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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11-12 are currently pending
Claims 3 and 8-10 are currently canceled
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11-12 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/07/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-9 and 11-12 (currently claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11-12) in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “of these processes,” and instead should state “of these hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical processes,” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 4 states “in the nano and” and instead should state “in the nanobubble state and” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The aqueous composition” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The aqueous composition” to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “of saponin” and instead should state “of the saponin” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The aqueous composition” to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 2 states “from the groups:” and instead should state “from groups:” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The aqueous composition” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The aqueous composition” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state “the composition is applied to the processes” and instead should state “the aqueous composition is applied to processes” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The aqueous composition” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the efficiency in the hydro-metallurigcal” on line 1, and “the nano…wherein the size of the nanobubbles” on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the concentration” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 4 recites the limitation “according to claim 3,”. A claim cannot depend on a canceled claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the composition” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the metal” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh et al. (U.S. 4,045,084) (hereinafter “Hsueh”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Hsueh teaches an aqueous composition (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition) comprising:
water (aqueous leach liquor phase), saponin (Examiner’s note: Examiner is broadly interpreting ‘saponin’ to include soap-like surfactants) and one or more gases that are adjuvants of these processes (oxygen) (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition comprising an aqueous leach liquor phase (water), a multiplicity of oxygen containing bubbles, and a surfactant), aggregates in the nano and microbubble state (see col. 2 lines 48-61), wherein the size of the nanobubbles comprises a range of between 1 nm and 1 µm (see col. 2 lines 60-61) (see col. 4 lines 2-3).
Although Hsueh teaches an aqueous composition, one may broadly interpret that Hsueh does not explicitly teach an aqueous composition that increases an efficiency in a hydro-metallurgical and pyrometallurgical processes of metal extraction, as recited in amended, independent claim 1. However, this claim limitation is a product-by-process limitation of an aqueous composition and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the aqueous composition of Hsueh to be capable of increasing an efficiency in a hydro-metallurgical and pyrometallurgical processes of metal extraction for optimization purposes (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition).
Regarding Claim 2:
Hsueh teaches the aqueous composition according to claim 1, wherein the water can be drinking water, industrial water, sea water, a leaching solution or a mixture of the above (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition comprising an aqueous leach liquor phase (water), a multiplicity of oxygen containing bubbles, and a surfactant).
Regarding Claim 4:
Hsueh teaches the aqueous composition according to claim 3, wherein a concentration of the saponin comprises a range of between 0.1 ppm and 30 ppm (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition comprising an aqueous leach liquor phase (water), a multiplicity of oxygen containing bubbles, and a surfactant) (see col. 5 line 65 through col. 6 line 4).
Regarding Claim 5:
Hsueh teaches the aqueous composition according to claim 1, wherein a composition optionally comprises a surface-active agent which can be from the groups: hydrocarbonates (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition comprising an aqueous leach liquor phase (water), a multiplicity of oxygen containing bubbles, and a surfactant) (see col. 5 line 65 through col. 6 line 4) (see col. 3 lines 4-14) (see col. 6 lines 46-54).
Regarding Claim 6:
Hsueh teaches the aqueous composition according to claim 1, wherein said adjuvant gases are selected from the group consisting of: oxygen, ozone, air, nitrogen dioxide, argon, nitrogen, helium, carbon dioxide and mixtures thereof (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition comprising an aqueous leach liquor phase (water), a multiplicity of oxygen containing bubbles, and a surfactant).
Regarding Claim 7:
Hsueh teaches the aqueous composition according to claim 1, wherein the size of the nanobubbles is 100 nm (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition comprising an aqueous leach liquor phase (water), a multiplicity of oxygen containing bubbles, and a surfactant) (see col. 5 line 65 through col. 6 line 4).
Regarding Claim 11:
Hsueh teaches the aqueous composition according to claim 1, wherein the aqueous composition is applied to processes of: mineral flotation, leaching of concentrates, flotation of clay minerals, leaching of arsenic minerals, leaching of metal powders, agitated leaching of minerals, electrorefining, agglomeration, leaching in piles and solvent extraction (see col. 2 lines 48-61 further describing a stable, two-phase lixiviant composition comprising an aqueous leach liquor phase (water), a multiplicity of oxygen containing bubbles, and a surfactant).
Regarding Claim 12:
Hsueh teaches the aqueous composition according to claim 1, wherein a metal is copper, zinc, gold, uranium, silver or nickel (see col. 3 lines 33-35).
Other Reference Considered
Hard et al. (U.S. 3,708,206) (hereinafter “Hard”) teaches a process for leaching base elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773