DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 6, 8, 12, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 10, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are cancelled. New claim 21 is added. Claims 6-9, 11-12, 15, 17, and 20-21 are pending, and under examination on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Marcus Thymian on 07/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Objection to Drawings
Applicant’s amendment to the Drawings of FIGs 4-7 obviates the objection. The objection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 obviates the objection. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Applicant Amended claim 6 by further limiting the method as following: A method of processing a nickel ore concentrate, the method comprising the following steps executed in the following sequence: mixing a nickel ore concentrate with hydrochloric acid to obtain a hydrochloric- acid-mixed mass of nickel ore concentrate; irradiating by microwaves the mass of nickel ore concentrate mixed with hydrochloric acid for a period of 5 to 50 minutes, until converting over 90% of the nickel and cobalt contained in the nickel ore concentrate into its soluble chloride form, and until achieving a desired conversion of the iron, chrome and titanium contained in the nickel ore concentrate into its insoluble oxide form, to obtain a microwave-irradiated nickel ore concentrate; leaching the microwave-irradiated nickel ore concentrate with water for solubilizing the nickel and the cobalt contained in the nickel ore concentrate; and obtaining a liquor laden with nickel, cobalt, iron and magnesium.
In addition, Applicant argued that “the method of Zhao et al. discloses steps of: (i) providing an ore concentrate; (ii) mixing the ore with HCI and water and irradiating the mixture with microwaves; and (iii) separating the pregnant liquid from the solids. The step (ii) of Zhao et al. is a leaching step with HCI plus water and aims to obtain a leaching liquor for subsequent separation. Step 210 of the present invention does not use water and does not result in a leaching liquor. Irradiation step 210 of the present invention aims to convert the nickel and cobalt of the nickel ore concentrate into their soluble chloride form and convert the iron and
other elements of the nickel ore concentrate into their insoluble oxide form, as described in paragraphs [0128] and [0129] of the published application. The Office Action appears to interpret Zhao et al.'s nickel/cobalt extraction values as equivalent to the claimed conversion of more than 90% of nickel and cobalt into soluble chloride forms. Applicant respectfully submits that this is not technically accurate.” See pages 8-9 of the REMARKS.
Applicant’s argument is found not persuasive. Actually, Step 210 of the present invention indeed uses water and results in a leaching liquor. Applicant’s specification [00109] discloses “mixing 200 a nickel ore concentrate (NOC) with hydrochloric acid;” wherein “hydrochloric acid” is a HCl aqueous solution. One skilled in the art would have known that the most concentrated hydrochloric acid (aqueous hydrogen chloride, also known as muriatic acid) is a typically at 35–38% concentration, and other hydrochloric acids have less amount of has HCl dissolved in water to form such as a hydrochloric acid at a concentration of 4M, 1M, 01M, etc., see example of Milipore-SiGMa product catalog (13-1700) Hydrochloric acid 1M
PNG
media_image1.png
668
1262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.Therefore, the hydrochloric acid cited in paragraph [00109] of the specification actually is a HCl aqueous solution at any concentration of dissolved HCl gas in water. Accordingly, Applicant’s statement “Step 210 of the present invention does not use water and does not result in a leaching liquor” is scientifically misinterpreted. Therefore, Applicant’s argument based on a false assumption is not persuasive.
In addition, Zhao et al. discloses a process for selectively recover a nickel ore concentrate by mixing the nickel ore concentrate at the ratio of solid nickel ore to liquid hydrochloric acid aqueous solution at 1/6g.mL-1 with 4 mol.L-1 hydrochloric acid aqueous solution to form a nickel ore mixture; putting the resulting mixture in NJ07-3 model microwave reactor, and microwave irradiating the mixture at various time periods to achieve various heating temperatures for leaching with maximum converting over 90% through liquid-solid centrifugation; and the method of processing a nickel ore concentrate at different microwave leaching at the temperature from 30°C to 90°C (see Figs. 7-8, p.635-636; 1.2.3 Leaching red nickel ore concentrate, p.633; and 2.2.2 Obtaining nickel and cobalt, p.635). Zhao et al. discloses the microwave irradiating time for recovering nickel and cobalt from 30 minutes to 70 minutes (see Fig. 9, p.636). In addition, Zhao et al. discloses the nickel ore concentrate contains MgO (Mg), iron (Fe), and chrome (Cr) (see Fig. 3, Tables 1-2 at p.634).
In terms of Applicant’s argument that “For example, using the method of Zhao et al., an exceedingly high concentration of iron would always be present in the nickel ore concentrate after leaching, which would require multiple purification steps to separate the iron from the nickel and cobalt. In turn, the method of the present invention allows the reduction of iron in the nickel ore concentrate.” (see page 11 of REMARKs), Applicant’s claim 6 also recites the limitation “obtaining a liquor laden with nickel, cobalt, iron and magnesium.”, and the argument “the reduction of iron in the nickel ore concentrate” is not a claimed limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
The following rejection is necessitated by the amendment filed 07/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (revised)
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6-9, 11-12, 15, 17, and 20-21are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., Journal of University of Sci. and Tech. Beijing, (published on June 30, 2012), p.632-638 in view of Li et al., Journal of Cleaner Production, (2018), v.189, p.620-626, US 5,571,308 (“the `308 patent”), and Rigaku Publishes New Method for Analysis of Metals in Nickel Ore, (2014), (“Rigaku”).
Applicant’s claim 6 is drawn to a method of processing a nickel ore concentrate, the method comprising the following steps executed in the following sequence: mixing a nickel ore concentrate with hydrochloric acid to obtain a hydrochloric- acid-mixed mass of nickel ore concentrate; irradiating by microwaves the mass of nickel ore concentrate mixed with hydrochloric acid for a period of 5 to 50 minutes, until converting over 90% of the nickel and cobalt contained in the nickel ore concentrate into its soluble chloride form, and until achieving a desired conversion of the iron, chrome and titanium contained in the nickel ore concentrate into its insoluble oxide form, to obtain a microwave-irradiated nickel ore concentrate; leaching the microwave-irradiated nickel ore concentrate with water for solubilizing the nickel and the cobalt contained in the nickel ore concentrate; and obtaining a liquor laden with nickel, cobalt, iron and magnesium.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Zhao et al. discloses a process for selectively recover a nickel ore concentrate by mixing the nickel ore concentrate at the ratio of solid nickel ore to liquid hydrochloric acid aqueous solution at 1/6g.mL-1 with 4 mol.L-1 hydrochloric acid aqueous solution to form a nickel ore mixture; putting the resulting mixture in NJ07-3 model microwave reactor, and microwave irradiating the mixture at various time periods to achieve various heating temperatures for leaching with maximum converting over 90% through liquid-solid centrifugation; and the method of processing a nickel ore concentrate at different microwave leaching at the temperature from 30°C to 90°C (see Figs. 7-8, p.635-636; 1.2.3 Leaching red nickel ore concentrate, p.633; and 2.2.2 Obtaining nickel and cobalt, p.635). In addition, Zhao et al. discloses the microwave irradiating time for recovering nickel and cobalt from 30 minutes to 70 minutes (see Fig. 9, p.636). In addition, Zhao et al. discloses the nickel ore concentrate contains MgO (Mg), iron (Fe), and chrome (Cr) (see Fig. 3, Tables 1-2 at p.634).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between the method of claim 6 and the method of Zhao et al. is that the prior art does not teach the nickel ore concentrate contains titanium, nor achieving a desired conversion of the titanium contained in the nickel ore concentrate into its insoluble oxide form.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the instantly claimed method would have been obvious over the method disclosed by Zhao et al. because the prior art teaches the same process of recovering nickel and cobalt from a nickel ore concentrate by mixing a nickel ore concentrate with hydrochloric acid, leaching through microwave irradiating, the nickel ore concentrate until converting over 90% of the nickel and cobalt contained in the nickel ore concentrate into its soluble chloride form. Zhao et al. further discloses the method of processing a nickel ore concentrate at different microwave leaching at the temperature from 30°C to 90°C, and the microwave irradiating time for recovering nickel and cobalt from 30 minutes to 70 minutes (see Fig. 9, p.636). In addition, Zhao et al. discloses the nickel ore concentrate contains MgO (Mg), iron (Fe), and chrome (Cr) (see Fig. 3, Tables 1-2 at p.634). It seems the only difference between Applicant’s claim 6 and Zhao et al. is the prior art used a slightly difference starting material of nickel ore concentrate without containing titanium. However, it has been well-known that titanium oxide (TiO2) is often present in significant quantities in nickel ore, as being described by Rigaku. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to apply the processing method of Zhao et al. for a different nickel ore concentrate in order to obtain the desired nickel and cobalt for the purpose also disclosed for the same prior art because the advantage of using microwave irradiation for leaching the nickel ore concentrate has been clearly taught by the prior art.
In terms of claim 7, wherein the leaching step is assisted by microwave irradiation, Zhao et al. teaches a process for leaching a nickel ore concentrate by mixing the nickel ore concentrate with hydrochloric acid aqueous solution by microwave irradiating with maximum converting over 90% (see Figs. 7-8, p.635-636; 1.2.3 Leaching red nickel ore concentrate, p.633; and 2.2.2 Obtaining nickel and cobalt, p.635).
In terms of claim 8, further comprising the step of regenerating the hydrochloric acid used in the irradiating step by evaporation thereof in the irradiating step, condensing the hydrochloric acid vapor and returning the condensed hydrochloric acid to the mixing step, optimizing the amount of acid as well as recycling the acid is obvious to the skilled in the art in order to lower the production cost and reduce environmental damage because hydrochloric acid is very corrosive chemical. The step of regenerating the hydrochloric acid is also taught and/or suggested by the `308 patent (see FIGs.1-3).
In terms of claim 9, wherein the first leaching step comprises adding 0.1 to 5 ml/g of hydrochloric acid per gram of nickel ore concentrate, Zhao et al. teaches adding 6 mL of 4 M HCl per gram of nickel ore concentrate. Because claim 9 does not define the concentration of HCl, the HCl is interpreted as a concentrated HCl at the concentration of 12M, the volume of 6 mL of 4M becomes 2 mL per gram of nickel ore concentrate, which reads on the claimed “0.1 to 5 ml/g of hydrochloric acid per gram of nickel ore concentrate”.
In terms of claim 11, wherein the leaching step comprises microwave irradiation at a temperature between 20°C and 100 °C, Zhao et al. teaches the method of processing a nickel ore concentrate at different microwave leaching at the temperature from 30°C to 90°C (see Fig. 8, p.636).
In terms of claim 12, further comprising filtering the liquor to separate, from the liquor, an insoluble oxide solid fraction comprising the insoluble forms of iron, chrome and titanium, Zhao et al. teaches the solid precipitate was separated from the liquor (see Fig. 2, p.633). Zhao et al. teaches the nickel ore contains iron, chrome oxide (Cr2O3) (see Table 1, p.634). In terms of titanium, it has been well-known that titanium oxide (TiO2) is often present in significant quantities in nickel ore, as being described by Rigaku. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to apply the processing method of Zhao et al. for a different nickel ore concentrate in order to obtain the desired nickel and cobalt for the purpose also disclosed for the same prior art because the advantage of using microwave irradiation for leaching the nickel ore concentrate has been clearly taught by the prior art. One skilled in the art would have known that filtering of the liquor from insoluble oxide solid is one of the most common methods for liquid-solid separation.
In terms of claim 15, further comprising the steps of: a solvent extraction step comprising adding a solvent to the liquor to remove magnesium and traces of iron from the liquor and for
obtaining a liquor mostly comprising nickel and cobalt; stripping the solvent by contacting the solvent with hydrochloric acid; and returning the stripped solvent to the extraction step, Zhao et al. discloses a process for selectively recover a nickel ore concentrate by mixing the nickel ore concentrate with hydrochloric acid aqueous solution. In terms of the limitation “returning the solvent to the extraction step”, recycling the acid is obvious to the skilled in the art in order to lower the production cost and reduce environmental damage because spent solvent is toxic chemical. The step of regenerating the hydrochloric acid is also taught and/or suggested by the `308 patent (see FIGs.1-3).
In terms of claim 17, further comprising the steps of the step of adding magnesium oxide to the liquor obtained from the leaching step to precipitate nickel and cobalt as a nickel hydroxide and cobalt precipitate, the `308 patent (col. 12, lns. 16-21, and 42-45) teaches part of the raffinate (6) containing high Mg and Fe is subjected to pyro-hydrolysis (7) to produce MgO and Fe2O3 (8) and HCl (9) which is recycled to resin bed (4) for extracting nickel as nickel chloride (10) and to heap leaching (2) via line 9. In addition, the `308 patent (col. 12, lns. 56-59) teaches after separation from gangue material, this solution is passed on to neutralization stage (4A), and is then neutralized to a pH of about 1 to 2 using recycle MgO or the mixture of MgO or fresh ore.
In terms of claim 20, further comprising, after recovery of the nickel hydroxide and cobalt precipitate, a step of pyrohydrolysis of the residual liquor containing magnesium chloride and hydrochloric acid for extracting magnesium oxide and hydrochloric acid, the `308 patent (col. 12, lns. 16-21, and 42-45) teaches part of the raffinate (6) containing high Mg and Fe is subjected to pyro-hydrolysis (7) to produce MgO and Fe2O3 (8) and HCl (9) which is recycled to resin bed (4) for extracting nickel as nickel chloride (10) and to heap leaching (2) via line 9.
In terms of new claim 21, wherein the step of irradiating by microwaves the mass of nickel ore concentrate mixed with hydrochloric acid comprises irradiating until said mass reaches 150 to 200 °C and maintaining the mass in that temperature for 5 to 40 minutes, Zhao et al. teaches the method of processing a nickel ore concentrate at different microwave leaching at the temperature from 30°C to 90°C (see Fig. 8, p.636). In addition, Zhao et al. discloses the bleaching rates of nickel and cobalt do not change significantly, and remain the same rates within the range of temperature from 50°C to 90°C (see Fig. 8, and right column at p.636). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to try a higher leaching temperature at a range of 150 to 200 °C and maintaining the mass in that temperature for 5 to 40 minutes through microwave irradiation.
Furthermore, it is well known that the adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g. determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references), as well as adjustment of reaction temperature, reaction time and use of solvents, rearranging steps in a reaction sequence, is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. See In re Mostovych, Weber, Mitchell and Aulbach, 144 USPQ 38. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to try different recrystallization temperature and duration with a predictable result. It is "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Therefore, in looking at the instant claimed formulation as a whole, the claimed process would have been suggested to one skilled in the art and therefore, is obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, unless Applicant can demonstrate trying a higher leaching temperature at a range of 150 to 200 °C and maintaining the mass in that temperature for 5 to 40 minutes through microwave irradiation in an aqueous system can achieve unexpected results in comparison with the leaching condition by Zhao et al. at the temperature at 90°C with already over 90% bleaching rates of nickel and cobalt, see Fig. 8, and right column at p.636.
Conclusions
Claims 6-9, 11-12, 15, 17, and 20-21 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights