carbon monoxide (Example 2, C6/L3). Regarding limitation I II , Rappas teaches a reactor (Example 2, C6/L5). This meets the requirement of a closed space required of the instant limitation. Regarding limitation I V, Rappas teaches that the CO is bubbled through the nickel material (C5/L65). This meets the requirement of the introduction of CO from the bottom of the ferronickel, since bubbling necessarily requires that the introduction of a gas is underneath a material in order for a bubble to pass through the material. While the concentration of carbon monoxide used is greater than the range of ≤ 2.5% required by the instant claim, the rate of the reaction between nickel and CO can be modified, among others, by adjusting the volume concentration of CO, with the rate of reaction both increasing/decreasing as the volume concentration of CO is increased/decreased. Therefore the precise volume concentration of CO would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of CO concentration cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the volume concentration of CO in Rappas to obtain the desired the rate of reaction s as evidenced by Rappas ( C2/L19-37 ) ( In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. ( In re Aller , 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Regarding limitation V , Rappas teaches a reaction temperature of 42 Celsius (C5/L62). Regarding limitation VI, Rappas teaches a preferred embodiment where the nickel-depleted leach liquor is subjec ted to an oxidizing agent such as air to induce the production of iron oxides and hydroxides, C2/L55-60 . It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Li with the process for recovering nickel carbonyl and iron hydroxide taught by Rappas , before the effective filing date of the present invention. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so because Rappas discloses the utility of the structure of nickel carbonyl , which allows one skilled in the art to selectively isolate purified nickel separated from other commonly present metals (C1/L33-36), and one would be motivated to precipitate the iron hydroxide in order to recycle the leach liquor, as Rappas teaches (C2/L55). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the instant invention before the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 2, Rappas teaches a pressure of 0.303975 MPa (3 atm, C2/L2), and teaches that known methods in the art are conducted at 30 or more atmospheres (C1/L54-55). While these values lie outside the instant claimed range of 3.0 to 6 .5 MPa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the method as taught by Li and Rappas where the pressure is maintained at any workable or optimum range within the taught range, including the claimed range, and arrive at the claimed invention, barring evidence of unexpected results of the claimed range. Regarding claim 3, Li teaches that the oxidant is one or more selected from the group consisting of hydrogen peroxide, compressed air, chlorine, and sodium chlorate ( hydrogen peroxide, compressed air or sodium chlorate , 0022). Regarding claim 4, Li teaches that the precipitating agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of ammonia water, sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, and sodium bicarbonate ( ammonia or sodium hydroxide , 0021). Regarding claim 5, Li teaches a pH range of 0.5-2.5, 0023. While this range falls outside the instant claimed range of 3.0-3.5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a method for preparing nickel sulfate as suggested by Li and Rappas where the pH of the filtrate-containing solution is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with or near 0.5-2.5 as taught by Li, including the claimed range, in order to obtain a pH suitable for the precipitation reaction to proceed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1768 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sally Merkling can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712726297 . 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. /Eileen Moudou / Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738