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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/27/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the transitional terms “including” and "comprising" are inclusive or open-ended and do not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP 2111.03(I). In this case, the claimed exhaust gas may include unrecited elements in addition to the claimed acidic exhaust gas. Similarly, the claimed method may comprise steps beyond the claimed first, second, third, fourth, and predetermined number of cycles.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the limitation “to move germanium in the exhaust gas into the circulating water” is interpreted as the intended result of the process step of “a first step of bringing the exhaust gas into contact with circulating water of a cooling tower”. A "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" See MPEP § 2111.04.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the limitation “in the third step” is interpreted as applicable to any third step of the first cycle, second cycle, or any subsequent cycles.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the term “base” is interpreted as any substance with a pH greater than 7. The instant specification recites “a base such as a sodium hydroxide aqueous solution” ([0019]). The claimed “base” includes any substance with a pH greater than 7, including, but not limited to, a sodium hydroxide aqueous solution.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the limitation “to neutralize the circulating water” is interpreted as the intended result of the process step “a base is injected dividedly in two stages”. A "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" See MPEP § 2111.04.
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.
Claims 1-4 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 limitation “at least a part of the precipitate obtained as the soluble iron salt in the fourth step is injected into the reception tank”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “the precipitate obtained as the soluble iron salt” means that the precipitate obtained in the fourth step is a soluble iron salt, that the precipitate is obtained from reacting with the soluble iron salt of the claimed second step, or a different interpretation. Any precipitate or soluble iron salt introduced injected into the reception tank will be interpreted as reading on the claim.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least a part of the precipitate obtained as the soluble iron salt in the fourth step is injected into the reception tank”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. If the precipitate is intended to be a soluble iron salt, it is further unclear whether the precipitate is the same soluble iron salt introduced in the claimed second step or a different soluble iron salt. The claim introduces “a soluble iron salt” in line 7 and then uses “the soluble iron salt” in line 14, which could be interpreted as referring to the same soluble iron salt. However, claim 2 recites the soluble iron salt is ferrous chloride or ferric chloride and the instant specification recites “a major component of the precipitate is iron hydroxide”, which are not the same soluble iron salt.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “A process for recovering germanium from effluents of optical fiber manufacturing” of Bohrer.
Regarding claim 5, Bohrer teaches a process for recovering germanium from effluents of optical fiber manufacturing using a gas scrubber to incorporate unreacted germanium into solution (Title, reads on claimed method for recovering germanium from exhaust gas exhausted during manufacturing of a preform for an optical fiber; the effluents are in gaseous form as described in Section II. MCVD Effluents).
Regarding the first step of claim 5, Bohrer teaches the recovery process begins with wet scrubbing of the MCVD effluents and within the gas scrubber, germanium is incorporated into the aqueous scrubbing solution as a soluble germanate ion (Section I. Introduction, wet scrubbing reads on claimed first step). Bohrer teaches scrubbing the effluents to remove unreacted GeCl4 and recirculating water through the scrubber for a given period of time (Section III. Gas Scrubbing, reads on claimed first step of bringing the exhaust gas into contact with circulating water of a cooling tower to move germanium in the exhaust gas into the circulating water; holding tank with make-up water of Fig. 1 reads on claimed circulating water of a cooling tower).
Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation a method for recovering germanium from exhaust gas exhausted during manufacturing of a preform for an optical fiber, the method comprising: a first step of bringing the exhaust gas into contact with circulating water of a cooling tower to move germanium in the exhaust gas into the circulating water of claim 5.
Regarding the second step of claim 5, Bohrer teaches the solution with soluble germanate ions is recirculated to increase the concentration of dissolved germanium, a portion of the recirculated scrubber solution is continuously removed and subsequently treated with a divalent cation to precipitate the germanium (Section I. Introduction, reads on claimed second step of supplying the circulating water to a reception tank after the first step; tank with stirred reactor of Fig. 1 reads on claimed reception tank). Bohrer teaches Fe2+,3+ cations are effective at precipitating germanium (Section V. Precipitation). Bohrer teaches an example using Fe(NO3)3 as the precipitating reagent (Table VI, one of ordinary skill in the art understands Fe(NO3)3 is a soluble iron salt, reads on claimed soluble iron salt).
Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation a second step of supplying the circulating water and a soluble iron salt to a reception tank after the first step of claim 5.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A process for recovering germanium from effluents of optical fiber manufacturing” of Bohrer.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Bohrer teaches a process for recovering germanium from effluents of optical fiber manufacturing using a gas scrubber to incorporate unreacted germanium into solution (Title, reads on claimed method for recovering germanium from exhaust gas exhausted during manufacturing of a preform for an optical fiber; the effluents are in gaseous form as described in Section II. MCVD Effluents).
Regarding the first step of claim 1, Bohrer teaches the recovery process begins with wet scrubbing of the MCVD effluents and within the gas scrubber, germanium is incorporated into the aqueous scrubbing solution as a soluble germanate ion (Section I. Introduction, wet scrubbing reads on claimed first step). Bohrer teaches scrubbing the effluents to remove unreacted GeCl4 and recirculating water through the scrubber for a given period of time (Section III. Gas Scrubbing, reads on claimed first step of bringing the exhaust gas into contact with circulating water of a cooling tower to move germanium in the exhaust gas into the circulating water; holding tank with make-up water of Fig. 1 reads on claimed circulating water of a cooling tower; GeCl4 reads on claimed acidic exhaust gas since one of ordinary skill in the art understands GeCl4 is acidic).
Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation a method for recovering germanium from exhaust gas exhausted during manufacturing of a preform for an optical fiber, the exhaust gas including acidic exhaust gas, and the method comprising: a first step of bringing the exhaust gas into contact with circulating water of a cooling tower to move germanium in the exhaust gas into the circulating water of claim 1.
Regarding the second step of claim 1, Bohrer teaches the solution with soluble germanate ions is recirculated to increase the concentration of dissolved germanium, a portion of the recirculated scrubber solution is continuously removed and subsequently treated with a divalent cation to precipitate the germanium (Section I. Introduction, reads on claimed second step of supplying the circulating water to a reception tank after the first step; stirred-tank reactor of Fig. 1 reads on claimed reception tank). Bohrer teaches Fe2+,3+ cations are effective at precipitating germanium (Section V. Precipitation). Bohrer teaches an example using Fe(NO3)3 as the precipitating reagent (Table VI, one of ordinary skill in the art understands Fe(NO3)3 is a soluble iron salt, reads on claimed soluble iron salt).
Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation a second step of supplying the circulating water and a soluble iron salt to a reception tank after the first step of claim 1.
Regarding the third step of claims 1 and 3, Bohrer teaches the pH of the solution was maintained by a pH controller and hydrogen peroxide was added as a base at a rate necessary to maintain the pH (Section III. Gas Scrubbing, fourth paragraph, base reads on the claimed a base is injected dividedly in two stages to neutralize the circulating water since one of ordinary skill in the art understands continuous adjustment of the solution pH will result in two or more “stages” of adding the base throughout the process). Bohrer teaches the acidic nature of the precipitating reagents lower the solution pH (paragraph above Section VI. Product Collection-Filtration). Bohrer teaches a final pH of 7.4 recovers >99% germanium (Table VI, final pH of 7.4 reads on claimed neutralizing the circulating water after the second step).
Bohrer therefore reads on the claimed a third step of neutralizing the circulating water after the second step of claim 1, and wherein in the third step, a base is injected dividedly in two stages to neutralize the circulating water of claim 3.
Regarding the fourth step of claim 1, Bohrer teaches scrubber solution is continuously removed and subsequently treated with a divalent cation to precipitate the germanium (Section I. Introduction, reads on claimed fourth step of settling a precipitate in the circulating water after the third step).
Regarding the cycles of claim 1, Bohrer teaches the scrubber is operated continuously and in order to improve the overall recovery efficiency of the process, it is necessary to increase the Ge concentration by recirculating the scrubber solution (Section IV. Recirculation, continuous operation reads on the claimed wherein the first step to the fourth step are set as one cycle and are repeatedly executed in two or more cycles since one of ordinary skill in the art understands continuous operation implies repeatedly executed cycles).
Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first step to the fourth step are set as one cycle and are repeatedly executed in two or more cycles of claim 1.
Regarding the “at least a part of the precipitate obtained as the soluble iron salt in the fourth step is injected into the reception tank” limitation of claim 1, as best understood given the 112(b) rejections in this Office action, Bohrer teaches in the final step of the process, Bohrer teaches the scrubbing solution was totally recycled until the concentration of Ge + Si reaches 1.3 g/l (first column of page 704; reads on claimed in the second step of a second or subsequent cycle, at least a part of the precipitate obtained as the soluble iron salt in the fourth step is injected into the reception tank since one of ordinary skill in the art understands the solution will include at least part of the precipitate or soluble iron salt). Bohrer teaches reprocessing of the filter cake can be handled as other Ge-containing ores (paragraph above Section VII. Summary).
Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation in the second step of a second or subsequent cycle, at least a part of the precipitate obtained as the soluble iron salt in the fourth step is injected into the reception tank of claim 1.
Regarding the precipitate of claim 1, Bohrer teaches germanium-rich precipitate is collected as a wet filter cake which can be easily reprocessed to make GeCl4 (Section I. Introduction, Section VI. Product Collection-Filtration, reads on claimed the precipitate is taken out after executing the first step to the fourth step in a predetermined number of cycles).
Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation fourth step of settling a precipitate in the circulating water after the third step of claim 1.
Bohrer therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A process for recovering germanium from effluents of optical fiber manufacturing” of Bohrer, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 4385915 A of Amelse.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Bohrer teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding the third step of claim 4, Bohrer teaches the pH of the solution was maintained by a pH controller and hydrogen peroxide was added as a base at a rate necessary to maintain the pH (Section III. Gas Scrubbing, fourth paragraph, base reads on the claimed a base is injected dividedly in two stages to neutralize the circulating water since one of ordinary skill in the art understands continuous adjustment of the solution pH will result in two or more “stages” of adding the base throughout the process). Bohrer teaches the acidic nature of the precipitating reagents lower the solution pH (paragraph above Section VI. Product Collection-Filtration). Bohrer teaches a final pH of 7.4 recovers >99% germanium (Table VI, final pH of 7.4 reads on claimed neutralizing the circulating water after the second step).
Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation wherein in the third step, a base is injected dividedly in two stages to neutralize the circulating water of claim 4.
However, Bohrer does not explicitly disclose wherein the soluble iron salt to be injected in the second step of a first cycle is ferrous chloride or ferric chloride of claim 2.
Amelse teaches recovery of germanium from gaseous effluent of optical fiber manufacturing processes (Abstrat). Bohrer and Amelse are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with recovering germanium from gas resulting from optical fiber manufacturing and are therefore in the same field of endeavor and solving the same problem of germanium recovery from gas.
Amelse teaches dissolving gaseous germanium into an aqueous medium and adding a precipitating agent to the solution to precipitate germanium (claim 1, process is analogous to the claimed first and second step). Amelse teaches using ferrous chloride as the precipitating agent (col. 8, lines 31-34, Example 2, Table 6). Amelse teaches using ferrous chloride results in a >99% germanium precipitation starting at a pH of 9.23 or below (Table 6).
Since Bohrer teaches using Fe2+,3+ cations as precipitating agents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the ferrous chloride of Amelse as the precipitating agent of Bohrer to obtain a >99% germanium precipitation. Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would substitute the precipitating agent of Bohrer with the ferrous chloride of Amelse with a reasonable expectation of success since they both have Fe cations and serve the same purpose of precipitating germanium from a solution.
Modified Bohrer therefore reads on the limitation wherein the soluble iron salt to be injected in the second step of a first cycle is ferrous chloride or ferric chloride of claim 2.
Modified Bohrer therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 2 and 4.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Strategies for recycling of primary and secondary resources for germanium extraction” of Meshram is considered relevant to the instant invention since Meshram discusses the state of the art regarding recycling germanium. Meshram teaches a review of recycling for germanium extraction from a variety of sources (Title). Meshram teaches the gas scrubber method of Bohrer (cited in this Office action) has been improved using hydrometallurgical approaches and hybrid pyro- and hydrometallurgical approaches (Section 5.3 Recovery of Germanium from Waste Optical fibers). With the exception of the gas scrubber method, the methods discussed in Meshram largely treat germanium waste in a solid form rather than a gaseous form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights