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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶3 and ¶4 of the specification two documents are referred to (see ¶3 referring to “patent No. ZL202010184003.0” and “Patent No. ZL201811323583.6” and ¶4 referring to “patent Nos. ZL202010184003.0 and ZL201811323583.6”); however, ZL is not any known country code and it instead appears that the two background references referred to are actually the application numbers of the two Chinese references supplied in the IDS submitted 12/27/23. Appropriate correction correctly noting the two documents via the correct country code, i.e. CN, and by publication number with the associated publication numbers or as application numbers instead of patent no. is required
In ¶9 of the Specification an abbreviation “SCR” is used without setting forth what the abbreviation stands for. While it would seem that the abbreviation is to stand for selective catalytic reduction, the application should be amended so as to recite the meaning of the abbreviation being employed in at least the first instance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “is oxide slag or scrap containing TiO2”, and the claim also recites “comprising titanium-containing blast furnace slag or a spent SCR catalyst” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Specifically, while it would appear that claim 2 intends to require the scrap containing TiO2 to further comprise either titanium-containing blast furnace slag or a spent SCR catalyst, as written it isn’t clear that this is the case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, it is noted that in claim 5 the claim attempts to state the ratio of NaCl, KCl and NaF in the molten salt as being not limited (see claim 5 at lines 2-3). However, this claim does not seem to further limit independent claim 1 which already requires the recited components of the molten salt and leaves the proportions undefined. Since the claim is silent as to the ratio, the claim scope already is open to any ratio of the components and so the text of dependent claim 5 would not further limit the scope of independent claim 1. Likewise for claim 7, the claim attempts to further require the percentage of Na3TiF6 or K3TiF6 which is to be added to the molten salt in step 3 as set forth in independent claim 1 in “any molar percentage” (see claim 7 at lines 2-3). As such, here also, the claim appears to attempt to further limit an amount of a component already required to be present to be anything. Since the components are already required by independent claim 1 and since the amount is unspecified, independent claim 1 would already require the concentration in any molar amount as recited by dependent claim 7. Consequently, this claim also does not appear to further limit the scope of independent claim 1 in any respect.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach the method for preparing metallic titanium using titanium-containing oxide slag including the three steps as claimed in independent claim 1. While the silicothermal reduction of TiO2 is generally known in the art, the prior art fails to teach the reduction process as set forth in step 1 and also the molten salt process for the separation of the silicon and titanium using the configuration of the cell, including the electrolyte and additive, and the conditions for the electrolysis as claimed in steps 2 and 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“A Novel Approach to Prepare High-Purity Si and Si/TISi2 Materials Simultaneously Using Ti-bearing Blast Furnace Slag” by Lei et al., J. Alloys and Compd. 798, pages 333-341 (2019)
“Recovery of Ti-bearing Blast Furnace Slag and Diamond Wire Saw Silicon Powder Waste by Alloying and Electromagnetic Separation Technique” by Gu et al., J. Clean. Prod. 359, 132080 (2022)
“An Approach to Prepare High-Purity TiSi2 for Clean Utilization of Ti-bearing Blast Furnace Slag” by Li et al., Green Chem. 24, 3344-3357 (2022)
CN115928155A to Yan et al., teaching a molten salt electrolytic separation method for titanium silicon alloys
CN111348653B to Lei et al., teaching a method for preparing high-purity silicon
US Pat. No. 5,336,378 to Nishimura et al., teaching a method and apparatus for producing a high-purity titanium using a molten salt electrolyte
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights