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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-7 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/16/2026.
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 19-20 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "further comprising photocatalytic deposition of silver on a third catalyst". The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what composition is treated with photocatalytic deposition to deposit silver.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harris et al. (US 20090013829 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harris teaches a method of recovering gold from a metal combination (Abstract, [0002]) comprising contacting a metal combination with a first leaching liquid [0011-0012] comprising an oxidant (i.e., sufficient to oxidize one or more additional metals of the metal combination) [0021, 0076], to produce an oxidized product liquid 32/42 (Fig. 1-2, [0085, 0088]), and a recovered gold product [0087-0088]. Harris teaches wherein the first leaching liquid includes chloride ions (Abstract, [0002, 0019].
Regarding claim 2, Harris teaches wherein the one or more additional metals include at least one of silver, copper, nickel, and PGMs (which include palladium) ([0011, 0131], Table VII Run 20).
Regarding claim 3, Harris teaches wherein the first leaching liquid includes sodium chloride [0019].
Regarding claim 11, Harris teaches a method of selectively separating metals from a metal combination (Title, Abstract, [0002]), comprising contacting a metal combination with a leaching liquid to oxidize one or more metals of the metal combination [0011-0012, 0021, 0076] wherein the metal combination includes two or more of silver, gold, copper, nickel, and palladium ([0011, 0131], Table VII Run 20). Harris teaches treating the one or more oxidized metals and the leaching liquid by increasing a pH value of the leaching liquid 50 in stage 52 (Fig. 1, [0035-0036]), sufficient to precipitate iron (i.e., at least one of the one or more oxidized metals) and to form a pH adjusted liquid 56 (Fig. 1, [0036]). Separately, Harris teaches treating the one or more oxidized metals and the leaching liquid by adding magnesium oxide base to form a mixed hydroxide precipitate (i.e., by increasing a pH value of the leaching liquid) from stream 64 [0093, 0096] to form a pH adjusted liquid 72 (Fig. 1, [0095]).
Regarding claim 16, Harris teaches that only optionally silver is not leached [0088], meaning that silver may be leached during the leaching step as show in e.g., Table VII run 20. Harris teaches the pH adjustment step precipitates iron, and does not disclose other metals being precipitated [0036, 0092], therefore, the pH adjusted liquid includes silver as claimed.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lalancette (WO 2002053788 A1, original English language document supplied herein).
Regarding claim 1, Lalancette teaches a method of recovering gold from a metal combination (Abstract, pg. 1 lines 6-10, pg. 6 line 26-pg. 7 line 7) comprising contacting a metal combination with a first leaching liquid (pg. 6 line 26-pg. 7 line 7). Lalancette teaches the contacting comprises a strong oxidation reaction which oxidizes the metals to metal chlorides in solution (pg. 7 line 24-pg. 8 line 4) and thus is sufficient to oxidize one or more additional metals of the metal combination to produce an oxidized product liquid. Lalancette teaches a recovered gold product (pg. 8 lines 6-8), and wherein the first leaching liquid includes chloride ions (pg. 3 lines 11-15, pg. 6 line 26-pg. 7 line 7).
Regarding claim 2, Lalancette teaches wherein the one or more additional metals include at least one of silver, copper, nickel, and palladium (pg. 12 line 27-pg. 13 line 3).
Regarding claim 3, Lalancette teaches the chloride may include sodium chloride (pg. 4 line 6).
Regarding claim 11, Lalancette teaches a method of selectively separating metals from a metal combination (Abstract, pg. 1 lines 6-10, pg. 6 line 26-pg. 7 line 7) comprising contacting a metal combination with a leaching liquid (pg. 6 line 26-pg. 7 line 7) to oxidize one or more metals of the metal combination (pg. 7 line 24-pg. 8 line 4). Lalancette teaches wherein the metal combination includes two or more of silver, gold, copper, nickel, and palladium (pg. 12 line 27-pg. 13 line 3). Lalancette teaches after leaching and removing ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, platinum, and gold chlorides from solution (Claim 17), that remaining metal chlorides may be removed pH adjustment precipitation producing barren solution (i.e., treating the one or more oxidized metals and the leaching liquid by increasing a pH value of the leaching liquid sufficient to precipitate at least one of the one or more oxidized metals and to form a pH adjusted liquid).
Regarding claim 14, Lalancette teaches wherein the precipitate includes copper and nickel (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Lalancette teaches a method for extraction from metal combinations including silver (Claim 1), where a dry mixture of chlorides and metal combination is lixiviated with concentrated hydrochloric acid (Claim 15), filtered (claim 16), and contacted with activated carbon to remove ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, platinum, and gold (Claim 17), which would leave silver in the solution. Then as the remaining metal chlorides in solution (including silver chloride) are recovered by pH adjustment precipitation (Claim 18), depending on the order of pH adjustment steps and precipitation, silver would be in a pH adjusted liquid as claimed.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eldred (US 4906293 A).
Regarding claim 1, Eldred teaches a method of recovering metals from a metal combination (Title, abstract) including gold (Table A-B). Eldred teaches the process comprises contacting a metal combination with a first leaching liquid (Col. 1 lines 44-53, Col. 2 lines 5-12), which leaches the metals from the ore (Col. 1 lines 34-35), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to oxidize one or more additional metals of the metal combination to produce an oxidized product liquid. Eldred teaches precipitating metals from the leach solution by adjusting to pH 4 (Col. 3 line 65- Col. 4 line 3, which precipitates gold (i.e., a recovered gold product) (Table B). Eldred teaches wherein the first leaching liquid includes chloride ions (Col. 2 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 2, Eldred teaches wherein the one or more additional metals include at least silver (e.g., Table B), copper (e.g., Table D), and nickel (e.g., Table D).
Regarding claim 3, Eldred teaches wherein the first leaching liquid includes at least sodium chloride (Col. 4 lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 11, Eldred teaches a method of selectively separating metals from a metal combination (Title, abstract) comprising contacting a metal combination with a leaching liquid (Col. 1 lines 44-53, Col. 2 lines 5-12) which leaches metals from the ore (Col. 1 lines 34-35), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to oxidize one or more metals of the metal combination. Eldred teaches wherein the metal combination includes two or more of silver, gold, copper, nickel (Table A). Eldred teaches treating the one or more oxidized metals and the leaching liquid by increasing a pH value of the leaching liquid (Col. 2 lines 12-14), sufficient to precipitate at least one of the one or more oxidized metals and to form a pH adjusted liquid (Col. 2 lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 13, Eldred teaches wherein the one or more oxidized metals include at least silver (e.g., Table B), or copper and nickel (e.g., Table D). Eldred teaches wherein the pH adjusted liquid has a pH value of approximately pH 7 (Col. 2 lines 12-14), which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Eldred teaches wherein the precipitate includes copper and nickel (Table D).
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) 4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris.
Regarding claim 4, Harris teaches claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as noted above.
Harris teaches the pH of the first leaching liquid ranges from 0.5-4.0 initially [0070]. This overlaps the claimed range of about 4 pH to about 6 pH. The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness because the prior art indicates substantial utility over the entire range disclosed therein, including that portion of the range which also falls within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Harris teaches claim 11 under 35 USC 102 as noted above. Harris teaches wherein the leaching liquid includes chloride ions [0002, 0019].
Harris teaches the pH of the first leaching liquid ranges from 0.5-4.0 initially [0070]. This overlaps the claimed range of the pH value of the leaching liquid being greater than about 4 pH. The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness because the prior art indicates substantial utility over the entire range disclosed therein, including that portion of the range which also falls within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Harris teaches wherein the one or more oxidized metals include at least one of silver, copper, nickel, and palladium ([0011, 0131], Table VII Run 20)
Harris, discussed above, is silent to wherein the pH adjusted liquid has a pH value between about 5 pH and about 8 pH in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where 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 MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a pH sufficient to precipitate iron and to precipitate cobalt and nickel hydroxide.
Further, the mere recitation of a numerical parameter in an otherwise known process will not generally result in patentability of a claim directed to that process, absent evidence of criticality of the numerical parameter. In the instant case the numerical parameter (the pH of pH adjustment) does not appear to be critical to the invention, at least for the reason it is recited solely in a dependent claim.
Thus, the disclosure of Harris is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Eksteen et al. (US 20160194734 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Harris teaches all of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above. Harris teaches PGMs and gold are not leached [0013], which leave gold in a solid phase after leaching [0077]. Harris does not teach contacting the recovered gold product with a second leaching liquid.
Eksteen teaches a process for recovery of metal comprising precious metal (Abstract), where metal containing material comprising precious metal such as concentrates [0022] where the precious metal may be gold [0002], are lixiviated with an alkaline lixiviant (i.e., a second leaching liquid) [0012], thus Eksteen and Harris are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to methods of recovering gold by leaching processes. Eksteen teaches the alkaline lixiviant contains amino acids or derivatives thereof, such as glycine [0027-0028], and that the alkaline lixiviant also contains oxidant, such as hydrogen peroxide [0022], to produce a metal containing leachate solution (i.e., a gold solution) [0013]. Eksteen teaches the leaching using glycine-peroxide solution is selective of copper [0084], where copper is leached in a first step, and gold is leached in a second step (Fig. 25, [0081]), where the selective leaching of copper reduces gold losses [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further treated the gold recovered by Harris by dissolving in a second leaching liquid including glycine and hydrogen peroxide as taught by Eksteen, as doing so would further purify the gold recovered by removing any copper in the recovered gold and reducing gold losses as taught by Eksteen.
Further, as the pH value of the first leaching liquid of Harris is 0.5-4, while Eksteen teaches wherein a pH value of the second leaching liquid is 6-13 (Eksteen: [0053]), the pH value of the second leaching liquid is greater than the first leaching liquid as claimed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Eksteen as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Carabineiro et al. (“Catalytic performance of Au/ZnO nanocatalysts for CO oxidation”, supplied herein).
Regarding claims 6, Harris in view of Eksteen does not teach photocatalytically depositing gold in the gold solution on zinc oxide.
Carabineiro teaches loading Au in Au solution onto ZnO supports by photodeposition (Abstract), where the Au loaded onto the ZnO supports is used as a chemical catalyst (Abstract). Carabineiro teaches photocatalytically depositing gold in aqueous gold solution onto zinc oxide (2.1.2. Au/ZnO materials – 2.1.3. Photodeposition), thus Carabineiro and Harris in view of Eksteen are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes relating to aqueous solutions comprising gold. Carabineiro teaches the Au/ZnO material to be useful for catalyzing methanol synthesis, methanol steam-reforming to hydrogen, selective catalytic reduction of NO, hydrogenation of CO2 or aldehydes, H2O2 synthesis, oxidation of salicylic alcohol, epoxidation of styrene to styrene oxide, and photocatalysis (1. Introduction).
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 the aqueous gold solution of Harris in view of Eksteen to produce Au/ZnO material by photodeposition as taught by Carabineiro as doing so would produce a product useful for catalyzing a variety of chemical processes as taught by Carabineiro.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Eksteen and Carabineiro as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Zuo et al. (“Fabrication of TiO2/Au nanorod arrays employing a positive sacrificial ZnO template and their electrochromic property”, supplied herein).
Regarding claim 7, Harris in view of Eksteen and Carabineiro teaches obtaining an Au/ZnO material, but does not teach dissolution of the zinc oxide.
Zuo teaches a fabrication of TiO2/Au nanorod arrays employing a positive sacrificial ZnO template (Title), where TiO2/Au nanorod arrays have wide potential applications in functional glass for photocatalysis, solar energy, manufacture of practical devices, and etc. (pg. 2632 1. Introduction), thus Zuo and Harris in view of additional art are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes comprising wet processing of ZnO/Au materials. Zuo teaches the ZnO/Au is dissolved under electrolysis at pH 2.5 in the presence of a TiO2 nanorod array to deposit Au onto the TiO2 array (pg. 2633, 2.2. Preparation of TiO2 nanorod array), which results from the ZnO dissolving in acidic solution (pg. 2636 paragraph 2), where a pH of 2.5 is within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken at least some of the Au/ZnO material produced by Harris in view of Eksteen and Carabineiro as doing so would produce another useful material that has applications in photocatalysis and solar energy as taught by Zuo.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalancette.
Regarding claim 12, Lalancette teaches claim 11 under 35 USC 102 as noted above. Lalancette teaches wherein the leaching liquid includes chloride ions (pg. 3 lines 11-15, pg. 6 line 26-pg. 7 line 7).
Lalancette, discussed above, is silent to wherein the pH value of the leaching liquid is greater than about 4 pH in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where 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 MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a pH suited to chloride leaching of the metal combination.
Further, the mere recitation of a numerical parameter in an otherwise known process will not generally result in patentability of a claim directed to that process, absent evidence of criticality of the numerical parameter. In the instant case the numerical parameter (the pH of the leaching liquid) does not appear to be critical to the invention, at least for the reason it is recited solely in a dependent claim.
Thus, the disclosure of Lalancette is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Lalancette, discussed above, is silent to wherein the pH adjusted liquid has a pH value between about 5 pH and about 8 pH in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where 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 MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a pH sufficient to precipitate iron and to precipitate cobalt and nickel hydroxide.
Further, the mere recitation of a numerical parameter in an otherwise known process will not generally result in patentability of a claim directed to that process, absent evidence of criticality of the numerical parameter. In the instant case the numerical parameter (the pH of pH adjustment) does not appear to be critical to the invention, at least for the reason it is recited solely in a dependent claim.
Thus, the disclosure of Lalancette is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldred.
Regarding claim 12, Eldred teaches all of claim 11 under 35 USC 102 as noted above. Eldred teaches wherein the leaching liquid includes chloride ions (Col. 2 lines 5-8).
Eldred, discussed above, is silent to wherein the pH value of the leaching liquid is greater than about 4 pH in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where 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 MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a pH suited to chloride leaching of the metal combination.
Further, the mere recitation of a numerical parameter in an otherwise known process will not generally result in patentability of a claim directed to that process, absent evidence of criticality of the numerical parameter. In the instant case the numerical parameter (the pH of the leaching liquid) does not appear to be critical to the invention, at least for the reason it is recited solely in a dependent claim.
Thus, the disclosure of Eldred is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalancette as applied to claim 14 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Wahyuni et al. (“Enhancement of visible-light photocatalytic activity of Cu-doped TiO2 for photodegradation of amoxicillin in water”, supplied herein).
Lalancette teaches all of claim 14 as noted above. Lalancette teaches copper in the form of CuCl2 is precipitated by pH adjustment precipitations (pg. 8 line 24 – pg. 9 line 5), which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to precipitate Cu in an ionic state. Lalancette does not teach
photocatalytic deposition of precipitated copper on a first catalyst.
Wahyuni teaches doping TiO2 with Cu to enhance visible light photocatalysis for amoxicillin degradation (abstract), where Cu2+ is deposited onto TiO2 by suspending TiO2 in a Cu2+ solution, and irradiating with a UV lamp to achieve photodeposition (i.e., photocatalytic deposition of copper on a first catalyst wherein the first catalyst includes titanium dioxide) (1. Introduction 2.2. Preparation and characterization of doped photocatalyst). Wahyuni and Lalancette are analogous as both relate to the recovery/use of copper ions.
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 the precipitated ionic copper of Lalancette to form a solution and produce Cu doped TiO2 photocatalyst as taught by Wahyuni, as doing so would produce a photocatalyst useful for amoxicillin degradation as taught by Wahyuni.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldred as applied to claim 14 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Wahyuni.
Eldred teaches the precipitate comprises metals as carbonates, hydroxides, and/or oxides (i.e., in ionic form) (Col. 2 lines 59-61) including copper (Col. 2 line 62), however Eldred does not teach
photocatalytic deposition of precipitated copper on a first catalyst.
Wahyuni teaches doping TiO2 with Cu to enhance visible light photocatalysis for amoxicillin degradation (abstract), where Cu2+ is deposited onto TiO2 by suspending TiO2 in a Cu2+ solution, and irradiating with a UV lamp to achieve photodeposition (i.e., photocatalytic deposition of copper on a first catalyst wherein the first catalyst includes titanium dioxide) (1. Introduction 2.2. Preparation and characterization of doped photocatalyst). Wahyuni and Eldred are analogous as both relate to the recovery/use of copper ions.
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 the precipitated ionic copper of Eldred to form a solution and produce Cu doped TiO2 photocatalyst as taught by Wahyuni, as doing so would produce a photocatalyst useful for amoxicillin degradation as taught by Wahyuni
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Liu et al. (“Ag/ZnO heterostructures and their photocatalytic activity under visible light: Effect of reducing medium”, supplied herein).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Harris teaches that only optionally silver is not leached [0088], meaning that silver may be leached during the leaching step as show in e.g., Table VII run 20. Harris teaches the pH adjustment step precipitates iron, and does not disclose other metals being precipitated [0036, 0092], therefore, the pH adjusted liquid includes silver. Harris does not teach contacting the pH adjusted liquid with a second catalyst or reducing agent.
Liu teaches preparing Ag/ZnO heterostructures by a photoreduction (Abstract), which may be used for wastewater treatment (1. Introduction). Liu teaches preparing the Ag/ZnO heterostructures by combining silver nitrate solution (i.e., a solution comprising silver in ionic form) with ethanol (i.e., reducing agent, wherein the reducing agent includes ethanol), and soaking ZnO nanorods (i.e., second catalyst, wherein the second catalyst includes zinc oxide) into the combined solution (2.1.2. Synthesis of Ag/ZnO heterostructures), and then exposing the samples to UV light to reduce Ag+ to zerovalent Ag which is deposited onto the ZnO (2.1.2. Synthesis of Ag/ZnO heterostructures).
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 the pH adjusted solution comprising ionic Ag of Harris to prepare Ag/ZnO heterostructures as taught by Liu, as doing so would produce structures which may be used for wastewater treatment as taught by Liu.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Lu et al. (“Photoinduced growth of Cu nanoparticles on ZnO from CuCl2 in methanol”, supplied herein).
Regarding claim 17, Harris teaches the pH adjustment step precipitates iron, and does not disclose other metals being precipitated [0036, 0092], therefore, the pH adjusted liquid includes all of base metals including nickel, copper, zinc, and cobalt, [0011, 0090, 0093], where the copper, zinc, and cobalt are in ionic form as metal chlorides [0076]. Harris teaches nickel, copper, zinc, and cobalt may be recovered from the leachate by any known method [0090], but does not teach contacting the pH adjusted liquid with a second catalyst or reducing agent.
Lu teaches forming Cu nanoparticles on a surface of ZnO by UV light induced photoreduction (title, abstract), where the produced Cu/ZnO is a multifunctional composite, used in field such as solid-oxide fuel cells, oxygen gas sensors, and hydrogenation and hydration catalysts (pg. 491 paragraph 1). Lu teaches the Cu/ZnO is produced by adding CuCl2 (i.e., Cu in ionic form) and methanol solution (i.e., reducing agent) to a reaction vessel with nano-ZnO (i.e., contacting with a second catalyst) and irradiating with UV light (pg. 492 paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have contacted the Cu ion comprising pH adjusted liquid of Harris with methanol and ZnO as taught by Lu, as doing so would recover Cu as a Cu/ZnO composite with various uses in industry as taught by Lu. Doing so would have been further obvious as Harris is silent with respect to which all methods may be used to recover Cu in the process, thus in order to carry out the invention of Harris one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching utilization of Cu suitable for use within the process of Harris, such as that taught by Lu. As Harris and Lu both relate to producing/utilizing ionic copper, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the process of Lu to utilize the ionic copper solution produced by Harris.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Lu as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 19, Harris teaches that only optionally silver is not leached [0088], meaning that silver may be leached during the leaching step as show in e.g., Table VII run 20. Harris teaches the pH adjustment step precipitates iron, and does not disclose other metals being precipitated [0036, 0092], therefore, the pH adjusted liquid includes silver. Harris does not teach photocatalytic deposition of silver on a third catalyst
Liu teaches preparing Ag/ZnO heterostructures by a photoreduction (Abstract), which may be used for wastewater treatment (1. Introduction). Liu teaches preparing the Ag/ZnO heterostructures by combining silver nitrate solution (i.e., a solution comprising silver in ionic form) with ethanol, and soaking ZnO nanorods into the combined solution (2.1.2. Synthesis of Ag/ZnO heterostructures), and then exposing the samples to UV light to reduce Ag+ to zerovalent Ag which is deposited onto the ZnO (i.e., photocatalytic deposition of silver on a third catalyst) (2.1.2. Synthesis of Ag/ZnO heterostructures).
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 the pH adjusted solution comprising ionic Ag of Harris to prepare Ag/ZnO heterostructures as taught by Liu, as doing so would produce structures which may be used for wastewater treatment as taught by Liu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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 closest identified prior art of record is Liu and Zuo.
Liu teaches preparing Ag/ZnO heterostructures by a photoreduction (Abstract), which may be used for wastewater treatment (1. Introduction). Liu teaches preparing the Ag/ZnO heterostructures by combining silver nitrate solution (i.e., a solution comprising silver in ionic form) with ethanol, and soaking ZnO nanorods into the combined solution (2.1.2. Synthesis of Ag/ZnO heterostructures), and then exposing the samples to UV light to reduce Ag+ to zerovalent Ag which is deposited onto the ZnO (i.e., photocatalytic deposition of silver on a third catalyst) (2.1.2. Synthesis of Ag/ZnO heterostructures). Liu teaches the Ag/ZnO hetero structure to be the desired product, and does not teach dissolution of the ZnO.
Zuo teaches a fabrication of TiO2/Au nanorod arrays employing a positive sacrificial ZnO template (Title), where ZnO/Au is dissolved under electrolysis at pH 2.5 in the presence of a TiO2 nanorod array to deposit Au onto the TiO2 array (pg. 2633, 2.2. Preparation of TiO2 nanorod array), which results from the ZnO dissolving in acidic solution (pg. 2636 paragraph 2). Therefore, Zuo teaches dissolution of ZnO within the claimed pH range, however, Zuo teaches dissolution of catalyst comprising deposited gold, and Zuo does not teach dissolution of a catalyst upon which silver is deposited.
Based on the above discussion, the closest prior art, taken singularly or in combination, does not fairly suggest or render obvious a method of selectively separating metals from a metal combination according to claim 20.
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
Prosecution Insights