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 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-38 are pending in this application, of which claims 16-38 are examined herein. Claims 1-15 are withdrawn. Claims 16, 21-24, and 30-34 are amended. Claims 36-38 are new.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) to claims 16-35 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 16 and 30.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 16-29, 31-32, and 35 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 16, 22, and 23.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30: “reduce the” in line 7 should read “reduce the”, removing the additional space between the words
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-29, 31-32, and 36-37 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 16 recites “wherein the height of the metal-dissolving apparatus results in the metal-dissolving solution flowing through the metal-dissolving apparatus under a low hydrostatic load” in lines 8-10. The instant specification discloses “The size and shape of the apparatus, wherein the apparatus has a height that is less than its length, may result in the relatively low hydrostatic load, and may allow the metal-dissolving conditions to be maintained substantially uniformly across the length and height of the apparatus, due to lower vertical gradients.” (instant specification [0055]), thus the instant specification discloses other factors of size and shape, which include considerations beyond a height that is less than a length of the apparatus (e.g., the reactor being rectangular vs. a cube vs. cylindrical; the width of the apparatus, the relationship between the width and the height and/or length) which altogether only may result in a relatively low hydrostatic load. Therefore, the instant specification does not unambiguously disclose that the height of the metal-dissolving apparatus alone to be responsible for metal-dissolving solution flowing through the apparatus under low hydrostatic load, 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 16-29, 31-32, and 35-37 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.
The term “low hydrostatic load” in claim 16, line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The instant specification discloses that the metal-dissolving solution may be flowed under relatively low static load, and wherein the height of the apparatus being less than its length may result in the relatively low hydrostatic load (instant specification: [0055]), neither statement defines what degree of hydrostatic load would be considered “low”, and while the instant specification suggests that the height being less than its length may result in relatively low hydrostatic load, the instant specification does not unambiguously define “low hydrostatic load” as the result of such a relationship of height to length. Therefore, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, and therefore would not be able to distinguish a process within the scope of the claim from one outside that scope.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the metal-dissolving apparatus comprising the length and the height with dimensions" in lines 1-2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear where the further limitation set out by the claim begins. If the Applicant’s intent is to further limit the process of claim 16 so that the length and height of the metal-dissolving apparatus are such that the apparatus may fit in a standard shipping container, the Examiner recommends amending claim 36 to read:
“The metal-dissolving process of claim 16, wherein the metal-dissolving apparatus further comprises the length and height having dimensions …”
Claim 36 recites the limitation "dimensions so that it may fit within a standard shipping container" in lines 2--3. While at paragraph [0028] the instant specification discloses “Generally, shipping containers have dimensions of about 4 meters in height, by 5 meters in width, by 12 meters in length”, the phrase “dimensions so that it may fit within a standard shipping container” is not explicitly defined by the instant specification, nor does the term have a unitary established meaning in the art (as there are multiple sizes of shipping container in widespread use, such as 10’, 20’, and 40’ long containers), thus the term is interpreted according to its plain meaning, however “dimensions so that it may fit within a standard shipping container” is ambiguous as it is unclear what specific dimensions the apparatus must be within to fit in the ”standard shipping container” as envisaged by applicant.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the length and the height… are less than 12 meters and 4 meters" in lines 1-2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if “less than” refers to both the 12 meter and 4 meter measurements, or only to the 12 meter measurement (i.e., is the height of the apparatus 4 meters or less than 4 meters).
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Claims 16-17, 19, 21, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Russell ‘277 (US 20070119277 A1).
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 (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., with spatial uniformity). Russell ‘277 teaches the apparatus 110 defines a maximum possible depth of liquid therein, which establishes a predetermined hydrostatic head gradient (i.e., the height of the metal-dissolving apparatus results in metal-dissolving solution flowing through the metal-dissolving apparatus under a hydrostatic load) [0049]. Russell ‘277 teaches in one example that a hydrostatic head in excess of 65’ of liquid is used, but that depending on the configuration of apparatus 110, the apparatus uses other magnitudes of hydrostatic head [0049], which would intrinsically include magnitudes lower than others (i.e., under a low hydrostatic load). 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 21, Russell ‘277 teaches 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 (together analogous to a reactant distribution device within the apparatus) (Fig. 2, [0045]), which are elevationally distributed within the apparatus 110 which are throttled to flow in unison with each other (Fig. 2, [0045]), which would more evenly distribute the solution to the opposing end of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 32, Russell ‘277 teaches in one example that a hydrostatic head in excess of 65’ of liquid is used, but that depending on the configuration of apparatus 110, the apparatus uses other magnitudes of hydrostatic head [0049], which would intrinsically include magnitudes lower than others (i.e., under a low hydrostatic load). 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 at an end of the apparatus to an opposing end of the apparatus at liquid exit points 156 (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., with spatial uniformity). 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) (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 the 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.
Claims 36-37 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).
Regarding claims 36-37, Russell ‘277 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Russell ‘277 teaches the metal-dissolving apparatus 110 may have different configurations [0049], but does not teach wherein the metal-dissolving apparatus comprising the length and the height with dimensions so that it may fit within a standard shipping container, or wherein the length and the height of the metal-dissolving apparatus are less than 12 meters and 4 meters, respectively.
It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to make changes in the shape of a device and that the recitation of relative dimensions of a claimed device does not comprise a patentable distinction. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). As in the instant case, Russell ‘277 only differs from claims 36 and 37 in that the instant claims recite the metal-dissolving apparatus is sized to fit within a standard shipping container or wherein the length and height are less than 12 and less than 4 meters respectively, while Russell ‘277 discloses that the metal-dissolving apparatus may have various sizes, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have the modified the size of the apparatus to fit within a standard shipping container or have a length and height within the claimed ranges, as the changes would not result in a different performance of the instantly claimed apparatus from the prior art device, as best can be examined in view of the rejections of claims 36 and 37 under 35 USC 112(b) above.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that Burke in view of Russell ‘927 does not teach the height of the metal-dissolving apparatus causing the metal-dissolving solution to flow under low hydrostatic load, flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution with spatial uniformity from an end of the apparatus to an opposing end, and flowing all of the metal-dissolving solution cross-current or counter-current to flow of the metallic feedstock, the Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection of claims 16-35 over Burke in view of Russell ‘927 alone or further in view of additional art are withdrawn. The Examiner notes that these claims are now rejected under a new ground of rejection as necessitated by amendment as anticipated or unpatentable over Russell ‘277 alone and/or in view of additional art, and applicant’s arguments are now moot with regard to Burke in view of Russell ‘927 as applied in the previous office action.
Conclusion
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