DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 3, “a mixed polymetallic geothermal filter cake” should read “a polymetallic geothermal filter cake”.
In Claim 3, lines 1-2, delete the phrase “the step of repulping the polymetallic geothermal filter cake to form” as it is superfluous.
In Claim 61, line 2, remove “wash or repulp” from “per liter of wash or repulp water”.
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 6-8, 23-25, 29-30, 33-35, and 60-62 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 6 recites the limitation "the step of washing” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests removing the phrase “the step of”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the slurried and/or dewatered geothermal filter cake” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “dewatered geothermal filter cake” in the claim.
Claims 7-8, 23-25, 29, and 60-62 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the step of washing the dewatered geothermal filter cake further comprises the step of one or more stages of displacement washing” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the language after "further comprises" is limiting the washing step, or in addition to the washing step.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the dewatered geothermal filter cake” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the step of one or more stages of displacement washing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests removing the phrase “the step of” or the like.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the steps of countercurrent decantation washing” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests removing the phrase “the steps of” or the like.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the step of recycling” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests removing the phrase “the step of” or the like.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the steps of dewatering” in line 1. However, Claim 1 recites a singular step of dewatering. Therefore, it is unclear what “the steps” refers to.
Claims 33-35 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 30.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the step of dewatering the enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition” in lines 1-2. However, Claims 1 and 30 refer to dewatering the slurried geothermal filter cake. Therefore, “the step of dewatering the enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the step of: forming and/or processing” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests removing the phrase “the step of” or the like.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the dewatered, enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6-8, 23-25, 29, and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 discloses the limitation “washing the slurried and/or dewatered geothermal filter cake with a wash liquor to produce the enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition”. Claim 6 attempts to insert a washing step after the dewatering step of Claim 1 to produce “the enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition”. However, in Claim 1, the “enhanced” composition is produced following the dewatering step. Therefore, Claim 6 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 7-8, 23-25, 29, and 60-62 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 6.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 21, 23-25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Featherstone et al. (US 2020/0189925 A1).
With regard to Claims 1-2 and 5, Featherstone teaches a process for producing an enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake from a polymetallic geothermal filter cake (Fig. 2-3, 4a and 6; Mn/Zn filter cake 316).
Featherstone teaches a plurality of stages for repulping a polymetallic geothermal filter cake with a repulping liquor to form a slurried geothermal filter cake, and dewatering the slurried geothermal filter cake to produce an enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition having an enhanced concentration of manganese and zinc and a reduced concentration of chloride salts (Fig. 2-3 and 4a, Paragraph 0039, The feed brine is passed into the impurity removal circuit 300 having… a second set of reaction tanks 306 and a final clarifier 308 to remove manganese and zinc primarily; Paragraph 0040, Accumulated solids in… the final clarifier 308 are… routed to a pneumapress filter HBF to prepare… a Mn/Zn filter cake 316; Paragraph 0035, The first stage of the HBF is a pH 1.0 acid wash of the slurry with hydrochloric acid to remove any lead precipitates from the filter cake. The second stage is a pH 9.5 condensate water wash to neutralize any residual acid in the filter cake. The third stage of the HBF steam dries the filter cake;
Paragraph 0059-0060, Recycled precipitate (stream 38) is added as seed and lime 312B (stream 173) is slaked with recycled barren solution (stream 172). Any gas released is vented (stream 174). The lime/recycled barren solution is added (stream 28) to the second set of reaction tanks 306 to raise the pH to just over 8 and precipitate zinc, manganese and lead oxides/hydroxides… The thickener underflow (stream 35) is pumped (stream 36) to seed recycle (stream 37) and to the Zn/Mn precipitate filter 332 (stream 39). The resulting Zn/Mn filter cake is washed with process water (stream 41) and the washed filter cake 336 (stream 43) leaves the circuit 300. The filtrate (stream 44) is pumped (stream 45) to the feed tank 338 ahead of the Zn/Mn precipitation stage 300B).
Featherstone teaches the polymetallic geothermal filter cake comprising oxides, hydroxides, oxychlorides, or a combination thereof, the polymetallic geothermal filter cake further comprising an initial concentration of manganese, zinc and chloride salts, and wherein the polymetallic geothermal filter cake is a Salton Sea or a North Brawley Known Geothermal Resource Area geothermal filter cake (Abstract; The system and process are configured for the sequential recovery of zinc, manganese, and lithium from a Salton Sea Known Geothermal Resource Area brine; Paragraph 0005, The brines are primarily sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) chlorides with up to 25 percent of total dissolved solids; they also contain high concentrations of metals such as Fe, Mn, Li, Zn, and Pb).
With regard to Claim 6, Featherstone teaches the process further comprising washing the slurried and/or dewatered geothermal filter cake with a wash liquor to produce the enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition (Fig. 4a; Paragraph 0060, The thickener underflow (stream 35) is pumped (stream 36) to seed recycle (stream 37) and to the Zn/Mn precipitate filter 332 (stream 39). The resulting Zn/Mn filter cake is washed with process water (stream 41) and the washed filter cake 336 (stream 43) leaves the circuit 300. The filtrate (stream 44) is pumped (stream 45) to the feed tank 338 ahead of the Zn/Mn precipitation stage 300B).
With regard to Claim 21, Featherstone teaches the enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition having reduced concentrations of aluminum and iron (Figs. 2-3 and 4a; Mn/Zn filter cake 316; Paragraph 0040 The final clarifier 308 is positioned downstream of the second reaction tank 306 and allows the metals as oxides and/or hydroxides (primarily zinc and manganese) to settle). The Mn/Zn filter cake would necessarily have “reduced concentrations” of aluminum and iron.
With regard to Claim 23-25, Featherstone teaches the wash liquor, the repulping liquor, or both comprising water, further comprising an alkali, wherein the alkali is calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) (Paragraph 0035, The first stage of the HBF is a pH 1.0 acid wash of the slurry with hydrochloric acid to remove any lead precipitates from the filter cake. The second stage is a pH 9.5 condensate water wash to neutralize any residual acid in the filter cake. The third stage of the HBF steam dries the filter cake; Paragraph 0060, The thickener underflow (stream 35) is pumped (stream 36) to seed recycle (stream 37) and to the Zn/Mn precipitate filter 332 (stream 39). The resulting Zn/Mn filter cake is washed with process water (stream 41) and the washed filter cake 336 (stream 43) leaves the circuit 300. The filtrate (stream 44) is pumped (stream 45) to the feed tank 338 ahead of the Zn/Mn precipitation stage 300B; Paragraph 0059, Recycled precipitate (stream 38) is added as seed and lime 312B (stream 173) is slaked with recycled barren solution (stream 172). Any gas released is vented (stream 174). The lime/recycled barren solution is added (stream 28) to the second set of reaction tanks 306 to raise the pH to just over 8 and precipitate zinc, manganese and lead oxides/hydroxides).
With regard to Claim 29, Featherstone teaches the process further comprising recycling the wash liquor, the repulping liquor, or both (Figs. 4a and 4b; streams 28 and 41; Paragraph 0059, The lime/recycled barren solution is added (stream 28) to the second set of reaction tanks 306 to raise the pH to just over 8 and precipitate zinc, manganese and lead oxides/hydroxides; Paragraph 0060, The resulting Zn/Mn filter cake is washed with process water (stream 41) and the washed filter cake 336 (stream 43) leaves the circuit 300. The filtrate (stream 44) is pumped (stream 45) to the feed tank 338 ahead of the Zn/Mn precipitation stage 300B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Featherstone et al. (US 2020/0189925 A1), as evidenced by Svarovsky (“Solid-Liquid Separation”).
With regard to Claim 8, Svarovsky explains the process of countercurrent decantation washing (Page 442, 15.1 Introduction; The countercurrent arrangement is a special case of separator series connections in the underflow direction where overflow recycles are made to the feeds of the preceding stages…The solids leave the washing train as a slurry in the system underflow whilst most of the decanted wash liquid leaves through the system overflow; Page 444, the term countercurrent decantation tends to be used when gravity thickeners are the system separators. The product is a solute in the wash liquid 'decanted' into the system overflow).
Featherstone discloses a process comprising countercurrent decantation washing the slurried geothermal filter cake (Fig. 4a; Paragraph 0060, The thickener underflow (stream 35) is pumped (stream 36) to seed recycle (stream 37) and to the Zn/Mn precipitate filter 332 (stream 39). The resulting Zn/Mn filter cake is washed with process water (stream 41) and the washed filter cake 336 (stream 43) leaves the circuit 300. The filtrate (stream 44) is pumped (stream 45) to the feed tank 338 ahead of the Zn/Mn precipitation stage 300B. The thickener overflow (stream 34) is mixed with mother liquor (stream 134) from a first precipitation of lithium carbonate 514 and the combined solution (stream 49) is pumped (stream 50) through the polishing filter 334 to capture residual solids. The captured solids are backwashed out (stream 46) and sent to the Zn/Mn precipitate thickener 308).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Featherstone et al. (US 2020/0189925 A1) in view of Svarovsky (“Solid-Liquid Separation”).
With regard to Claim 7, Featherstone is silent to one or more stages of displacement washing of the slurried geothermal filter cake.
Svarovsky teaches one or more stages of displacement washing of the slurried geothermal filter cake (Page 335, 10.1 Introduction, methods of washing solids; this chapter is about one of three methods of carrying out the washing in each stage. These methods are: 1 Washing by displacement in cakes (= cake washing). 2 Washing by reslurrying of filter cakes or sediments. 3 Washing by successive dilution. Any of the above can, of course, be single-stage or multi-stage). Svarovsky discloses that displacement washing is process and cost efficient and requires a lesser amount of fluid than other conventional methods (Page 336, method 1, cake washing, requires special attention due to its potentially high washing efficiency and low wash liquid requirement relative to the other two methods in the above list. Another advantage is that it can be carried out in situ on an existing filter, with no or little additional equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Featherstone to disclose one or more stages of displacement washing of the slurried geothermal filter cake, as taught in Svarovsky, as displacement washing is process and cost efficient and requires a lesser amount of fluid than other conventional methods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 30, 33-35, and 60-62 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d), 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: Featherstone et al. (US 2020/0189925 A1), Kinnarinen et al. (“Removal of chloride from fly ash produced in hazardous waste incineration by leaching and displacement washing in a vertical filter press”), Skrzekut et al. (“Studies of Selective Recovery of Zinc and Manganese from Alkaline Batteries Scrap by Leaching and Precipitation”), Warren (“Techno-Economic Analysis of Lithium Extraction from Geothermal Brines”), Perkins (“Caustic Leaching of Manganese Flotation Concentrate from Artillery Peak, Ariz”), and Svarovsky (“Solid-Liquid Separation”) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
With regard to Claim 3, none of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the process further comprising the slurried geothermal filter cake having a moisture content of between about 40% and about 95% by weight moisture.
With regard to Claim 30, none of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the process further comprising dewatering the slurried manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition to a moisture content between about 10% and about 60% by weight moisture.
Claims 33-35 would be allowable due to their dependence on Claim 30.
With regard to Claim 60, none of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the process wherein the wash liquor, the repulping liquor, or both comprises an alkali wherein the alkali is sodium carbonate. Featherstone discloses the process wherein the alkali is calcium hydroxide to precipitate hydroxides of zinc and manganese (Paragraph 0059, Recycled precipitate (stream 38) is added as seed and lime 312B (stream 173) is slaked with recycled barren solution (stream 172). Any gas released is vented (stream 174). The lime/recycled barren solution is added (stream 28) to the second set of reaction tanks 306 to raise the pH to just over 8 and precipitate zinc, manganese and lead oxides/hydroxides).
With regard to Claim 61, none of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the process wherein the wash liquor, the repulping liquor, or both comprise less than about 100 grams of the alkali per liter of wash or repulp water.
Claim 62 would be allowable due to its dependence on Claim 61.
Claims 38-44, 47, 50, and 53-59 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: Featherstone et al. (US 2020/0189925 A1), Kinnarinen et al. (“Removal of chloride from fly ash produced in hazardous waste incineration by leaching and displacement washing in a vertical filter press”), Skrzekut et al. (“Studies of Selective Recovery of Zinc and Manganese from Alkaline Batteries Scrap by Leaching and Precipitation”), Warren (“Techno-Economic Analysis of Lithium Extraction from Geothermal Brines”), Perkins (“Caustic Leaching of Manganese Flotation Concentrate from Artillery Peak, Ariz”), and Svarovsky (“Solid-Liquid Separation”) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
With regard to Claim 38, none of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the process of Claim 1 wherein the enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition comprises more than about 300,000 ppm manganese, more than about 110,000 ppm zinc, and less than about 150,000 ppm chloride salts.
Claims 39-42, 44, 47, 50, and 53-59 would be allowable due to their dependence on Claim 38.
With regard to Claim 43, none of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the process wherein the enhanced manganese-zinc geothermal filter cake composition further comprises less than about 10,000 ppm aluminum and less than about 10,000 ppm iron.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights