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 .
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, Claim 5, reciting “…wherein the alkaline earth metals are calcium, magnesium, and barium,” will be interpreted as requiring that the alkaline earth metal comprises one selected from calcium, magnesium, and barium, and not that the alkaline earth metal must comprise each of calcium, magnesium, and barium.
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.
Claims 6 and 9 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.
Claims 6 and 9 recite “…wherein the or, or where there is more than one,…”. It is unclear what this phrase means and how it limits the claim scope. For purposes of examination, this phrase will be treated as erroneous, and the claims interpreted without the consideration of this phrase.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 14-15, 36, 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US4046855A, hereinafter Schepers.
Regarding Claim 1, Schepers discloses a process for purifying a concentrated aqueous hydroxide solution comprising at least one target impurity selected from dissolved transition metals, inorganic anions, and dissolved organic compounds (Col 1, lines 7 – 19: the invention pertains to a method for removing harmful compounds obtained from aluminate liquor in the Bayer process – the Bayer process aluminate liquor contains aqueous hydroxide, as it derives from the addition of caustic soda, i.e., NaOH, to bauxite), said process comprising:
adding to the hydroxide solution at least one precipitation additive selected from the group consisting of water-soluble salts of alkaline earth metals; nickel (II) hydroxide; and hydroxides or oxides of alkaline earth metals, provided that the surface area of the hydroxides or oxides is more than 5 m2/g, contacting the solution with the precipitation additive(s) for sufficient time to enable formation of at least one insoluble compound comprising the at least one target impurity or a derivative thereof as a precipitate; (Example 1: to a Bayer process aluminate liquor is added technical kieserite (MgSO4), forming a precipitate; MgSO4 is not a hydroxide or oxide and is therefore not subject to the surface area requirements of the instant claim); and
removing the precipitate from the solution (Example 1: the precipitate was filtered out).
Regarding Claims 2-3, the target impurity in the disclosure of Schepers is an organic impurity and not dissolved transition metals or inorganic ions. Therefore, the limitations of Claims 2-3 pertaining to further limiting these species are met by Schepers, as the instant claims do not require the target impurity be dissolved transition metals or inorganic ions.
Regarding Claim 5-6, Schepers discloses the addition of the alkaline earth metal magnesium (II) sulfate as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 8, Schepers discloses the addition of magnesium sulfate to the hydroxide solution - MgSO4 is not a hydroxide or oxide and is therefore not subject to the surface area requirements of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Schepers discloses at least one or each precipitation additive is added in an amount that is sufficient to reduce the concentration of the at least one target impurity to an acceptable level (Example 1: the discoloring organic compounds are reduced to 20% of the quantity present for treatment, which is considered an acceptable level absent a special definition -of this term).
Regarding Claim 14, Schepers discloses the process takes place at a temperature in a range from about 10° C. to about 90° C (Example 1: the process takes place at 60 °C).
Regarding Claim 15, Schepers discloses the solution is contacted with the precipitation additive(s) for a period of time in a range from 0.1 h to about 10 h (Example 1: contact is maintained for 30 minutes).
Regarding Claim 36, Schepers discloses the precipitate is removed using a filter (Example 1).
Regarding Claim 47, Schepers discloses a concentrated aqueous hydroxide solution purified according to the process of Claim 1, which may be used as an electrolyte in alkaline water electrolysis.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US4046855A, hereinafter Schepers, as evidenced by US3728432A, hereinafter ‘Petitjean’.
Regarding Claim 25, Schepers discloses dissolved iron is present as a target impurity in the concentrated aqueous hydroxide solution and the precipitation additive is selected from the group consisting of calcium (II) hydroxide, calcium (II) oxide and magnesium (II) sulfate (Petitjean shows that aluminate solutions obtained after separation from the iron oxides by decantation (i.e., separation of red mud from the solution, Col 1, lines 20-23) are practically freed from suspended iron in the form of Fe2O3, but contain a quantity of dissolved iron that may amount to 40 mg/l (Col 1, lines 44-48) – therefore, considering the caustic aluminate solution of Schepers contains red mud (Col 1, lines 20-26), the concentrated hydroxide solution of Schepers would contain dissolved iron, which may be considered a target impurity. Further, Schepers discloses the use of magnesium (II) sulfate as a precipitation additive as discussed above).
Claim(s) 1, 23, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trotochaud et al. (Nickel–Iron Oxyhydroxide Oxygen-Evolution Electrocatalysts: The Role of Intentional and Incidental Iron Incorporation, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2014), hereinafter ‘Trotochaud’.
Regarding Claim 1, Trotochaud discloses a process for purifying a concentrated aqueous hydroxide solution comprising at least one target impurity selected from dissolved transition metals, inorganic anions, and dissolved organic compounds (2.4. KOH Electrolyte Purification: a KOH solution is purified to remove iron for rigorously Fe-free measurements), said process comprising:
adding to the hydroxide solution at least one precipitation additive selected from the group consisting of water-soluble salts of alkaline earth metals; nickel (II) hydroxide; and hydroxides or oxides of alkaline earth metals, provided that the surface area of the hydroxides or oxides is more than 5 m2/g, contacting the solution with the precipitation additive(s) for sufficient time to enable formation of at least one insoluble compound comprising the at least one target impurity or a derivative thereof as a precipitate, and removing the precipitate from the solution (2.4. KOH Electrolyte Purification: after washing, solid nickel hydroxide is added to 1 M KOH and redispersed and mechanically agitated for at least 10 min, followed by at least 3 h of resting. The mixture was centrifuged, and the purified KOH supernatant was decanted into a H2SO4-cleaned polypropylene bottle for storage. By this process, iron is incorporated into the solid nickel hydroxide, thereby forming at least one insoluble compound comprising iron, the target metal (3.1. Fe Impurities and Their Removal)).
Regarding Claim 23, Trotochaud discloses dissolved iron is present as a target impurity in the concentrated aqueous hydroxide solution and the precipitation additive is nickel (II) hydroxide, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 42, Trotochaud discloses the concentrated hydroxide solution is concentrated potassium hydroxide, as discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4046855A, hereinafter Schepers.
Regarding Claims 32 and 34, Schepers makes obvious dissolved iron and at least one organic compound are present as target impurities in the concentrated aqueous hydroxide solution and the precipitation additive is selected from the group consisting of magnesium (II) nitrate and calcium (II) nitrate, and that dissolved iron is present as a target impurity in the concentrated aqueous hydroxide solution and the precipitation additive is selected from the group consisting of magnesium (II) nitrate and calcium (II) nitrate (as discussed above, Schepers discloses treating a solution containing dissolved iron and organic compounds; further, Schepers discloses a suitable list of magnesium compounds to be added to form a fine particle, gel-like mixture of magnesium hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide which comprises magnesium (II) nitrate (Col 3, lines 20-30). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize magnesium (II) nitrate as the precipitation agent in the disclosed process).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-29 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:
The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 28, requiring magnesium (II) sulfate is added in an amount in a range from 20-fold excess to 50-fold excess, based on the total stoichiometric amount of the dissolved iron. Schepers does not disclose the amount of dissolved iron, nor does it reasonably suggest adding magnesium (II) sulfate in an amount in a range from 20-fold excess to 50-fold excess based on the total stoichiometric amount of the dissolved iron.
Further, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 29, requiring both sulfate ions and dissolved iron be present as target impurities and magnesium (II) nitrate or calcium (II) nitrate is used as a precipitation additive. Schepers actively adds magnesium sulfate to the hydroxide solution, and does not consider the sulfate ions resulting therefrom as targets for purification.
Further, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 45, requiring a process for purifying an aqueous solution of 25 wt. % to 35 wt. % potassium hydroxide with water-soluble salts of magnesium (II) cations and calcium (II) cations in an amount up to a 30-fold excess, based on the total stoichiometric amount of the at least one target impurity. The prior art does not disclose purifying a solution with such a concentration, nor does it teach or suggest the use of water-soluble salts of magnesium (II) cations and calcium (II) cations in an amount up to a 30-fold excess based on the total stoichiometric amount of the at least one target impurity
Further, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 46, requiring a process for purifying an aqueous solution of 25 wt. % to 35 wt. % potassium hydroxide with barium (II) hydroxide as a precipitation additive in an amount up to a 3-fold excess based on the total stoichiometric amount of the at least one target impurity. The prior art does not disclose purifying a solution with such a concentration, nor does it teach or suggest the use of barium (II) hydroxide as a precipitation additive in an amount up to a 3-fold excess based on the total stoichiometric amount of the at least one target impurity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights