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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14: “is(are)” in line 4 should read “is/are”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-9 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “a pH of from 2 to 7”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 3.5 to 5” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "no additional neutralising agent" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if neutralizing agents may not be added at all in the claimed process, or if only an “additional” neutralizing agent is not permitted, in which case it is further unclear how it is determined which neutralizing agent is the “additional neutralising agent” (e.g., whichever agent is added later, whichever agent performs less of the neutralizing, etc.).
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, 3-4, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Howling et al. (US 2977221 A, cited in IDS filed 08/16/2024) with evidence from Li et al. (EP 3816109 A1, original English language document provided herein).
Regarding claim 1, Howling teaches a process for separating nickel and cobalt from cobalt and nickel sulfate solution by selectively keeping nickel in solution while precipitating cobalt in a solid phase (Col. 2 lines 4-29). Howling teaches contacting a cobalt and nickel sulfate solution with sulfuric acid (i.e., an acidic leaching solution) (Col. 5 lines 14-15) and peroxymonosulfuric acid (Col. 2 line 13, lines 59-62), where as peroxymonosulfuric acid may also be the acid of the acidic leach solution as recited in the instant application and claim 6, Howling further teaches contacting with acidic leach solution in the form of peroxymonosulfuric acid. Howling teaches 91% of the nickel to be dissolved in a leachate (Col. 5 lines 17-18) and about 7% of the cobalt remains in the filtrate (i.e., about 93% of the cobalt is precipitated) (Col. 5 lines 19-20), which are within the claimed ranges.
Howling teaches adding slaked lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide) to the cobalt and nickel sulfate solution until a pH of 10 is achieved (Col. 6 lines 10-13), prior to addition of acidic leach solution and peroxymonosulfuric acid, but is silent to selectively leaching nickel from a mixed hydroxide precipitate by contacting the mixed hydroxide precipitate with an acidic leach solution.
Li teaches a method for treating metal-containing solution (Title), where nickel sulfate solution reacts with calcium hydroxide to form cobalt hydroxide solid precipitate [0040] and cobalt sulfate solution reacts with calcium hydroxide to form cobalt hydroxide solid precipitate [0059]. As Howling teaches reacting nickel and cobalt sulfates with calcium hydroxide, it would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art that nickel and cobalt hydroxide precipitate would be formed in Howling as evidenced by Li, where as the nickel and cobalt sulfates are in the same solution, a mixed precipitate of nickel and cobalt hydroxides would be formed (i.e., a mixed hydroxide precipitate). As Howling teaches nickel to end up in solution after addition of acidic leach solution and peroxymonosulfuric acid, Howling teaches selectively leaching the nickel from a mixed hydroxide precipitate by contacting the mixed hydroxide precipitation with an acidic leach solution and peroxymonosulfuric acid as claimed. Regarding claim 3, Howling teaches wherein the mixed hydroxide precipitate contains nickel (Col. 5 line 10), and cobalt (Col. 5 line 11), wherein nickel is dissolved (Col. 2 lines 23-24, Col. 5 lines 17-19), and cobalt is recovered in a solid phase (Col. 2 lines 42-45).
Howling does not teach the presence of manganese. The Examiner notes however that manganese is considered optional in claim 3, thus Howling with evidence from Li is considered to teach claim 3 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 4, Howling teaches wherein the mixed hydroxide precipitate is contacted simultaneously with the acidic leach solution and with peroxymonosulfuric acid (Col. 5 lines 13-15), to cause nickel to be at least partially dissolved (Col. 2 lines 4-29), and cobalt to be at least partially oxidised and precipitated (Col. 2 lines 15-20).
Howling does not teach the presence of manganese. The Examiner notes however that manganese is considered optional in claim 4 (“manganese, when present”), thus Howling with evidence from Li is considered to teach claim 4 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 6, Howling teaches wherein the acid in the acidic leach solution is peroxymonosulfuric acid (Col. 2 lines 59-62, Col. 5 lines 13-14) or sulfuric acid (Col. 5 lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 8, Howling teaches wherein the contacting step of the process is carried out at a pH of from 3 to 7 (Col. 2 lines 11-15), which is within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 9, Howling teaches the use of a neutralizing agent (Col. 3 lines 29-38), but does not teach the use of another neutralizing agent in addition, therefore Howling teaches wherein no additional neutralising agent is used to control the pH of the contacting step of the process as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 10, Howling is silent to wherein the peroxymonosulfuric acid contains not more than 1 mole hydrogen peroxide per 8 moles peroxymonosulfuric acid 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 ratios of peroxymonosulfuric acid to hydrogen peroxide sufficient and optimized for selective leaching of nickel from nickel and cobalt hydroxides.
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 molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to peroxymonosulfuric acid) 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 Howling with evidence from Li is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
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) 2, 7, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howling with evidence from Li.
Regarding claim 2, Howling teaches a process for separating nickel and cobalt from cobalt and nickel sulfate solution by selectively keeping nickel in solution while precipitating cobalt in a solid phase (Col. 2 lines 4-29). Howling teaches contacting a cobalt and nickel sulfate solution with sulfuric acid (i.e., an acidic leaching solution) (Col. 5 lines 14-15) and peroxymonosulfuric acid (i.e., composition consisting essentially of an acidic leach solution and peroxymonosulfuric acid) (Col. 2 line 13, lines 59-62). Howling teaches contacting at ambient temperatures (Col. 1 lines 55-58, Col. 2 lines 6-7, Col. 6 lines 14-17).
Howling teaches adding slaked lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide) to the cobalt and nickel sulfate solution until a pH of 10 is achieved (Col. 6 lines 10-13), prior to addition of acidic leach solution and peroxymonosulfuric acid, but is silent to selectively leaching nickel from a mixed hydroxide precipitate.
Li teaches a method for treating metal-containing solution (Title), where nickel sulfate solution reacts with calcium hydroxide to form cobalt hydroxide solid precipitate [0040] and cobalt sulfate solution reacts with calcium hydroxide to form cobalt hydroxide solid precipitate [0059]. As Howling teaches reacting nickel and cobalt sulfates with calcium hydroxide, it would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art that nickel and cobalt hydroxide precipitate would be formed in Howling as evidenced by Li, where as the nickel and cobalt sulfates are in the same solution, a mixed precipitate of nickel and cobalt hydroxides would be formed (i.e., a mixed hydroxide precipitate). As Howling teaches nickel to end up in solution after addition of acidic leach solution and peroxymonosulfuric acid, Howling teaches selectively leaching the nickel from a mixed hydroxide precipitate by contacting the mixed hydroxide precipitation with a composition consisting essentially of acidic leach solution and peroxymonosulfuric acid as claimed.
Howling, discussed above, is silent to a temperature of from 30 °C to 80 °C 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 temperatures sufficient and optimized for leaching of nickel hydroxide.
Thus, the disclosure of Howling with evidence from Li is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Howling teaches wherein the acidic leach solution and/or the peroxymonosulfuric acid are added to the mixed hydroxide precipitate during a period of from 15 to 30 minutes (Col. 3 lines 41-44).
Howling teaches a period of from 15 to 30 minutes. This overlaps the claimed range of 30 minutes to 4 hours. 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 11, Howling with evidence from Li is silent to wherein sulfuric acid is generated during the process by reaction of peroxymonosulfuric acid with cobalt ions. However, page 7 of the present specification, discloses “Peroxymonosulfuric acid works as an oxidizing agent in the process… peroxymonosulfuric acid oxidizes dissolved divalent cobalt (Co (II)) to trivalent cobalt (Co (Ill)), which precipitates H2SO5 + 2Co2+ + 5 H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2 Co(OH)3 + H2SO4 + 4H+ Equation 2”, in accord with the method as presently claimed. As Howling discloses substantially the same process that Applicant states produces this feature (using peroxymonosulfuric acid as an oxidizing agent on cobalt in an ionic form), one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable assumption that the features of claim 11 would also occur when practicing the method of Howling. See MPEP 2112 § (III-V) and 2112.01 § (I).
Howling, discussed above, is silent to wherein the molar ratio of the total amount of acid of the acidic leach solution and the additional sulfuric acid generated during the process, to nickel to be dissolved, is from 0.6 to 0.9 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 ratios of acid to nickel to be dissolved suitable for and optimized for selectively leaching nickel.
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 molar ratio of the total amount of acid to nickel to be dissolved) 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 Howling is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Howling, discussed above, is silent to wherein the molar ratio of peroxymonosulfuric acid to cobalt to be recovered is from 0.7 to 3 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 ratios of peroxymonosulfuric acid to cobalt to be recovered suitable for and optimized for selectively leaching nickel.
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 molar ratio of the peroxymonosulfuric acid to cobalt to be recovered) 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 Howling is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Howling, discussed above, is silent to a temperature of from 30 °C to 80 °C 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 temperatures sufficient and optimized for leaching of nickel hydroxide.
Thus, the disclosure of Howling with evidence from Li 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 Howling with evidence from Li as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Nikolic et al. (US 3933975 A).
Regarding claim 5, Howling teaches wherein the solid phase recovered at the end of the process comprises nickel (Col. 2 lines 25-28), and the cobalt in the precipitate to be in the cobaltic state (Col. 3 lines 45-50). Howling with evidence from Li however, does not teach wherein the solid phase is subjected to at least one further contact with a leaching fluid to recover the nickel remaining in the solid phase
Nikolic teaches a nickel-cobalt separation (Title), where nickel and cobalt are separated from a cobalt-nickel precipitate, the cobalt being in the cobaltic state (Abstract), thus Nikolic and Howling are analogous to the instant application as they are both directed to separating nickel and cobalt, and relate to cobaltic cobalt precipitates also comprising nickel. Nikolic teaches dissolving the precipitate in an ammonium sulfate solution (i.e., wherein the solid phase is subjected to at least one further contact with a leaching fluid) (Abstract, Col. 2 lines 52-68) to recover the nickel remaining in the solid phase (Col. 3 lines 57-63). Nikolic teaches the treatment leaves cobalt substantially free of nickel (Abstract, Col. 3 lines 57-63).
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 a process of one further contact with a leaching fluid to recover remaining nickel as taught by Nikolic to the method of Howling as doing so would further purify the cobalt precipitate of nickel, and also recover nickel from the precipitate which could be further processed to recover nickel.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howling with evidence from Li as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Nikolic and Makwana et al. (US 5993514 A).
Regarding claim 14, Howling teaches after the contacting step, in a first further step the solid phase is separated from the leachate containing dissolved nickel (Col. 2 lines 43-46), however Howling with evidence from Li does not teach wherein, in a second further step the cobalt and/or the manganese when present is(are) separated from the solid phase or in a third further step the nickel is recovered from the leachate.
Nikolic teaches a nickel-cobalt separation (Title), where nickel and cobalt are separated from a cobalt-nickel precipitate, the cobalt being in the cobaltic state (Abstract), thus Nikolic and Howling are analogous to the instant application as they are both directed to separating nickel and cobalt, and relate to cobaltic cobalt precipitates also comprising nickel. Nikolic teaches dissolving the precipitate in an ammonium sulfate solution (i.e., in a second further step the cobalt is separated from the solid phase) (Abstract, Col. 2 lines 52-68) to recover the nickel remaining in the solid phase (Col. 3 lines 57-63). Nikolic teaches the treatment leaves cobalt substantially free of nickel (Abstract, Col. 3 lines 57-63).
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 a process of one further contact with a leaching fluid to recover remaining nickel as taught by Nikolic to the method of Howling as doing so would further purify the cobalt precipitate of nickel, and also recover nickel from the precipitate which could be further processed to recover nickel.
Howling teaches wherein the nickel remains in the leachate in the form of nickel sulfate (Howling: Col. 2 lines 25-29), but Howling in view of Nikolic does not teach wherein in a third further step the nickel is recovered from the leachate.
Makwana teaches a process for upgrading copper sulphide residues containing nickel and iron (Title), where nickel sulfate leachate (Col. 4 lines 5-35) is recovered as metallic nickel by electrowinning or hydrogen reduction (i.e., in a third further step the nickel is recovered from the leachate) (Col. 2 line 64-Col. 3 line 1).
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 a step of recovering metallic nickel as taught by Makana to the method of Howling in view of Nikolic, as doing so would recover nickel metal from the leachate of Howling, where nickel metal would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to have commercial and industrial value and applicability.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howling with evidence from Li as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Makwana.
Regarding claim 15, Howling teaches wherein the nickel remains in the leachate in the form of nickel sulfate (Howling: Col. 2 lines 25-29), but Howling does not teach wherein the nickel is recovered from the leachate.
Makwana teaches a process for upgrading copper sulphide residues containing nickel and iron (Title), where nickel sulfate leachate (Col. 4 lines 5-35) is treated so that nickel is recovered from the leachate by electrowinning or hydrogen reduction (Col. 2 line 64-Col. 3 line 1).
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 a step of recovering metallic nickel as taught by Makana to the method of Howling, as doing so would recover nickel metal from the leachate of Howling, where nickel metal would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to have commercial and industrial value and applicability.
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