DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending and currently under review.
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
The term “normal pressure” is interpreted to refer to atmospheric pressure as expressly defined in [0053 instant spec.].
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 1-10 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 1 recites the term “valuable metals”, which is indefinite because “valuable” is a relative term of degree which is not further defined in the specification or claims. It is unclear whether “valuable” requires some particular monetary value, or whether it refers to specific metals having a particular use or application, or something else entirely. The examiner interprets the aforementioned term to be met by vanadium as further claimed or any other metal that would be considered to have at least some degree of value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 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) 1-2, 4-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, and alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN104630483, machine translation referred to herein) alone or further evidenced by Park et al. (KR20090132462, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses a method for leaching vanadium from waste (ie. spent) catalysts [0002, 0009]; wherein said method includes a step of crushing said waste catalysts which meets the claimed preparation step, followed by leaching with sodium hydroxide at 80 degrees C [0024]. The examiner notes that the disclosure of Zhang et al. falls within the claimed range. Zhang et al. does not expressly teach a leaching pressure or the use of specialized pressure vessels/devices, such that one of ordinary skill would understand that leaching is performed at normal, atmospheric temperature as claimed.
Alternatively, Zhang et al. also teaches a broad method of crushing which meets the claimed preparation step, followed by leaching with an alkali such as sodium hydroxide at 80 to 120 degrees C, which overlaps with the claimed range [0011-0012, 0016]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Zhang et al. does not expressly teach a leaching pressure or the use of specialized pressure vessels/devices, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize normal, atmospheric pressure absent a specific teaching to the contrary because normal, atmospheric pressure is the natural, ambient condition which does not require any further tooling/considerations.
Zhang et al. further does not expressly teach inorganic compounds of VO3 as claimed. However, as evidenced by Park et al., sodium hydroxide leaching of vanadium catalysts naturally results in solutionizing of vanadium in the form of NaVO3 [p.5]. Therefore, VO3 compounds would have naturally been expected to be present in the disclosure of Zhang et al. as evidenced by Park et al.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Zhang et al. further teaches stirring during leaching [0012]. Alternatively, the examiner submits that stirring during leaching is well-known and would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would readily understand that stirring serves to increase reaction rates.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Zhang et al. further teaches addition of an oxidant during leaching such as KClO3 or NaClO3, which includes oxygen [0012, 0017, 0025].
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Zhang et al. further does not teach any steps between crushing and leaching that are performed at temperatures of 100 degrees C or greater, which one of ordinary skill would readily understand to mean that such steps are absent and not performed as claimed.
Regarding claims 6-7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Zhang et al. further teaches a precipitation step of obtaining ammonium metavanadate by adding ammonium chloride, which meets the limitation of a VO3 compound [0013, 0025].
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Zhang et al. further teaches calcining to obtain vanadium pentoxide, which one of ordinary skill would understand to meet the limitation of oxidation because ammonium metavanadate is oxidized to form vanadium pentoxide [0015, 0027].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN104630483, machine translation referred to herein) alone or evidenced by Park et al. (KR20090132462, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Xia et al. (CN112981113, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 2 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a NaOH concentration as claimed. Xia et al. discloses a method of recovering V from waste catalysts [0002]; wherein NaOH can be utilized for alkaline leaching in a concentration of 5 to 40 percent [0014, 0020]. The examiner notes that all of the claimed feature are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at the predictable result of a catalyst recycling method of Zhang et al., wherein a specific NaOH concentration range is disclosed by Xia et al. to be applicable to alkaline leaching for V as taught above. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner notes that the overlap between the NaOH range of Xia et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN104630483, machine translation referred to herein) alone or evidenced by Park et al. (KR20090132462, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hao et al. (CN103789550, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 6 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that ammonium chloride is produced by addition of hydrochloric acid to ammonia produced from oxidation and further reused as claimed. Hao et al. discloses a method of recovering vanadium from spent catalysts [0002]; wherein V precipitation is performed with ammonium chloride and produced ammonia gas is absorbed by hydrochloric acid to product ammonium chloride which is further recycled to the precipitation process [0023, 0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing the steps of Hao et al. such that ammonium chloride can be recycled as taught by Hao et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN104630483, machine translation referred to herein) alone or evidenced by Park et al. (KR20090132462, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Park et al. above.
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 6 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach recover of Ni, Al, or Mo as claimed. Park et al. further teaches that Ni, Al, and/or Mo can be recovered along with V, which would naturally happen after the precipitation step as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill [p.8-9].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights