DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 14, 16 and 18-24 are pending.
Claims 1-13, 15 and 17 are cancelled.
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 Objections and Rejections
The previous objection to claim 14 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All other rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
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) 14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 104694978) in view of Cooper (“Advances and future prospects in copper electrowinning”, J. Applied Electrochemistry, 15, 1985, 789-805).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses electrowinning copper [0078] in an acidic copper sulfate solution [0004], [0055], [0059] (= a process of electrowinning copper from an acidic copper solution), wherein the process is performed in electrowinning cells comprising lead anodes [0062], [0126] and cathodes [0126] (= wherein the process is performed in electrowinning cells including a plurality of cathodes and lead-based anodes), wherein the solution comprises 51 g/L copper, 5000 g/L arsenic and 240 g/L bismuth [0126] (= wherein the solution comprises 37 to 60 g/L copper, more than 100 mg/L arsenic and more than 1 mg/L bismuth).
Wang differs from the instant claim in that Wang does not disclose the flow of electrolyte with gas sparging wherein the gas is air.
In the same or similar field of copper electrowinning, Cooper discloses improving mass transfer and higher current density operation through the use of air sparging (abstract). Cooper discloses that improved electrolyte agitation has been carried out with the use of air sparging to produce high quality cathode deposits with good current efficiency (page 790, left column, 3rd paragraph, pg. 791, right column, 2nd paragraph).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising air sparging because Cooper discloses that improvements in copper electrowinning are achievable with the use of air sparging. Cooper discloses that there are improvements in mass transfer and electrolyte agitation with the use of air sparging. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Wang with the air sparging of Cooper for improving the copper electrowinning product produced.
Regarding claim 18, Cooper discloses a sparging rate of 60 cm3 min-1 (Figure 7) or 500 cm3 min-1 (Figure 8). The ranges of Cooper are not presented as ‘normal’ (e.g. temperature varies from the standard), however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selection of a workable flow rate of the sparging gas would have been an obvious engineering design choice. For example to control the improvements in mass transfer and agitation, the flow rate would necessarily be adjusted through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses a current density of 180 A/m2 [0012], [0066]. Cooper discloses a current density including 25 mA/cm2 (250 A/m2, page 791, right column).
Claim(s) 14, 16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlain et al. (US 4,053,377) in view of Cooper (“Advances and future prospects in copper electrowinning”, J. Applied Electrochemistry, 15, 1985, 789-805).
Regarding claim 14, Schlain discloses a method of electrowinning copper (abstract) in an aqueous acidic solution of copper sulfate (Col. 2 lines 38-43) (= a process of electrowinning copper from an acidic copper solution), wherein the method is performed in a container (1) with a cathode (9) and anode (10) (see Figure, Col. 1 line 47 – Col. 2 line 5) (= wherein the process is performed in an electrowinning cell including a cathode and an anode), wherein the solution includes 47 g/L copper, 1.2 g/L arsenic and 0.032 g/L bismuth (Col. 2 lines 38-43) (= wherein the solution comprises 37 to 60 g/L copper, more than 100 mg/L arsenic and more than 1 mg/L bismuth). Schlain discloses the method for performing either electrowinning or electrorefining (abstract).
Schlain differs from the instant claim in that Schlain does not disclose the flow of electrolyte with gas sparging wherein the gas is air and wherein there are a plurality of electrowinning cells including a plurality of cathodes and a lead-based anode.
In the same or similar field of copper electrowinning, Cooper discloses improving mass transfer and higher current density operation through the use of air sparging (abstract). Cooper discloses that improved electrolyte agitation has been carried out with the use of air sparging to produce high quality cathode deposits with good current efficiency (page 790, left column, 3rd paragraph, pg. 791, right column, 2nd paragraph). Cooper discloses the use of lead anodes (page 793, right column, 4th paragraph). Cooper discloses the use of multiple cathodes (pg. 790, 4th paragraph) and multiple cells (abstract). Moreover, the mere duplication of parts has patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising air sparging because Cooper discloses that improvements in copper electrowinning are achievable with the use of air sparging. Cooper discloses that there are improvements in mass transfer and electrolyte agitation with the use of air sparging. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Schlain with the air sparging of Cooper for improving the copper electrowinning product produced.
Regarding claim 16, Schlain discloses the solution comprising 1.2 g/L arsenic and 0.032 g/L bismuth (Col. 2 lines 38-43).
Regarding claim 18, Cooper discloses a sparging rate of 60 cm3 min-1 (Figure 7) or 500 cm3 min-1 (Figure 8). The ranges of Cooper are not presented as ‘normal’ (e.g. temperature varies from the standard), however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selection of a workable flow rate of the sparging gas would have been an obvious engineering design choice. For example to control the improvements in mass transfer and agitation, the flow rate would necessarily be adjusted through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Cooper discloses a current density including 25 mA/cm2 (250 A/m2, page 791, right column). The current densities of Schlain fall within the claimed range (Table 1, e.g. 90 A/ft2 converts to 968 A/m2).
Regarding claims 20-21, the instant claim language is directed towards the resulting product produced from the claimed method (e.g. amount, ppm of As or Bi within the copper).
While Schlain in view of Cooper does not specifically address the claim limitation “copper having at most 15 ppm As” as applied to claim 20 and “copper having at most 3 ppm Bi” as applied to claim 21, this is considered to be an intrinsic property resulting from following the method steps taught by the reference(s), which are the same as those instantly claimed, absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlain et al. (US 4,053,377) in view of Cooper (“Advances and future prospects in copper electrowinning”, J. Applied Electrochemistry, 15, 1985, 789-805) and in further view of Janik (US 6,183,622).
Regarding claim 22, Schlain discloses the method comprising electrowinning or electrorefining (abstract) and the examples are performed in the electrolytic cell for electrorefining of copper, a process involving dissolution of an impure copper anode and electrodeposition of pure copper on the cathode (Col. 2 lines 13-23). Schlain discloses that the examples may also be employed for electrowinning copper from ores (= raw material) (Col. 3 lines 10-13).
Schlain does not disclose the dissolution in an aqueous sulfuric acid.
Janik discloses electrowinning copper whereby the baths are typically obtained from raw copper ores which are initially dissolved in a sulfuric acid solution (Col. 1 lines 38-55, Col. 3 lines 51-55). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising ores that have been dissolved with sulfuric acid.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising dissolution in a sulfuric acid solution because the composition of the solution of Schlain is similar to the composition of Janik therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the solution of Schlain to be carried out in sulfuric acid. Moreover, Janik discloses a similar method of dissolution and electrowinning of copper.
Regarding claims 23-24, Schlain in view of Cooper fails to disclose the claimed dissolution comprising a non-electrolytic dissolution (claim 23) and is silent in regards to using the same or different cell (claim 24).
Janik discloses electrowinning copper whereby the baths are typically obtained from raw copper ores which are initially dissolved in a sulfuric acid solution (Col. 1 lines 38-55, Col. 3 lines 51-55). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising ores that have been dissolved with sulfuric acid. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Schlain in view of Cooper by substituting the technique for obtaining the electrolyte for producing the same or similar predictable result of obtaining an electrowinning electrolyte. Dissolution of Janik is a non-electrolytic dissolution as applied to claim 23 and as described by Janik, this process takes place separately from the electrowinning cell (i.e. multiple steps involved, Col. 1 lines 38-55) as applied to claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January 2026 have been fully considered. The remarks are directed towards the previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn and therefore will not be specifically addressed at this time.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795