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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2018/0161783).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method comprising a slurrying step of adding water to a mixture of ore to form a slurry and a flotation step of adding a flotation reagent containing a collector, wherein the collector is ethyl octyl sulfide, which has the formula claimed (claims 1 and 9, [0011], and [0068]). Lie also teaches that the ore can be a mixture of a copper mineral (arsenic free copper mineral) and enargite (arsenic containing copper mineral) ([0048]).
It is noted that it could be argued that the generic copper mineral listed in Liu [0048] does not lead to anticipation of arsenic free copper minerals. It is Examiner’s position that one skilled in the art would immediately recognize that some of the most common copper minerals on earth are listed as the same arsenic free copper minerals recited by Applicant (see [0018] and claim 6). As such, one skilled in the art would have found the generic copper minerals in Liu to anticipate the listed arsenic free copper minerals, or it would have been obvious to include the listed arsenic free copper minerals as part of the generic copper minerals in Liu as the listed copper minerals are well known and common copper minerals.
It is also noted that the two types of copper minerals listed are part of a list that could be part of an ore mixture and one could argue that Liu fails to teach the combination claimed with sufficient specificity to warrant an anticipation rejection. However, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to apply the method to the ore mixture as claimed as it is merely a combination of known copper based ore minerals which are taught to be treated via the Liu method with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches that R1 is a linear alkyl group (octyl).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches that R2 is an ethyl group.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches that the process can include a pH adjustment step via pH adjusting reagents ([0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches that the process is applied to enargite ([0048]).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, one skilled in the art would immediately understand that examples the copper mineral in Liu would include common copper minerals, such as chalcopyrite, bornite, covellite, and chalcocite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights