DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 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 1-6 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “adding a proper amount of formaldehyde”. The phrase “proper amount” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what amount the applicant would consider to be “proper”.
The claim states “adding a proper amount of copper powder”. The phrase “proper amount” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what amount the applicant would consider to be “proper”.
The claim states “to an adjusted mixed system”. It is not clear if the “adjusted mixed system” is limited to that mixed system after adjusting the pH in step 2, or any adjusted mixed system.
The claim states “involving the in situ generated hydrogen radicals…”. It is not clear what “involving” is limited to. Specifically it is not clear if this is an additional step or a result of the generation of the hydrogen radicals.
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim states “adding a proper amount of copper powder”. The phrase “proper amount” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what amount the applicant would consider to be “proper”.
The claim states “to an adjusted mixed system”. It is not clear if the “adjusted mixed system” is limited to that mixed system after adjusting the pH in step 2, or any adjusted mixed system.
The claim states “involving the in situ generated hydrogen radicals…”. It is not clear what “involving” is limited to. Specifically it is not clear if this is an additional step or a result of the generation of the hydrogen radicals.
The claim refers to “the supernatant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim states “resulting in formation of plenty of white precipitate, collecting the precipitates were collected through filtration, and determining the precipitates as high purity of EDTA ligand by FT-IR spectra analysis”. The phrase “plenty of” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what if any specific amount of precipitate is being required. The limitation “collecting the precipitates were collected through filtration” appears to contain typographical errors. The limitation “determining the precipitates as high purity of EDTA ligand” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what level of purity would be considered “high”.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukada (JP H09170082, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1:
Tsukada teaches the process for efficiently reclaiming copper from Cu-ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA)-containing wastewater, specifically comprising: step 1: adding a proper amount of formaldehyde to the Cu-EDTA-containing wastewater to obtain a mixed system (a 37% aqueous solution of formaldehyde is dissolved) (see pg. 2, last paragraph); step 2: adjusting a pH of the mixed system to a designated range (when the pH is less than 12 the alkaline liquid is dissolved) (see pg. 3, 4th paragraph); step 3: adding a proper amount of copper powder to an adjusted mixed system (dissolving the metal copper powder) (see pg. 3, 5th paragraph), and catalyzing the formaldehyde to generate hydrogen radicals; and step 4: involving the in situ generated hydrogen radicals in reductive decomplexation of Cu(II)-EDTA to form metallic copper (Cu0) and EDTA ligand (catalyzing the formaldehyde and reductive decomplexation are results of the addition of formaldehyde, copper powder and the pH of the solution, not additional steps. As Tsukada teaches the same steps, under the same conditions as disclosed in the instant invention, the generation of hydrogen radicals and reductive decomplexation would inherently occur), and recycling the metallic copper after static settlement (left for several tens of minutes…passed through a filter to remove the metallic copper powder) (see pg. 3, 6th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 3:
Tsukada teaches the process for efficiently reclaiming copper from Cu-EDTA-containing wastewater according to claim 1, wherein the designated range in step 2 is a pH greater than or equal to 11.0 (greater than 12) (see pg. 3, 4th paragraph).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (JP H09170082, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tatsumi et al (JP 2014012880 A, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 2:
Tsukada teaches the process for efficiently reclaiming copper from Cu-EDTA-containing wastewater according to claim 1, wherein commercial grade formaldehyde is added in step 1 (37% aqueous solution) (see pg. 2, last paragraph).
Tsukada does not teach a molar ratio of the formaldehyde to Cu(II) is 1:1-1:50. Tsukada further teaches the amount of formaldehyde and copper can vary.
Tatsumi teaches that the ratio of formaldehyde to copper can be less than the stochiometric 2:1 and the ratio of copper to formaldehyde determines amount of remaining formaldehyde and copper sludge (see pg. 3, paragraphs 6-10).
Tsukada and Tatsumi are analogous inventions in the art of treating copper plating waste water. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the ratio of formaldehyde to copper in order to optimize the amount of remaining formaldehyde and copper sludge. “[W]here 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
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an
optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or
unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (JP H09170082, English machine translation provided) in view of Tatsumi et al (JP 2014012880 A, English machine translation provided) and Timko et al (US 2023/0348792).
Regarding Claim 5:
Tsukada teaches the process for efficiently reclaiming copper from Cu-ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA)-containing wastewater, specifically comprising: step 1: adding a proper amount of formaldehyde to the Cu-EDTA-containing wastewater to obtain a mixed system (a 37% aqueous solution of formaldehyde is dissolved) (see pg. 2, last paragraph); step 2: adjusting a pH of the mixed system to a designated range (when the pH is less than 12 the alkaline liquid is dissolved) (see pg. 3, 4th paragraph); step 3: adding a proper amount of copper powder to an adjusted mixed system (dissolving the metal copper powder) (see pg. 3, 5th paragraph), and catalyzing the formaldehyde to generate hydrogen radicals; and step 4: involving the in situ generated hydrogen radicals in reductive decomplexation of Cu(II)-EDTA to form metallic copper (Cu0) and EDTA ligand (catalyzing the formaldehyde and reductive decomplexation are results of the addition of formaldehyde, copper powder and the pH of the solution, not additional steps. As Tsukada teaches the same steps, under the same conditions as disclosed in the instant invention, the generation of hydrogen radicals and reductive decomplexation would inherently occur), and recycling the metallic copper after static settlement (left for several tens of minutes…passed through a filter to remove the metallic copper powder) (see pg. 3, 6th paragraph).
Tsukada does not teach step 5: adjusting a pH of the supernatant to the designated range, resulting in formation of plenty of white precipitate, collecting the precipitates were collected through filtration, and determining the precipitates as high purity of EDTA ligand by FT-IR spectra analysis.
Tatsumi teaches a method of treating copper plating waste water comprising adjusting a pH of the supernatant (waste liquid) to the designated range, resulting in formation of plenty of white precipitate (see pg. 4, 1st paragraph), collecting the precipitates were collected through filtration (solid liquid separation device 5b, can be filtration) (see pg. 7, 4th paragraph, pg. 6, 1st paragraph).
Timko teaches the use of FT-IT spectra analysis (see para. 0024).
Tsukada and Tatsumi are analogous inventions in the art of treating copper containing plating wastewater. It would have been obvious to add the precipitation of EDTA as disclosed by Tatsumi to the method of Tsukada because it allows the EDTA to be recovered from the water (see Tatsumi pg. 4, 4th paragraph). It would have further been obvious to use FT-IR spectra analysis to determine that the precipitate is high purity EDTA because FT-IR spectra analysis is a known means of analyzing samples and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a known analysis means to determine the purity of a known sample. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 6:
Tsukada, as modified, teaches the process for efficiently reclaiming EDTA ligands from Cu-EDTA-containing wastewater according to claim 5, wherein the designated range in step 5 is a pH smaller than or equal to 3.0 (pH to 3) (see Tatsumi pg. 8, last paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Claim 4 contains limitations that would not have been obvious in view of the closest prior art, Tsukada. The prior art does not teach “an addition amount of the copper powder is step 3 is 0.1 g/L-2.0 g/L”. Tsukada teaches that the addition amount of copper powder is 25 g/l (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph). It would not have been obvious to reduce the amount of copper powder used in step 3 of Tsukada because Tsukada teaches that is less copper powder is used the metal copper is hard to deposit (see Tsukada pg. 3, 2nd paragraph)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights