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 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 1-14 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 1, 7, and 9 recite the limitation "removing the Cd from a pregnant leach solution" or “removing the Cd from a PLS” in line 3 of each claim. The limitation is indefinite as lines 1-2 of claim 1 recites “recovering valuable metals from black mass, wherein the black mass includes cadmium (Cd)”, but does not disclose the existence or production of pregnant leach solution or PLS, making unclear if the black mass is e.g., leached to form a pregnant leach solution or PLS, or if the pregnant leach solution or PLS has no relation to the black mass.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the valuable metals from a pregnant leach solution" in lines 4-5. The limitation is indefinite as line 1 of claim 1 recites “recovering valuable metals from black mass”, but does not disclose the existence or production of pregnant leach solution, making unclear if the black mass is e.g., leached to form a pregnant leach solution, or if the pregnant leach solution has no relation to the black mass.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "from a pregnant leach solution" in lines 4-5. The limitation is indefinite as the article “a” makes unclear if the pregnant leach solution from which valuable metals are recovered is the same as the pregnant leach solution from which Cd is removed in line 3, or a different pregnant leach solution.
Claims 3 and 8 recite the limitation “organic compound material” in line 2 of each claim. The term “organic compound material” is not defined by the instant specification nor does the term have an established meaning in the art, thus the term is interpreted according to its plain meaning, however “organic compound material” is ambiguous as it is unclear if it refers to merely an organic compound, or if the organic material is somehow “compound” (e.g., comprises multiple materials).
Claims 4 and 11 recite the limitation "includes organosulfur, organothiophosphate, and benzothiazole compounds or derivatives" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the organic compound must include each of organosulfur, organothiophosphate, and benzothiazole compounds (or their derivatives); or is intended to include organosulfur, organothiophosphate, or benzothiazole compounds (or their derivatives). The limitation is further indefinite as it is unclear for the case when derivatives are used, whether only one derivative of organosulfur, organothiophosphate, or benzothiazole need be present, or if derivatives of all three types must be present to read upon the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the valuable metals from a PLS" in line 4. The limitation is indefinite as line 1 of claims 7 and recites “recovering valuable metals from black mass”, but does not disclose the existence or production of PLS, making unclear if the black mass is e.g., leached to form a PLS, or if the PLS has no relation to the black mass.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "from a PLS" in line 4. The limitation is indefinite as the article “a” makes unclear if the PLS from which valuable metals are recovered is the same as the PLS from which Cd is removed in line 3, or a different PLS.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the valuable metals from a PLS" in line 5. The limitation is indefinite as line 1 of claim 9 and recites “recovering valuable metals from black mass”, but does not disclose the existence or production of PLS, making unclear if the black mass is e.g., leached to form a PLS, or if the PLS has no relation to the black mass.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “organic compound material” in line 4. The term “organic compound material” is not defined by the instant specification nor does the term have an established meaning in the art, thus the term is interpreted according to its plain meaning, however “organic compound material” is ambiguous as it is unclear if it refers to merely an organic compound, or if the organic material is somehow “compound” (e.g., comprises multiple materials).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "from a PLS" in line 5. The limitation is indefinite as the article “a” makes unclear if the PLS from which valuable metals are recovered is the same as the PLS from which Cd is removed in line 3, or a different PLS.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 113106257 B, original document and machine translation supplied with IDS filed 03/26/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method of recovering valuable metals (Abstract, pg. 3 lines 2-3) from black mass (pg. 3 paragraphs 7-10). Zhang teaches wherein the black mass includes cadmium (Cd) (pg. 4 paragraph 9), and removing the Cd from a pregnant leach solution (PLS) (pg. 3 paragraph 11, pg. 4 paragraphs 8-9). Zhang teaches subsequently, precipitating and recovering the valuable metals from a pregnant leach solution (pg. 3 paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches wherein the valuable metals include one or more of Ni, Mn, Co, and Li (pg. 3 paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches a method of recovering valuable metals (Abstract, pg. 3 lines 2-3) from black mass (pg. 3 paragraphs 7-10). Zhang teaches wherein the black mass includes cadmium (Cd) (pg. 4 paragraph 9), and removing the Cd from a PLS (pg. 3 paragraph 11, pg. 4 paragraphs 8-9). Zhang teaches subsequently, precipitating and recovering the valuable metals from a PLS (pg. 3 paragraph 12), wherein the valuable metals include one or more of Ni, Mn, Co, and Li (pg. 3 paragraph 12).
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 3-5, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 7 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Rickelton ("The removal of Cadmium Impurities from Cobalt-Nickel Solutions by Precipitation with Sodium Diisobutyldithiophosphinate", supplied with IDS filed 03/26/2025).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches removing cadmium from a PLS, but teaches doing so by extraction with P204 extractant (pg. 3 paragraph 11, pg. 4 paragraphs 8-9), where the PLS comprises cobalt and nickel (pg. 4 paragraph 3). Zhang does not teach wherein the removal of the Cd from the PLS includes precipitating an insoluble organo-complex by adding an organic compound material to the PLS.
Rickelton teaches removal of cadmium impurities from cobalt-nickel solutions by precipitation with diisobutyldithiophosphinate (Title), where cadmium impurities are present in cobalt-nickel solutions processed by solvent extraction for the recovery of cobalt (Abstract), and cadmium must be removed from the solution prior to solvent extraction (1. Introduction, paragraph 1) and nickel (e.g., pg. 340 paragraph 2), thus Rickelton and Zhang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes for removing cadmium from solutions comprising cobalt, nickel, and cadmium where cobalt and nickel are to be recovered. Rickelton teaches wherein the removal of the Cd from the PLS includes precipitating as a diisobutyldithiophosphinate complex (i.e., an organo-complex) (pg. 342 paragraphs 1-3), which is intrinsically insoluble as it is precipitated from solution. Rickelton teaches the complex is formed by adding diisobutyldithiophosphinate (i.e., an organic compound material) to the solution (pg. 341: 2. Experimental: paragraph 1; pg. 343 paragraph 1). Rickelton teaches the sodium diisobutyldithiophosphinate to selectively remove cadmium from the solution without co-precipitating valuable metals (abstract, pg. 340 paragraph 2, pg. 344: 4. Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added sodium diisobutyldithiophosphinate to precipitate cadmium prior to extraction as taught by Rickelton prior to the extraction with P204 of Zhang, as doing so would selectively remove cadmium impurities from the solution, further purifying the solution, and would do so at a point that is described as advantageous by Rickelton (prior to extraction).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Rickelton teaches wherein the organic compound material includes organothiophosphate compounds or derivatives and wherein the organic compound material includes dithiophosphinate (pg. 341: 2. Experimental: paragraph 1; pg. 343 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches removing cadmium from a PLS, but teaches doing so by extraction with P204 extractant (pg. 3 paragraph 11, pg. 4 paragraphs 8-9), where the PLS comprises cobalt and nickel (pg. 4 paragraph 3). Zhang does not teach wherein the removal of the Cd from the PLS includes precipitating an insoluble organo-complex by adding an organic compound material to the PLS.
Rickelton teaches removal of cadmium impurities from cobalt-nickel solutions by precipitation with diisobutyldithiophosphinate (Title), where cadmium impurities are present in cobalt-nickel solutions processed by solvent extraction for the recovery of cobalt (Abstract), and cadmium must be removed from the solution prior to solvent extraction (1. Introduction, paragraph 1) and nickel (e.g., pg. 340 paragraph 2), thus Rickelton and Zhang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes for removing cadmium from solutions comprising cobalt, nickel, and cadmium where cobalt and nickel are to be recovered. Rickelton teaches wherein the removal of the Cd from the PLS includes precipitating as a diisobutyldithiophosphinate complex (i.e., an organo-complex) (pg. 342 paragraphs 1-3), which is intrinsically insoluble as it is precipitated from solution. Rickelton teaches the complex is formed by adding diisobutyldithiophosphinate (i.e., an organic compound material) to the solution (pg. 341: 2. Experimental: paragraph 1; pg. 343 paragraph 1). Rickelton teaches the sodium diisobutyldithiophosphinate to selectively remove cadmium from the solution without co-precipitating valuable metals (abstract, pg. 340 paragraph 2, pg. 344: 4. Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added sodium diisobutyldithiophosphinate to precipitate cadmium prior to extraction as taught by Rickelton prior to the extraction with P204 of Zhang, as doing so would selectively remove cadmium impurities from the solution, further purifying the solution, and would do so at a point that is described as advantageous by Rickelton (prior to extraction).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches a method of recovering valuable metals (Abstract, pg. 3 lines 2-3) from black mass (pg. 3 paragraphs 7-10). Zhang teaches wherein the black mass includes cadmium (Cd) (pg. 4 paragraph 9), and removing the Cd from a pregnant leach solution (PLS) (pg. 3 paragraph 11, pg. 4 paragraphs 8-9). Zhang teaches subsequently, precipitating and recovering the valuable metals from a pregnant leach solution (pg. 3 paragraph 12). Zhang teaches removing cadmium from a PLS, but teaches doing so by extraction with P204 extractant (pg. 3 paragraph 11, pg. 4 paragraphs 8-9), where the PLS comprises cobalt and nickel (pg. 4 paragraph 3).
Zhang does not teach wherein the removal of the Cd from the PLS includes precipitating an insoluble organo-complex by adding an organic compound material to the PLS.
Rickelton teaches removal of cadmium impurities from cobalt-nickel solutions by precipitation with diisobutyldithiophosphinate (Title), where cadmium impurities are present in cobalt-nickel solutions processed by solvent extraction for the recovery of cobalt (Abstract), and cadmium must be removed from the solution prior to solvent extraction (1. Introduction, paragraph 1) and nickel (e.g., pg. 340 paragraph 2), thus Rickelton and Zhang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes for removing cadmium from solutions comprising cobalt, nickel, and cadmium where cobalt and nickel are to be recovered. Rickelton teaches wherein the removal of the Cd from the PLS includes precipitating as a diisobutyldithiophosphinate complex (i.e., an organo-complex) (pg. 342 paragraphs 1-3), which is intrinsically insoluble as it is precipitated from solution. Rickelton teaches the complex is formed by adding diisobutyldithiophosphinate (i.e., an organic compound material) to the solution (pg. 341: 2. Experimental: paragraph 1; pg. 343 paragraph 1). Rickelton teaches the sodium diisobutyldithiophosphinate to selectively remove cadmium from the solution without co-precipitating valuable metals (abstract, pg. 340 paragraph 2, pg. 344: 4. Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added sodium diisobutyldithiophosphinate to precipitate cadmium prior to extraction as taught by Rickelton prior to the extraction with P204 of Zhang, as doing so would selectively remove cadmium impurities from the solution, further purifying the solution, and would do so at a point that is described as advantageous by Rickelton (prior to extraction).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches wherein the valuable metals include one or more of Ni, Mn, Co, and Li (pg. 3 paragraph 12).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Rickelton teaches wherein the organic compound material includes organothiophosphate compounds or derivatives and wherein the organic compound material includes dithiophosphinate (pg. 341: 2. Experimental: paragraph 1; pg. 343 paragraph 1).
Claims 3-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 7 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Yokota et al. (US 3755161 A).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang does not teach wherein the removal of the Cd from the PLS includes precipitating an insoluble organo-complex by adding an organic compound material to the PLS.
Yokota teaches treatment process for removal of metals and treating agent therefor (Title), where metals are removed from liquid phase metal-containing material (analogous to a PLS) (Abstract), where the metal may be Cd (Col. 9 lines 3-7), thus Yokota and Zhang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to the removal of Cd from liquid phases. Yokota teaches the treatment comprises using a solid treating agent consisting of a carrier material with a compound deposited thereon (Abstract), where for removing Cd the compound is preferably 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or its alkali salts (i.e. an organic compound material) (Col. 5 lines 4-10, Col. 9 lines 12-15). Yokota teaches the Cd is removed by depositing onto the organic compound material, and forming a mercaptide compound or coordinate chelate (i.e., an organo-complex) (Col. 3 lines 7-15), where as the Cd is removed from the solution and is deposited onto a solid, the removal of Cd includes precipitating as an insoluble organo-complex. Further, as the removal of Cd occurs by contact of the Cd in the solution with the organic compound material (e.g., Col. 7 lines 44-59), the precipitation occurs by adding the organic compound material to the PLS. Yokota teaches in prior art methods it is difficult to separate supernatant liquid from metal-containing precipitates when removing impurity metals (Col. 2 lines 12-23), while Yokota overcomes these difficulties and drawbacks and has greatly improved results (Col. 3 lines 7-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or an alkali salt thereof on a carrier as taught by Yokota to remove cadmium impurities from the PLS of Zhang, as doing so would avoid difficulties in separating supernatant from metal precipitates.
Further, it has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Zhang only differs from claim 1 in that the instant claim uses an organic compound to precipitate Cd as an insoluble organo-complex, while Zhang uses a P204 extraction to remove Cd from liquid solution, and Yokota uses a 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof to remove Cd from liquid solution, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have substituted the use of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof to remove Cd from liquid solution of Yokota into the method of Zhang to remove Cd from the liquid solution.
Regarding claims 4-5, Yokota teaches wherein the organic compound material includes a 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof (i.e., wherein the organic compound material includes benzothiazole compounds or derivatives, wherein the organic compound material includes mercaptobenzothiazole (Col. 5 lines 4-10, Col. 9 lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 6, Yokota teaches wherein the organic compound material includes a 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof (Col. 5 lines 4-10, Col. 9 lines 12-15), where the alkali salt thereof may be sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (i.e., wherein the adding of the organic compound material includes adding sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (NaMBT)) (Tables 3 and 4: Example 22).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang does not teach wherein the removal of the Cd includes precipitating an insoluble organo-complex by adding an organic compound material to the PLS.
Yokota teaches treatment process for removal of metals and treating agent therefor (Title), where metals are removed from liquid phase metal-containing material (analogous to a PLS) (Abstract), where the metal may be Cd (Col. 9 lines 3-7), thus Yokota and Zhang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to the removal of Cd from liquid phases. Yokota teaches the treatment comprises using a solid treating agent consisting of a carrier material with a compound deposited thereon (Abstract), where for removing Cd the compound is preferably 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or its alkali salts (i.e. an organic compound material) (Col. 5 lines 4-10, Col. 9 lines 12-15). Yokota teaches the Cd is removed by depositing onto the organic compound material, and forming a mercaptide compound or coordinate chelate (i.e., an organo-complex) (Col. 3 lines 7-15), where as the Cd is removed from the solution and is deposited onto a solid, the removal of Cd includes precipitating as an insoluble organo-complex. Further, as the removal of Cd occurs by contact of the Cd in the solution with the organic compound material (e.g., Col. 7 lines 44-59), the precipitation occurs by adding the organic compound material to the PLS. Yokota teaches in prior art methods it is difficult to separate supernatant liquid from metal-containing precipitates when removing impurity metals (Col. 2 lines 12-23), while Yokota overcomes these difficulties and drawbacks and has greatly improved results (Col. 3 lines 7-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or an alkali salt thereof on a carrier as taught by Yokota to remove cadmium impurities from the PLS of Zhang, as doing so would avoid difficulties in separating supernatant from metal precipitates.
Further, it has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Zhang only differs from claim 1 in that the instant claim uses an organic compound to precipitate Cd as an insoluble organo-complex, while Zhang uses a P204 extraction to remove Cd from liquid solution, and Yokota uses a 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof to remove Cd from liquid solution, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have substituted the use of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof to remove Cd from liquid solution of Yokota into the method of Zhang to remove Cd from the liquid solution.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches a method of recovering valuable metals (Abstract, pg. 3 lines 2-3) from black mass (pg. 3 paragraphs 7-10). Zhang teaches wherein the black mass includes cadmium (Cd) (pg. 4 paragraph 9), and removing the Cd from a pregnant leach solution (PLS) (pg. 3 paragraph 11, pg. 4 paragraphs 8-9). Zhang teaches subsequently, precipitating and recovering the valuable metals from a pregnant leach solution (pg. 3 paragraph 12).
Zhang does not teach wherein the removal of the Cd includes precipitating an insoluble organo-complex by adding an organic compound material to the PLS.
Yokota teaches treatment process for removal of metals and treating agent therefor (Title), where metals are removed from liquid phase metal-containing material (analogous to a PLS) (Abstract), where the metal may be Cd (Col. 9 lines 3-7), thus Yokota and Zhang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to the removal of Cd from liquid phases. Yokota teaches the treatment comprises using a solid treating agent consisting of a carrier material with a compound deposited thereon (Abstract), where for removing Cd the compound is preferably 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or its alkali salts (i.e. an organic compound material) (Col. 5 lines 4-10, Col. 9 lines 12-15). Yokota teaches the Cd is removed by depositing onto the organic compound material, and forming a mercaptide compound or coordinate chelate (i.e., an organo-complex) (Col. 3 lines 7-15), where as the Cd is removed from the solution and is deposited onto a solid, the removal of Cd includes precipitating as an insoluble organo-complex. Further, as the removal of Cd occurs by contact of the Cd in the solution with the organic compound material (e.g., Col. 7 lines 44-59), the precipitation occurs by adding the organic compound material to the PLS. Yokota teaches in prior art methods it is difficult to separate supernatant liquid from metal-containing precipitates when removing impurity metals (Col. 2 lines 12-23), while Yokota overcomes these difficulties and drawbacks and has greatly improved results (Col. 3 lines 7-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or an alkali salt thereof on a carrier as taught by Yokota to remove cadmium impurities from the PLS of Zhang, as doing so would avoid difficulties in separating supernatant from metal precipitates.
Further, it has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Zhang only differs from claim 1 in that the instant claim uses an organic compound to precipitate Cd as an insoluble organo-complex, while Zhang uses a P204 extraction to remove Cd from liquid solution, and Yokota uses a 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof to remove Cd from liquid solution, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have substituted the use of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof to remove Cd from liquid solution of Yokota into the method of Zhang to remove Cd from the liquid solution.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches wherein the valuable metals include one or more of Ni, Mn, Co, and Li (pg. 3 paragraph 12).
Regarding claims 11-12, Yokota teaches wherein the organic compound material includes a 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof (i.e., wherein the organic compound material includes benzothiazole compounds or derivatives, wherein the organic compound material includes mercaptobenzothiazole (Col. 5 lines 4-10, Col. 9 lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 13, Yokota teaches wherein the organic compound material includes a 2-mercaptobenzothiazole or alkali salt thereof (Col. 5 lines 4-10, Col. 9 lines 12-15), where the alkali salt thereof may be sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (i.e., wherein the adding of the organic compound material includes adding sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (NaMBT)) (Tables 3 and 4: Example 22).
Regarding claim 14, Yokota teaches wherein the step of adding the organic compound material to the PLS causes precipitation of Cu (Col. 9 lines 12-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733