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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/20/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-4,6-7,9-12,14 and 21-27 is/are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14 is/are amended. Claim(s) 5, 8, 13, 15-20 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 21-27 is/are new.
The objection(s) to claim(s) 4-5, 11, and 13-14 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 4 and 14, and the cancellation of claims 5, 11, and 13.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 to claim(s) 4 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 4.
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 24-26 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 24-25 recites the limitation "the method of claim 18”, however claim 18 is cancelled, thus claims 24-25 are rejected as it is considered incomplete per MPEP 608.01(n) V. The claim is considered thus indefinite because their scopes cannot be determined due to the canceled status of claim 18, as it is unclear what additional limitations are being included in the claims.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the third dissolved salt" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 4, 6-7, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (WO 2019191553 A1, supplied with Office Action dated 04/30/2026, US 20210017052 A1 family document used as equivalent, cited in IDS filed 12/05/2023), in view of Khamizov et al. (US 5814224 A, cited in Office Action dated 04/30/2026).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, Wilson teaches a method of removing one or more solutes from an aqueous solution (Title, Abstract, [0006-0007]) where a treatment stream 216 comprising condensable materials [0042] such as DME (dimethyl ether) [0031], and an aqueous solution stream 221 comprising at least one solute (Fig. 2, [0041]) which may be dissolved salts (i.e., a salt-containing solution comprising at least a first and a second dissolved salt) [0028], together comprising a first aqueous solution, are introduced into a first fractional crystallization chamber 206 (Fig. 2, [0040, 0043]). Wilson teaches precipitating a first solid 218 rich in solute(s) (i.e., precipitating the first dissolved salt) from the first aqueous solution (Fig. 1, [0043]), and a first treated solution 220 comprising the diethyl ether and at least one solute (i.e., a second dissolved salt) [0041].
Wilson teaches wherein precipitating a first solid from the aqueous solution comprises forming the first solid 210 and a treated solution 222.
Wilson teaches that the aqueous solution may comprise multiple solutes [0022, 0032], which may be separated from one another under different operating conditions of the fractional crystallization chamber [0032], but does not teach combining the first treated solution with additional dimethyl ether in a second fractional crystallization chamber.
Khamizov teaches a method for complex processing of sea-water (Title) to recover salts by fractional crystallization (Fig. 1, Fig. 1a’, Col. 6 lines 35-47) where the sea-water (i.e., the firs aqueous solution) comprises multiple solutes (Fig. 1a’), where sea-water is subjected to fractional crystallization 11 to recover CaSO4 (i.e., a first solid) (Col. 6 lines 35-41, Fig. 1a’), thus Khamizov and Wilson are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to methods of removing multiple salts as solids from an aqueous solution by fractional crystallization. Khamizov teaches after precipitating the first solid at 11, performing another fractional crystallization step 14 on the filtrate from the first fractional crystallization step 11 (analogous to a first treated solution) to precipitate NaCl (i.e., adding the first treated solution to a second fractional crystallization chamber, precipitating the second dissolved salt from the second aqueous solution to form a second solid, the second solid comprising a different material composition than the first solid) (Col. 6 lines 41-48, Fig. 1a’). Khamizov teaches the invention extends the range of components extracted (Col. 2 lines 60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fed the treated solution comprising multiple solutes of Wilson to a second fractional crystallization chamber to precipitate a second solid with a differing composition than the first solid as taught by Khamizov, as doing so would extend the range of components extracted by recovering further solutes from the treated solution as taught by Khamizov, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to improve the economics and utility of the process by recovering additional solutes in an isolated form. Further, as Khamizov uses the same method for each crystallization step, one of ordinary skill in the art when adding a second crystallization step would use the same method as in the first crystallization chamber of Wilson, which would comprise combining the treated solution with additional dimethyl ether in the second fractional crystallization chamber.
Further, Wilson teaches different solutes may be selectively precipitated based on the imposed fractional precipitation conditions, which may include pressure and temperature [0032, 0034], thus as Wilson is taken in view of Khamizov to suggest precipitating a different material in a second fractional crystallization chamber, and Wilson teaches using different pressures and/or temperatures for precipitating different materials, one of ordinary skill in combining the teachings of Wilson and Khamizov would combine the treated solution with the additional dimethyl ether in a second fractional crystallization chamber having a different pressure and/or temperature than the first fractional crystallization chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Wilson teaches DME to be a condensable material which is a gas at ambient conditions and a liquid under elevated pressures of about 2-100 atm (202.65-10132.5 kPa) [0022, 0031]. Wilson teaches the first fractional crystallization chamber 206 may receive the condensable materials as a liquid phase [0042], thus the forming of the first aqueous solution comprises introducing dimethyl ether into the aqueous solution at a pressure greater than about 101.3 kPa.
Regarding claim 11, Wilson teaches wherein forming the first aqueous solution comprises forming two distinct aqueous phases 214 and 220 prior to precipitating the first solid (Fig. 1, [0041, 0042, 0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson teaches separating the two distinct aqueous phases 214 and 220 from one another prior to precipitating the first solid (Fig. 1, [0040-0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Wilson teaches wherein forming the aqueous solution 202 comprises forming an aqueous solution comprising iron or dimethyl mercury (i.e., comprising one or more transition metals) [0028].
Regarding claims 21-22, Wilson teaches wherein the aqueous solution stream (analogous to the salt-containing solution) may comprise mining waste such as potash, gypsum, or lithium salt solution [0028], which would intrinsically require contacting a leachant with a solid from mining (i.e., ore) to produce the salt-containing solution, therefore Wilson teaches contacting a solid material with a leaching solution to produce the salt-containing solution and wherein contacting the solid material with the leaching solution comprises contacting an ore.
Regarding claims 24-25, Wilson teaches different solutes may be selectively precipitated based on the imposed fractional precipitation conditions, which may include temperature and/or pressure [0032, 0034], thus as Wilson is taken in view of Khamizov to suggest precipitating a different material in a second fractional crystallization chamber, and Wilson teaches using different temperatures and/or pressures for precipitating different materials, one of ordinary skill in combining the teachings of Wilson and Khamizov would combine the treated solution with the additional dimethyl ether in a second fractional crystallization chamber having a different temperature and/or pressure (i.e., a higher or a lower temperature and/or pressure) than the first fractional crystallization chamber, thus Wilson teaches embodiments that include wherein the temperature and/or pressure of the second fractional crystallization chamber is lower than that of the first.
Regarding claim 26, Khamizov teaches after precipitating a CaSO4 first solid at 11 (Col. 6 lines 35-41, Fig. 1a’), and performing another fractional crystallization step 14 on the filtrate from the first fractional crystallization step 11 to precipitate NaCl (analogous to forming first and second aqueous solutions and precipitating first and second dissolved salts) (Col. 6 lines 41-48, Fig. 1a’), further treating the solution to crystallize Na2SO4 at 18 (i.e., precipitating a third dissolved salt from third aqueous solution) where the Na2SO4 is filtered and dried at 19 and the remaining solution (i.e., to form a third solid and a third treated solution) (Fig. 1a’, Col. 6 lines 48-61). Khamizov teaches the invention extends the range of components extracted (Col. 2 lines 60-61).
As Khamizov uses the same method for each crystallization step, one of ordinary skill in the art when adding additional crystallization steps to the method of Wilson, would use the same crystallization step as in the first crystallization chamber of Wilson, which would comprise combining the second treated solution with further dimethyl ether in a third fractional crystallization chamber to form a third aqueous solution.
Further, Wilson teaches different solutes may be selectively precipitated based on the imposed fractional precipitation conditions, which may include pressure and temperature [0032, 0034], thus as Wilson is taken in view of Khamizov to suggest precipitating a different material in a third fractional crystallization chamber, and Wilson teaches using different pressures and/or temperatures for precipitating different materials, one of ordinary skill in combining the teachings of Wilson and Khamizov would combine the treated solution with the dimethyl ether in a third fractional crystallization chamber having a different pressure and/or temperature than the first and second fractional crystallization chamber.
Regarding claim 27, Wilson teaches a liquid effluent stream 220 from fractional crystallizer 206 comprising DME (analogous to a second treated solution) (Fig. 2, [0041]), is sent to fluid interaction apparatus 203 where DME is separated from the second treated solution 220 into water-enriched stream 215 (Fig. 2, [0041]). Wilson teaches the water-enriched stream 215 containing DME is sent to material separation apparatus 204 from which the DME is returned to fractional crystallization chamber 206 (analogous to a first or second fractional crystallization chamber) via treatment stream 216 comprising DME (Fig. 2, [0042, 0044-0045]).
Claims 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Khamizov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lockwood (US 3432031 A, cited in Office Action dated 04/30/2026).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 04/30/2026. Claim(s) 2 has/have not been amended since that time, and the amendments to claim(s) 3 and 9 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Khamizov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Douglas (US 20180119252 A1, cited in Office Action dated 04/30/2026).
Claim(s) 10 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 04/30/2026. Claim(s) 10 has/have not been amended since that time. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Khamizov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krumholz et al. (US 3078142 A).
Regarding claim 23, Wilson teaches the aqueous solution stream may comprise as a non-limiting example, inorganic materials such as salts [0028], but is silent to wherein the first solid comprises a slat of at least one REE from the first aqueous solution or wherein the second solid comprises a salt of at least one transition metal.
Krumholz teaches a process for separating yttrium and rare earths (Title), where yttrium and other rare earths are separated from each other by fractional precipitation (i.e., fractional crystallization) as potassium and/or ammonium double chromates of rare earths and yttrium (Col. 2 lines 19-25), from solution containing rare earth and yttrium salts (Col. 2 lines 37-43), thus Krumholz and Wilson are analogous as both are directed to methods of separating different salts from solutions by fractional crystallization. Krumholz teaches rare earths are precipitated in the first precipitation, and purified yttrium is recovered from the final solution (Col. 2 lines 36-43) (i.e., precipitating a first solid comprising a salt of at least one rare earth element from the aqueous solution, and precipitating the second solid comprising salt of at least one transition metal from a second aqueous solution).
Because Wilson is silent with respect to which all salts may be contained in the aqueous solution stream and precipitated by fractional crystallization, in order to carry out the invention of Wilson one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching elements suitable for separation by fractional crystallization in the process of Wilson, such as those of rare earth elements and yttrium as taught by Krumholz. As Wilson and Krumholz both relate to methods of separating different salts from solutions by fractional crystallization, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to separate other rare earth elements yttrium transition metal according to Krumholz.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered with the following effect:
Regarding applicant’s argument that claim 1 as amended would not be anticipated by Wilson, (see pg. 8-11 of remarks), the Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC 102 of claims 1, 4, and 11-14 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Khamizov as necessitated by amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Wilson (WO 2019/191553 A1) does not constitute prior art as it falls under the exception set out by 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, Wilson would fall under the exception set out by 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) in view of its common ownership with the inventors of the instant application, the Examiner notes that Wilson was used to reject the claims as previously presented under 35 USC 102(a)(1), as the publication date of Wilson (10/03/2019) is before the priority date of the instant application (06/07/2021) and outside the one year grace period for references used as prior art under this statute. The 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) exception does not apply to prior art applied under 35 USC 102(a)(1); therefore Wilson constitutes prior art that may serve as the basis for a rejection. See MPEP § 2153.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
