DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/10/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-8,10-13,16-20,22-35 and 38 is/are pending in this application, of which claims 16-20,22-35 and 38 are examined herein. Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are withdrawn. Claim(s) 16, 30, and 38 is/are amended. Claim(s) 21 and 36-37 is/are cancelled.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(a) to claim(s) 16-29, 31-32, and 36-37 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 36.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) to claim(s) 16-29, 31-32, and 36-37 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 16 and the cancellation of claims 36-37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 30 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 recites “providing a metallic feedstock into the metal-dissolving apparatus through a reactant distribution device” in lines 1-2. The instant specification discloses “reactant distribution device 170 for helping hydraulically force a uniform flow of metal-dissolving solution throughout the apparatus… ” at [0032] of the instant specification and “The metal-dissolving apparatus may further comprise a reactant distribution device disposed within the apparatus for receiving the solution and distributing the solution with substantially spatial uniformity throughout the reactor.” at [0033] of the instant specification, however the instant specification does not providing metallic feedstock into the metal-dissolving apparatus through a reactant distribution device, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 30 and 33-34 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 30 recites the limitation "providing a metallic feedstock into the metal-dissolving apparatus through a reactant distribution device” in lines 1-2 and “the reactant distribution device configured to more evenly distribute the metal-dissolving solution” in lines 6-7. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether metallic feedstock or metal-dissolving solution is what is provided through the reactant distribution device.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-17, 19, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Russell ‘277 (US 20070119277 A1, cited in Office Action dated 03/12/2026).
Regarding claim 16, Russell ‘277 teaches a metal-dissolving process (Abstract, [0001]), comprising providing crushed ore 106 comprising metal (i.e., a metallic feedstock) (Fig. 2, [0030]) into a mass flow reactor (i.e., a metal-dissolving apparatus) 110 (Fig. 2, [0032]). Russell ‘277 teaches providing a metal-dissolving solution 108 at an end of a metal-dissolving apparatus 110 via liquid entry points 152 (Fig. 2, [0045]), and flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 across the apparatus 110 from the end of the apparatus to an opposing end of the apparatus at liquid exit points 156 (together analogous to a reactant distribution device disposed within the apparatus) (Fig. 2, [0045, 0047]), where as the liquid entry and exit points are elevationally distributed (i.e., spaced regularly) ([0045, 0047]), where the entry and exit points are throttled to flow in unison [0045, 0047] the flow of metal-dissolving solution would be controlled to proceed primarily from each liquid entry point to the nearest liquid exit point (i.e., to more evenly distribute the solution and with spatial uniformity). Russell ‘277 teaches flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 comprises flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 from liquid entry ports 152 to liquid exit ports 156 (i.e., from one side of the apparatus to another) (Fig. 2, [0045-0047]), while the metallic feedstock in crushed ore 106 flows from solids entry point 150 towards solids exit point 154 (i.e., from top to bottom of the apparatus) (Fig. 2, [0044, 0046]), i.e., cross-current to a flow of the metallic feedstock on crushed ore 106. Russell ‘277 teaches dissolving the metal feedstock in crushed ore 106 into the metal-dissolving solution 108 [0023, 0030], and discharging the metal-dissolving solution 114 from the opposing end of the apparatus 110 (Fig. 2, [0047]).
Regarding claim 17, Russell ‘277 teaches wherein the process is a continuous process [0020].
Regarding claim 19, Russell ‘277 teaches wherein at least a portion of the metal-dissolving solution 148 is recirculated through the metal-dissolving apparatus 110 (Fig. 1, [0036]).
Regarding claim 32, Russell ‘277 teaches flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 comprises flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 from liquid entry ports 152 to liquid exit ports 156 (i.e., from one side of the apparatus to another) (Fig. 2, [0045-0047]), while the metallic feedstock in crushed ore 106 flows from solids entry point 150 towards solids exit point 154 (i.e., from top to bottom of the apparatus) (Fig. 2, [0044, 0046]), i.e., cross-current to a flow of the metallic feedstock on crushed ore 106.
Regarding claim 35, Russell ‘277 teaches wherein a remaining portion of the metal-dissolving solution 108 is a pregnant leach solution 114 that is provided downstream of the apparatus 110 to pregnant leach solution process 116 (Fig. 1, [0032, 0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell ‘277 as applied to claim 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) above, in view of Russell ‘927 et al. (US 20030223927 A1, cited in Office Action dated 08/16/2023).
Regarding claim 18, Russell ‘277 does not teach wherein the metal-dissolving solution is provided into the apparatus through a plurality of perforated pipes to more evenly distribute the solution across the apparatus
Russell ‘927 teaches an apparatus for processing mixtures of liquids and solids which can be used for leaching (i.e., dissolving metals from) ore [0040]; thus Russell ‘277 and Russell ‘927 are analogous as both are directed to leaching of metals into solutions. Russell teaches the metal-dissolving solution is fed using liquid supply headers 106 and 108 [0041], where liquid supply header 108 feeds solution via liquid supply conduits 122 (i.e., a plurality of pipes) from liquid outlet openings 123 (i.e., perforations) [0043-0044], Fig. 4-5). Russell ‘927 teaches the use of several liquid supply conduits 122 allows for a more equal pressure along the length of each conduit to be maintained, allowing a more equal distribution of liquid from the intermediate liquid supply header 108 along the length “L” of the vessel [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used liquid supply headers as taught by Russell ‘927 in the dissolver of Russell ‘277, as doing so would more equally distribute liquid, predictably improving the rate and extent of leaching of the metal in the process of Russell ‘277, improving utilization efficiency of the metal supplied and the amount of metal oxide product produced.
Regarding claim 20, Russell ‘277 teaches the metal-dissolving apparatus 110 may have different configurations [0049], but is silent to the dimensions of the metal-dissolving apparatus, and does not teach wherein the apparatus comprises a rectangular reactor having a shorter height relative to length.
Russell ‘927 teaches an apparatus for processing mixtures of liquids and solids which can be used for leaching (i.e., dissolving metals from) ore [0040]; thus, Russell ‘277 and Russell ‘927 are analogous as both are directed to leaching of metals into solutions. Russell ‘927 teaches a rectangular reactor (analogous to a metal-dissolving apparatus) [0055], where the length of the reactor may be 11.965 times the height of the reactor a shorter height relative to length) (Table 1).
Because Russell ‘277 is silent with respect to an appropriate size or shape of the metal-dissolving apparatus, in order to carry out the invention of one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a suitable for use within the process of Russell ‘277, such as using a rectangular metal-dissolving apparatus with a length 11.965 times the height as taught by Russell ‘927. As Russell ‘277 and Russell ‘927 both relate to apparatuses for dissolving metal into solutions, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the shape and relative dimensions of the metal-dissolving apparatus of Russell ‘927.
Regarding claim 22, Russell ‘277 teaches renewed lixiviant 148 (i.e., a second solution) is routed back to and combined with the supply or source of lixiviant 108 (a fresh metal-dissolving solution) [0036], which together comprise the metal-dissolving solution (i.e., a third solution). Russell ‘277 teaches the second solution 148 is produced from a pregnant leach solution process 116 which extracts and isolates the metals from the solution before outputting the second solution 148 [0036], which intrinsically results in the second solution having a concentration of dissolved metals therein that is less than a threshold amount as a result of the pregnant leach solution process. Russell ‘277 teaches providing the third solution at the end of the metal-dissolving apparatus (Fig. 2, [0045]).
Regarding claim 23, Russell ‘277 teaches the metal-dissolving solution may comprise a number of non-limiting examples or other compositions including aqueous ones (i.e., where the solution is water) [0023], therefore the renewed lixiviant 148 (analogous to a second solution) solution is initially water.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell ‘277 as applied to claim 22 under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) above, in view of Fierro et al. (US 20050123469 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Russell ‘277 teaches the metal-dissolving solution may be an aqueous solution [0023], but does not teach directing discharged metal-dissolving solution from the opposing end of the apparatus to a recirculation tank.
Fierro teaches a process for making nickel hydroxide (title), where nickel metal (i.e., metallic feedstock) is dissolved in a reactor column to form nickel sulfate (Abstract, [0015]), thus Fierro and Russell ‘277 are analogous as both are directed to processes of dissolving metal using metal-dissolving apparatuses. Fierro teaches directing a discharged metal-dissolving solution from an opposing end of a metal-dissolving apparatus 16 to a recirculation tank 10 (Fig. 1, [0036]). Fierro teaches the reaction of the metal-dissolving solution and the metallic feedstock produces water [0015], which is pumped to the recirculation tank 10 [0017, 0036], which would comprise providing water into the recirculation tank. Fierro teaches this embodiment allows any unreacted sulfuric acid (i.e., metal-dissolving solution) to continually flow through the system and eventually react with the metallic feedstock [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a recirculation tank to which the discharged metal-dissolving solution is directed to from the metal-dissolving apparatus as taught by Fierro to the process of Russell ‘277 as doing so would continually flow unreacted metal-dissolving solution through the system and eventually react it with metallic feedstock.
Further, as Fierro teaches precipitating metal from the solution in the recirculating tank (Fierro: [0032]), which is analogous to the pregnant leach solution process 116 of Russell ‘277, and would therefore leave a liquid stream analogous to the renewed lixiviant stream (i.e., the second solution) to be rerouted back to the metal-dissolving process, Russell ‘277 in view of Fierro suggests receiving the second solution from the recirculation tank.
Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell ‘277 as applied to claim 22 under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) above, in view of Burke (US 3652229 A, cited in Office Action dated 02/14/2025).
Regarding claim 25, Russell ‘277 teaches recirculating through the apparatus all of the second solution 148 for mixing with the fresh metal-dissolving solution to form the third solution 108 (Fig. 2, [0036]). Russell ‘277 does not teach recirculating until the discharged metal-dissolving solution contains the target threshold amount of dissolved metals therein to form a pregnant leach solution.
Burke teaches a metal-dissolving process (Abstract, Col. 4 lines 26-31), comprising providing a metallic copper (i.e., metallic feedstock) into a metal-dissolving apparatus 11 (Col. 6 lines 1-5), and providing a cupric-ammonia-carbonate solution (i.e., metal-dissolving solution) into an end 35 of a metal-dissolving apparatus 11 (Col. 6 lines 26-28), thus Burke and Russell ‘277 are analogous as both are directed to methods of dissolving metals into solutions. Burke teaches the metal-dissolving solution is recirculated (Col. 6 lines 34-38), and that the metal-dissolving solution is periodically checked, and when the desired concentration of metal is reached, recirculation of the solution is stopped (Col. 7 lines 15-19), and removed and transferred to a pregnant solution storage tank (i.e., recirculating until the discharged metal-dissolving solution contains the target threshold amount of dissolved metals therein to form a pregnant leach solution) (Col. 7 lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recirculated the discharged metal-dissolving solution until comprising a target threshold of dissolved metals to form a pregnant leach solution as taught by Burke in the process of Russell ‘277, as doing so would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to ensure sufficient metal has dissolved into the metal-dissolving solution to efficiently recover metal from as a pregnant leach solution.
Regarding claim 26, Burke teaches in response to the metal-dissolving solution forming the pregnant leach solution, removing the solution from a dissolver 11 (analogous to a metal-dissolving apparatus) (Col. 7 lines 15-19). As sources of CO2 and NH3 (analogous to fresh solution) 29/30 is only supplied to replenish ammonia and carbonate leaching agents in the solution (Col. 6 lines 22-25), but the solution is removed upon forming pregnant leach solution, receiving of fresh metal-dissolving solution would be ceased in response to the metal-dissolving solution forming the pregnant leach solution in the combination of Russell ‘277 and Burke.
Regarding claim 27, Russell ‘277 teaches providing pregnant leach solution 114 downstream of the apparatus 110 to pregnant leach solution process 116 (Fig. 1, [0035])
Regarding claim 28, Russell ‘277 does not teach wherein providing the pregnant leach solution 114 downstream of the apparatus 110 comprises providing the pregnant leach solution to a buffer tank.
Burke teaches wherein providing the pregnant leach solution downstream of the apparatus comprises providing the pregnant leach solution to pregnant solution storage tank 45 or 68 (i.e., a buffer tank) (Col. 7 lines 23-27, 55-58, 70-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pregnant leach solution to a buffer tank as taught by Burke, as doing so would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to allow storage of the pregnant leach solution.
Regarding claim 29, Burke teaches receiving into the metal-dissolving apparatus 11 water (as part of a leaching solution) from a second recirculation tank 10 (Col. 9 lines 1-2, Col. 10 lines 1-5) after all of the pregnant leach solution has been provided downstream (Col. 7 lines 23-28).
Claims 30, 33-34, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell ‘277 in view of Russell ‘927.
Regarding claim 30, Russell ‘277 teaches use of a metal-dissolving apparatus (Abstract, [0001]), comprising providing crushed ore 106 comprising metal (i.e., a metallic feedstock) (Fig. 2, [0030]) into a mass flow reactor (i.e., a metal-dissolving apparatus) 110 (Fig. 2, [0032]). Russell ‘277 teaches flowing all of a metal-dissolving solution 108 across the apparatus 110 from an liquid entry ports 152 (together analogous to a reactant distribution device within the apparatus) at an end of the apparatus to an opposing end of the apparatus at liquid exit points 156 (Fig. 2, [0045, 0047]), thus Russell ‘277 teaches providing a metallic feedstock into the metal-dissolving apparatus through a reactant distribution device as best can be examined in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) above. Russell ‘277 teaches the liquid entry and exit points are elevationally distributed (i.e., spaced regularly) ([0045, 0047]), where the entry and exit points are throttled to flow in unison [0045, 0047] the flow of metal-dissolving solution would be controlled to proceed primarily from each liquid entry point to the nearest liquid exit point (i.e., with spatial uniformity), and would more evenly distribute the solution to the opposing end of the apparatus. Russell ‘277 teaches dissolving the metallic feedstock in the crushed ore 106 into the metal-dissolving solution 108 [0023, 0030].
Russell ‘277 teaches the metal-dissolving apparatus 110 may have different configurations [0049], but is silent to the dimensions of the metal-dissolving apparatus, and does not teach wherein the apparatus has a shorter height relative to length.
Russell ‘927 teaches an apparatus for processing mixtures of liquids and solids which can be used for leaching (i.e., dissolving metals from) ore [0040]; thus, Russell ‘277 and Russell ‘927 are analogous as both are directed to leaching of metals into solutions. Russell ‘927 teaches a rectangular reactor (analogous to a metal-dissolving apparatus) [0055], where the length of the reactor may be 11.965 times the height of the reactor a shorter height relative to length) (Table 1), which would reduce the vertical gradients of metal dissolving conditions throughout the metal-dissolving apparatus.
Because Russell ‘277 is silent with respect to an appropriate size or shape of the metal-dissolving apparatus, in order to carry out the invention of one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a suitable for use within the process of Russell ‘277, such as using a metal-dissolving apparatus with a length 11.965 times the height as taught by Russell ‘927. As Russell ‘277 and Russell ‘927 both relate to apparatuses for dissolving metal into solutions, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the relative dimensions of the metal-dissolving apparatus of Russell ‘927.
Regarding claims 33-34, Russell ‘277 teaches flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 comprises flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 from liquid entry ports 152 to liquid exit ports 156 (i.e., from one end of the apparatus to the opposing end) (Fig. 2, [0045-0047]), while the metallic feedstock in crushed ore 106 flows from solids entry point 150 towards solids exit point 154 (i.e., from top to bottom of the apparatus) (Fig. 2, [0044, 0046]), and thus teaches flowing the metal-dissolving solution cross-current to a flow of the metallic feedstock on crushed ore 106.
Regarding claim 38, Russell ‘277 teaches use of a metal-dissolving apparatus (Abstract, [0001]), comprising providing crushed ore 106 comprising metal (i.e., a metallic feedstock) (Fig. 2, [0030]) into a mass flow reactor (i.e., a metal-dissolving apparatus) 110 (Fig. 2, [0032]). Russell ‘277 teaches providing a metal-dissolving solution 108 at an end of the metal-dissolving apparatus comprises providing the metal-dissolving solution into multiple liquid entry points 152 (together analogous to a reactant distribution device within the apparatus at the end) (Fig. 2, [0045]), which are elevationally distributed within the apparatus 110 and are throttled to flow in unison with each other (Fig. 2, [0045]), which would more evenly distribute the solution to an opposing end of the apparatus. Russell ‘277 teaches flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 across the apparatus 110 from the reactant distribution device 152 at the end of the apparatus to an opposing end of the apparatus at liquid exit points 156 (Fig. 2, [0045, 0047]). Russell ‘277 teaches flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 comprises flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution 108 from liquid entry ports 152 to liquid exit ports 156 (i.e., from one side of the apparatus to another) (Fig. 2, [0045-0047]), while the metallic feedstock in crushed ore 106 flows from solids entry point 150 towards solids exit point 154 (i.e., from top to bottom of the apparatus) (Fig. 2, [0044, 0046]), i.e., cross-current to a flow of the metallic feedstock on crushed ore 106. Russell ‘277 teaches dissolving the metallic feedstock in the crushed ore 106 into the metal-dissolving solution 108 [0023, 0030], and discharging the metal-dissolving solution 114 from the opposing end of the apparatus 110 (Fig. 2, [0047]).
Russell ‘277 teaches the metal-dissolving apparatus 110 may have different configurations [0049], but is silent to the dimensions of the metal-dissolving apparatus, and does not teach the apparatus comprising a length which is greater than its height.
Russell ‘927 teaches an apparatus for processing mixtures of liquids and solids which can be used for leaching (i.e., dissolving metals from) ore [0040]; thus, Russell ‘277 and Russell ‘927 are analogous as both are directed to leaching of metals into solutions. Russell ‘927 teaches a rectangular reactor (analogous to a metal-dissolving apparatus) [0055], where the length of the reactor may be 11.965 times the height of the reactor a shorter height relative to length) (Table 1), which would reduce the vertical gradients of metal-dissolving conditions throughout the metal-dissolving apparatus.
Because Russell ‘277 is silent with respect to an appropriate size or shape of the metal-dissolving apparatus, in order to carry out the invention of one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a suitable for use within the process of Russell ‘277, such as using a metal-dissolving apparatus with a length 11.965 times the height as taught by Russell ‘927. As Russell ‘277 and Russell ‘927 both relate to apparatuses for dissolving metal into solutions, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the relative dimensions of the metal-dissolving apparatus of Russell ‘927.
Claims 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell ‘277 as applied to claim 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) above, further in view of Xinhai Mineral Processing EPC (“Three Common Leaching Processes”, supplied with Office Action dated 07/24/2025).
Regarding claim 31, Russell ‘277 does not teach flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution through the apparatus from the end to the opposing end of the metal-dissolving apparatus comprises flowing the metal-dissolving solution so as to be one of countercurrent to the flow of the metallic feedstock
Xinhai teaches that in cross-current leaching cross-current leaching processes have a fast leaching speed, and the leaching string is higher, but that the volume of the leaching solution is large, the concentration of the residual reagent in the leaching solution is higher, thus the reagent consumption is high, and the content of the target components in the leaching solution is low (02: Cross-current leaching process). Xinhai teaches that countercurrent leaching processes can obtain a leaching solution with a higher content of the target component and make full use of residual reagent in the leaching solution, therefore, the consumption of the leaching agent is lower. However, the leaching velocity is lower than the cross-current leaching process, so more leaching stages are needed to obtain a higher leaching rate.
It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Russell ‘277 only differs from claim 31 in that the instant claim uses countercurrent leaching, while Russell ‘277 teaches cross-current leaching, and Xinhai teaches cross-current and countercurrent leaching to comprise suitable movement directions of leaching reagent relative to leaching material during material leaching (Xinhai: paragraph 1), a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have substituted countercurrent flow leaching as taught by Xinhai as the flow of metal-dissolving solution in the method of Russell ‘277 depending on the advantages desired and disadvantages that can be tolerated by the skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Russell ‘277 does not teach a reaction distribution device (see pg. 10-11 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims only require that the reactant distribution device provide the solution such that it is “more evenly distributed”, without prescribing e.g., a certain degree of even distribution. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Russell ‘277’s teaching of providing the metal-dissolving solution 108 at the end of the metal-dissolving apparatus comprises providing the metal-dissolving solution into multiple liquid entry points 152 which are elevationally distributed within the apparatus 110 which are throttled to flow in unison with each other, the throttling to flow in unison of Russell ‘277 is considered sufficient to be “more evenly distributed” than e.g., a method where no such throttling occurs.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Russell ‘277 does not teach any reaction distribution device disposed within the apparatus (see pg. 10-11 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the instant claims limits the physical bounds of the apparatus of the instant application such as e.g., requiring that the “apparatus” only includes components within a tank. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the entire apparatus of Russell ‘277 is intrinsically “within the apparatus”.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Russell ‘277 has not been modified to read upon the presently claimed reactant distribution device, but instead already teaches such a device without modification, as noted above.
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 Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights