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 Objections
Claims 1, 6-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
concerning Claim 1, the claim is a "method" claim that fails to positively recite any steps of the method. The Examiner suggests the following amendment:
1. (currently amended) A method for leaching a rock metal component, comprising:
injecting a leaching fluid , wherein the leaching fluid comprises a chelating agent-containing liquid; and
[[to ]]extracting, into the leaching fluid, a metal component contained in the mafic rock or ultramafic rock.
concerning Claim 6, the claim essentially depends from Claim 1 and should therefore be amended to expressly indicate that in typical US Patent practice. The Examiner suggests the following amendment:
6. (currently amended) [[A ]]The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
[[for ]]storing carbon dioxide underground, wherein carbon dioxide or a storage liquid with carbon dioxide dissolved therein is injected into the mafic rock or the ultramafic rock
concerning Claim 7, the claim further defines the "storage liquid with carbon dioxide dissolved therein" without expressly including it as a component of the claimed method. The Examiner suggests the following amendment:
7. (currently amended) The method according to claim 6, further comprising the storage liquid with carbon dioxide dissolved therein, wherein the storage liquid is alkaline.
concerning Claim 8, the claim further defines the "storage liquid with carbon dioxide dissolved therein" without expressly including it as a component of the claimed method. Further, a "chelating agent" is previously recited in Claim 1. The Examiner suggests the following amendment:
8. (currently amended) The method according to claim 6, further comprising the storage liquid with carbon dioxide dissolved therein, wherein the storage liquid contains [[a ]]the chelating agent.
concerning Claim 10, the claim essentially depends from Claim 1 and should therefore be amended to expressly indicate that in typical US Patent practice. The Examiner suggests the following amendment:
10. (currently amended) [[A ]]The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
recovering the leaching fluid; and
chemically reacting the recovered leaching fluid , thereby fixing the carbon dioxide.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dixon et al (U.S Pub 2012/0067174) (“Dixon”).
Regarding Claim 1, Dixon discloses a method for leaching a rock metal component (Figure 1; paragraphs [0008], [0042] and [0044] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses a process of leaching a rock metal, such as a nickel-iron alloy particle material), wherein a leaching fluid composed of a chelating agent-containing liquid is injected (Abstract; paragraphs [0010] and [0050] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses contacting the ultramafic ore with an aqueous ammonia solution containing an iron-complexing agent) into a mafic rock or ultramafic rock (Abstract; paragraph [0044] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses wherein the nickel-containing source material is present in ultrabasic and ultramafic rocks) at lower than 200°C underground to extract (paragraph [0013]), into the leaching fluid, a metal component contained in the mafic rock or ultramafic rock (Abstract; paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 2, Dixon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the chelating agent is composed of a biodegradable chelating agent or a thermally decomposable chelating agent (Abstract; paragraphs [0010] and [0050] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses contacting the ultramafic ore rock with an aqueous ammonia solution containing an iron-complexing agent. Dixon discloses wherein the iron complexing agent is capable of solubilizing and/or complexing a substantial portion of the iron present in the nickel-containing source material).
Regarding Claim 3, Dixon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the leaching fluid is acidic (Abstract; paragraphs [0010] and [0050] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses wherein the leaching solution comprises of a iron-complexing agent that may include hydroxyl-carboxylic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, glycolic acid, etc).
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.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al (U.S Pub 2012/0067174) (“Dixon”) in view of Kendall et al (U.S Pub 2011/0091366) (“Kendall”).
Regarding Claim 4, Dixon discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the leaching fluid is composed of a liquid containing the chelating agent (Abstract; paragraphs [0010] and [0050] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses contacting the ultramafic ore rock with an aqueous ammonia solution containing an iron-complexing agent. Dixon discloses wherein the iron complexing agent is capable of solubilizing and/or complexing a substantial portion of the iron present in the nickel-containing source material).
Dixon, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the leaching fluid is composed of a liquid containing the chelating agent and carbon dioxide.
Kendall teaches the method above wherein the leaching fluid is composed of a liquid containing the chelating agent and carbon dioxide (Abstract; paragraphs [0009] and [0019] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Kendall discloses an acidic solution comprising an alkaline solution that is used to help sequester carbon dioxide in an aqueous solution) for the purpose of utilizing an alkaline solution in order to sequester carbon dioxide from a gas (Abstract; paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dixon to include a fluid comprising carbon dioxide, as taught by Kendall, because doing so would allow the alkaline solution to sequester the carbon dioxide.
Regarding Claim 5, Dixon in view of Kendall teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the leaching fluid is injected into basalt or olivine as the mafic rock or the ultramafic rock underground (Kendall: paragraphs [0003] and [0005]).
Regarding Claim 6, Dixon in view of Kendall teach a method for storing carbon dioxide underground (paragraphs [0091] and [0092] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Kendall teaches wherein the carbon dioxide is sequestered), wherein carbon dioxide or a storage liquid with carbon dioxide dissolved therein is injected into the mafic rock or the ultramafic rock (Kendall: Abstract; paragraphs [0009] and [0019] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Kendall discloses an acidic solution comprising an alkaline solution that is used to help sequester carbon dioxide in an aqueous solution) from which the metal component has been extracted into the leaching fluid (Dixon: Figure 1; paragraphs [0008], [0042] and [0044] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses a process of leaching a rock metal, such as a nickel-iron alloy particle material) by the method for leaching the rock metal component according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Kendall teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the storage liquid is alkaline (Abstract; paragraphs [0009] and [0019] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Kendall discloses an acidic solution comprising an alkaline solution that is used to help sequester carbon dioxide in an aqueous solution).
Regarding Claim 8, Dixon discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the storage liquid contains a chelating agent (Abstract; paragraphs [0010] and [0050] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses contacting the ultramafic ore rock with an aqueous ammonia solution containing an iron-complexing agent. Dixon discloses wherein the iron complexing agent is capable of solubilizing and/or complexing a substantial portion of the iron present in the nickel-containing source material).
Regarding Claim 9, Dixon discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the chelating agent contained in the storage liquid is composed of a biodegradable chelating agent or a thermally decomposable chelating agent (Abstract; paragraphs [0010] and [0050] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses contacting the ultramafic ore rock with an aqueous ammonia solution containing an iron-complexing agent. Dixon discloses wherein the iron complexing agent is capable of solubilizing and/or complexing a substantial portion of the iron present in the nickel-containing source material).
Regarding Claim 10, Dixon in view of Kendall teach a method for fixing carbon dioxide (paragraphs [0091] and [0092] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Kendall teaches wherein the carbon dioxide is sequestered), wherein the leaching fluid into which the metal component has been extracted by the method for leaching the rock metal components (Dixon: Figure 1; paragraphs [0008], [0042] and [0044] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Dixon discloses a process of leaching a rock metal, such as a nickel-iron alloy particle material) according to claim 1 is recovered, and the metal component contained in the recovered leaching fluid is chemically reacted with carbon dioxide to produce a carbonate mineral (Kendall: paragraph [0005] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Kendall teaches wherein the sequestered carbon dioxide is used to precipitate a carbonate containing compound).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hunwick et al (U.S Pub 2010/0021362) – discloses a carbon dioxide sequestration process by injecting a slurry of a metal silicate rock mixed with ammonia in order to produce an ammonia/water metal silicate slurry (Abstract; Page 1, paragraphs [0012]-[0015]).
KENDALL et al (U.S Pub 2011/0035154) – discloses methods of contacting carbon dioxide with an aqueous mixture in order to produce a reaction product (Abstract; Page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30pm, Telework Mondays and Fridays.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ASHISH K VARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights