DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
The instant application is a divisional of 17/727904, issued as US 12,009,562 on June 11, 2024; which is a continuation of 16/533475, issued as U.S. patent 11,349,141 on May 31, 2022; which is a continuation of 15/647190, issued as U.S. patent 10,374,248 on August 6, 2019; which is a divisional of 15/166174, issued as U.S. patent 9,742,021 on August 22, 2017; which is a divisional of 13/887,461, issued as U.S. patent 9,929,425 on March 27, 2018; which is a continuation-in-part of PCT/US 2013/030430.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because it repeats “wherein the” twice in “wherein the wherein the one or more Na+/K+-containing basic salts comprise one or more of carbonate or bicarbonate” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gravell (US 2415792).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gravell teaches a method of preparing alkali metal ferri and ferrocyanides (e.g. 1:1-4 and 3:21-42 plus Figure), reading on “method,” said method comprising:
(1) a cake of calcium potassium ferrocyanide agitated and slurried with a weak aqueous liquor, then reacted with a soda ash solution in slight excess according to a reaction:
CaK2Fe(CN)6 + Na2CO3 = K2Na2Fe(CN)6 + CaCO3,
wherein a resulting slurry is then heated to boiling and filtered to recover precipitated calcium carbonate and a mother liquor that is understood to be aqueous since it is produced from said weak aqueous liquor, and
wherein said aqueous mother liquor contains K2Na2Fe(CN)6 having a content of about 31% and may further be evaporated to recover crystals thereof (e.g. Id), noting that said solution is taught to contain said K2Na2Fe(CN)6, wherein K2Na2Fe(CN)6 is a salt, so it is understood that K2Na2Fe(CN)6 is dissolved in said solution such that K and Na cations plus Fe(CN)6 anion are in solution in said mother aqueous liquor,
further noting the molar weight of K2Na2Fe(CN)6 is about 290 g/mol, so the Molarity of said K2Na2Fe(CN)6 salt contained in said aqueous mother liquor is about 1.07 M K2Na2Fe(CN)6, so includes about 1.07 M of said Fe(CN)6 anion;
alternatively, with said evaporation to recover crystals of K2Na2Fe(CN)6, said mother liquor during said evaporation will increase the concentration of Fe(CN)6 anion such that the concentration satisfies the claimed relationship of “having a concentration of Fe(CN)64− in the aqueous solution that exceeds a concentration of Fe(CN)64− in either a saturated aqueous solution of Na4[Fe(CN)6] or a saturated aqueous solution of K4[Fe(CN)6] in water at a same temperature as that of the aqueous solution” by nature of evaporating out the aqueous solute from said solution,”
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed relationship (compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0003, 52, and 67, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “reacting a calcium salt of iron (II) hexacyanide [Fe(CN)64−] with one or more Na+ and K+-containing basic salts so as to produce an aqueous solution comprising both Na+ and K+ cations and having a concentration of Fe(CN)64− in the aqueous solution that exceeds a concentration of Fe(CN)64− in either a saturated aqueous solution of Na4[Fe(CN)6] or a saturated aqueous solution of K4[Fe(CN)6] in water at a same temperature as that of the aqueous solution,” further noting the instant specification teaches the following:
[0003] The ferrocyanide/ferricyanide redox couple, Fe(CN)63−/4−, is well understood and is frequently used in energy storage applications, but the low solubilities of available salts has limited its use, owing to the low associated energy densities. For example, the solubilities of Na4Fe(CN)6*10H2O, K4Fe(CN)6*3H2O, and Ca2Fe(CN)6*11H2O in water at ambient temperatures are listed in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry as 33.7 g, 33.7 g, and 148.4 g in 100 g of water, respectively (other sources list similar or lower values for these solubilities). These correspond to concentrations of about 0.7 M, 0.8 M, and 3 M, respectively. Given these limits, energy storage systems use the Fe(CN)63−/4−couple at concentrations lower than these at ambient temperature at all pH ranges (and are typically not greater than 0.52 M). While the use of alkaline earth metal salts may provide higher concentrations at neutral pH, their use in alkaline systems is disfavored by the precipitation of metal hydroxides—e.g., Ca(OH)2).
…
[0052] In further embodiments, the coordination complex, and particularly the iron hexacyanide, is present in a (stable) solution in a concentration of at least about 0.8 M. In additional independent embodiments, the concentration of the iron hexacyanide is at least about 0.9 M, about 1 M, about 1.2 M, about 1.3 M, about 1.4 M, or at least about 1.5 M, and up to about 3 M, 2.5 M, 2 M, 1.75 M, 1.5 M, or about 1 M. One exemplary, non-limiting embodiment includes a solution wherein the iron hexacyanide, is present in a concentration in a range of from about 1 M to about 3 M.
(instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0003 and 52, emphasis added),
wherein the limitation “the calcium salt of iron (II) hexacyanide [Fe(CN)64−] optionally comprising CaNa2[Fe(CN)6] or CaK2[Fe(CN)6]” is merely optional and therefore does not patentably distinguish the instant invention; alternatively, Gravell teaches said calcium potassium ferrocyanide has the chemical formula CaK2Fe(CN)6 (e.g. supra), reading on said limitation; and,
wherein the limitation “optionally removing any precipitated calcium (Ca) salt” is merely optional and therefore does not patentably distinguish the instant invention; alternatively, Gravell teaches said resulting slurry is then heated to boiling and filtered to recover said precipitated calcium carbonate (e.g. supra), reading on said limitation.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, Gravell teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said cake of calcium potassium ferrocyanide is agitated and slurried with said weak aqueous liquor, then reacted with said soda ash solution in slight excess according to a reaction:
CaK2Fe(CN)6 + Na2CO3 = K2Na2Fe(CN)6 + CaCO3
(e.g. supra), reading on “the one or more Na+/K+-containing basic salts comprise one or more of hydroxide, carbonate, or bicarbonate” (claim 2); “the one or more Na+/K+-containing basic salts comprise one or more of carbonate or bicarbonate” (claim 4); and, “the calcium salt of iron (II) hexacyanide [Fe(CN)64−] comprises at least one of CaNa2[Fe(CN)6] or CaK2[Fe(CN)6]” (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Gravell teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said resulting slurry is then heated to boiling and filtered to recover said precipitated calcium carbonate (e.g. supra), reading on “further comprising removing precipitated calcium (Ca) salt.”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gravell (US 2415792), as provided supra, in view of Young (US 2431601).
Regarding claim 3, Gravell teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said cake of calcium potassium ferrocyanide is agitated and slurried with said weak aqueous liquor, then reacted with said soda ash solution in slight excess according to a reaction:
CaK2Fe(CN)6 + Na2CO3 = K2Na2Fe(CN)6 + CaCO3
(e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitation “the one or more Na+/K+-containing basic salts comprise hydroxide.”
However, Young teaches its prior art includes producing sodium ferrocyanide by a reaction including passing unpurified coal gas through a solution containing sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate and finely divided ferrous carbonate (e.g. 1:1-17).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the taught Na2CO3 (sodium carbonate) of Gravell with the sodium hydroxide of Young, since Young teaches sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate are equivalent reactants for use in producing ferrocyanide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723