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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and the species selections in the reply filed on 3/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 80, 82, 88, 103, 108, and 110 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/19/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 9/5/2025 and 12/18/2024 have been considered. The examiner notes, however, that the cloaking of a clearly relevant reference by inclusion in a long list of citations may not comply with the Applicant's duty of disclosure. See MPEP § 2004. Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Fla. 1972) (accord with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), stating that forcing the Examiner to find a needle in a haystack is probative of bad faith.). Applicant is requested to point out any particular reference in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9, and 60 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1: amend “the stabilizer” to “the water-miscible stabilizer”
Claim 9, line 1: amend “the stabilizer” to “the water-miscible stabilizer”
Claim 60, line 5: amend “an water” to “a water”
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 9-10, 13, 16, 20, 26, 31, 45, 57, 61, 66, 77, 115, 121, 140, 150, 163, 175, and 178 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.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 16, 20, 26, 45, 57, 61, 77, 115, 121, 140, 163, 175, and 178 all include both broad and narrow ranges. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 31, 66, and 150 recites the limitation "a substance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the substance comprising copper and/or silver is the same as or different from the substance comprising coinage metal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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 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.
Claims 1, 10, 16, 26, 31, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN104263938A (hereinafter “CN938”). The Examiner previously provided a machine translation of CN104263938A.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 16, 26, and 31, CN938 teaches a reagent for recovering rare/inert metals from bottom electroplated copper/nickel materials (CN938, [0002]). CN938 teaches the reagent comprises an inorganic acid, a complexing agent, an oxidizing agent, and water (CN938, [0007]). CN938 further teaches the inorganic acid can be hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid, the oxidant can be potassium permanganate, ferric sulfate, ferric chloride, hydrogen peroxide, or manganese dioxide, and the complexing agent is one or a mixture of tartaric acid, citric acid, lactic acid, malic acid, glycolic acid, and gluconic acid (CN938, 0008-0010]). Moreover, CN938 teaches the rare/inert metal is gold, silver, platinum, or palladium (CN938, [0011]). CN938 further teaches the temperature of the solution is heated to 710°C and the waste circuit boars are allowed to stand and soak in the removal solution for 4 hours (CN938, [0017]).
The recovery method of CN938 corresponds to a method of leaching coinage metal from a substance comprising coinage metal of claim 1. The recovery of silver of CN938 corresponds to the coinage metal of claim 1 and the substance comprising copper and/or silver of claim 31. Leaching the rare/inert metals using the reagent of CN938 corresponds to contacting the substance with an aqueous leach solution of claim 1. The H2SO4 of CN938 corresponds to (a) a leaching acid of claim 1 and wherein the leaching acid is H2SO4 of claim 10. The hydrogen peroxide oxidizing agent of CN938 corresponds to (b) an oxidizing agent of claim 1 and wherein the oxidizing agent is H2O2 of claim 16. The complexing agent of CN938 corresponds to (c) a water-miscible stabilizer of claim 1. Leaching at a temperature of 70°C for 4 hours of CN938 corresponds to under conditions to leach the coinage metal from the substance of claim 1 and wherein the conditions to leach the coinage metal from the substance comprises a temperature of 20-80°C and a time of 0.5-6 hours of claim 26.
Regarding claims 36 and 38, CN938 teaches Example 5 in which silver is recovered from a silver-plated jewelry and a nickel-containing filtrate is also obtained, i.e., a base metal (CN938, [0025]). The specific recovery of silver from jewelry of CN938 corresponds to wherein the substance comprising copper and/or silver further comprises; gold, palladium, rhodium, and/or platinum, and the method selectively dissolves the copper and/or silver from the substance; and/or base metals and/or ferrous metals, and the method leaches base metals and/or ferrous metals from the substance of claim 36. The recovery of silver of CN938 corresponds to wherein the leached coinage metal is copper, silver, or copper and silver of claim 38.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 13, 16, 20, 23-24, 26, 30-31, 36, 38, 60-61, 66, 71, 74, and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US 2018/0112289 A1, hereinafter “Foley”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 26, 31, 60, and 66, Foley teaches methods for leaching and extraction of precious metals by contacting the substance containing the precious metals with an acid, an oxidizing agent, and a water-miscible organic solvent (Foley, Abstract, and [0031-0034]). Foley further teaches the invention is geared toward recovering gold, palladium, and/or platinum, however, Foley also teaches that silver and copper belong in the same group as gold and are also present in ores (Foley, [0002-0003]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also recover silver and/or copper using the method of Foley as they are in the same group as gold.
Foley further teaches the acid in the mixture is selected from HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, H3PO4, and HI, the oxidizing agent is selected from H2O2, Cl2, Br2, I2, Ca(ClO)2, HNO3, MnO2, KMnO4, and K2Cr2O7, preferably H2O2, and the water-miscible organic solvent is selected from acetic acid, ethyl acetate, and acetonitrile (Foley, [0036-0039]). Foley also teaches the leaching occurs for 0.1 minute to about 4 hours and at a temperature of about 10-80°C (Foley, [0183]).
The method of Foley corresponds to a method of leaching coinage metal from a substance comprising coinage metal of claims 1 and 60. The recovery of silver and/or copper of Foley corresponds to the coinage metal of claims 1 and 60 and the substance comprising copper and/or silver of claim 31 and 66. Leaching precious metals using the leaching solution of Foley corresponds to contacting the substance with an aqueous leach solution of claim 1.
The H2SO4 of Foley corresponds to (a) a leaching acid of claim 1, (a) H2SO4 as a leaching acid of claim 60, and wherein the leaching acid is H2SO4 of claim 10. The hydrogen peroxide oxidizing agent of Foley corresponds to (b) an oxidizing agent of claim 1, (b) H2O2 as an oxidizing agent of claim 60, and wherein the oxidizing agent is H2O2 of claim 16. The acetic acid as a water-miscible organic solvent of Foley corresponds to (c) a water-miscible stabilizer of claim 1, (c) acetic acid as an water-miscible stabilizer of claim 60, and acetic acid, carboxylates thereof, or a combination thereof of claim 3.
Leaching at a temperature of 10-80°C for 0.1 min to 4 hours of Foley corresponds to under conditions to leach the coinage metal from the substance of claim 1, under ambient temperatures and/or pressures to leach the coinage metal from the substance of claim 60, and wherein the conditions to leach the coinage metal from the substance comprises a temperature of 20-80°C and a time of 0.5-6 hours of claim 26.
Regarding claim 9 and the amount of the stabilizer in the leach solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an amount of <50% (vol/vol) in Foley due to routine optimization of the sponge titanium.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13 and 61, Foley teaches the concentration of the acid can be any suitable concentration, including 0.01-4 M (foley, [0184]). The range of Foley falls within the range of claim 13 and claim 61.
Regarding claim 20, Foley teaches the oxidizing agent, when H2O2 has a concentration of about 0.01-1.0 M (Foley, [0185]). While Foley teaches the concentration in molarity, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the (vol/vol)% based on the molarity. Therefore, the range of Foley overlaps with the range of claim 20. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fe. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 23, 24, and 71, Foley teaches the method further includes separating the water-miscible organic solvent containing the leached metal from insoluble impurities and evaporating the water-miscible organic solvent from the leached metal (Foley, [0115-0117]). Foley also teaches the separating can be by electrowinning or reduction (Foley, [0180-0182]). The separation of the metal from the insoluble impurities of Foley corresponds to separating the leach solution containing the leached coinage metal from insoluble impurities of claims 23 and 71. The separating by electrowinning or reduction of Foley corresponds to treating the leached coinage metal in the leach solution under conditions to obtain the coinage metal and separating the coinage metal from the leach solution of claims 23 and 71 and wherein treating the leached coinage metal in the leach solution under conditions to obtain the coinage metal comprises reduction, electrowinning, ion exchange, metal-salt precipitation, or a combination thereof of claim 24.
Regarding claim 30, Foley teaches the method comprises crushing and/or grinding the substance into particles prior to contacting with the mixture, where the size if less than or equal to about 75 microns (Foley, [0194]). The grinding to a size of less than 75 microns of Foley corresponds to grinding the substance into particles having a size of ≤ 250 microns of claim 30.
Regarding claim 36, 38, and 74, Foley teaches the gold-containing substance is selected from ore, anode slime, a PGM concentrate, electronic scrap, and jewelry scrap and also comprises iron, copper, cobalt, nickel, or silver (Foley, [0003], [0188] and [0190]). The substance of Foley and the possible recovery of silver corresponds to wherein the substance comprising copper and/or silver further comprises; gold, palladium, rhodium, and/or platinum, and the method selectively dissolves the copper and/or silver from the substance; and/or base metals and/or ferrous metals, and the method leaches base metals and/or ferrous metals from the substance of claim 36. The recovery of silver of Foley corresponds to wherein the leached coinage metal is copper, silver, or copper and silver of claim 38 and 74.
Regarding claim 77, Foley teaches that gold can be leached up to 100% (Foley, Tables 1-8). The leaching rates of Foley fall within the leaching yield of the coinage metal is >65% of claim 77.
Claims 41, 43, 45, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fountain et al. (US 6319389 B1, hereinafter “Fountain”).
Regarding claims 41, 43, 45, and 57, while Foley teaches the use of an oxidizing agent in the leaching of metals (Foley, [0031-0034]), Foley does not explicitly disclose regenerating the oxidizing agent or the process associated with regeneration.
With respect to the difference, Fountain teaches a method of recovering metals from copper ores including leaching the ore with a ferric sulfate lixiviant to generate a copper pregnant leach solution while the ferric sulfate is reduced to ferrous sulfate (Fountain, Column 5, lines 25-67). Fountain further teaches a step of oxidizing the ferrous sulfate produced in the previous steps to ferric sulfate in a separate ferric sulfate regeneration step using sulfuric acid and oxygen at temperatures of 50-80°C and pressures of 3-10 atm and reusing the regenerated ferric sulfate in the leaching step (Fountain, Column 5, lines 62-67).
As Fountain expressly teaches the process is used to facilitate material handling and reduce capital and operating costs (Fountain, Column 4, lines 48-54).
Foley and Fountain are analogous art as they are both directed to recovering metals from ore substances (Foley, Abstract; Fountain, Abstract).
In light of the motivation to perform the oxidizing agent regeneration as taught in Fountain above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regenerate the oxidizing agent in Foley in order to reuse the oxidizing agent and to reduce capital and operating costs (Fountain, Column 4, lines 48-54), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The regeneration of the ferrous sulfate of Foley in view of Fountain corresponds to regenerating the oxidizing agent of claim 41. Reducing the ferric sulfate to ferrous sulfate and then oxidizing the ferrous sulfate with sulfuric acid and oxygen of Fountain corresponds to wherein the oxidizing agent is at least partially reduced and regenerating the oxidizing agent comprises contacting the at least partially reduced oxidizing agent with an aqueous oxidizing solution comprising:(a) an oxidant; (b) an acid; and (c) optionally a water-miscible stabilizer; under conditions to oxidize the at least partially reduced oxidizing agent to regenerate the oxidizing agent of claim 43.
The acid being sulfuric acid of Fountain corresponds to the acid is H2SO 4 of claim 45. The temperature used during the oxidizing step of Fountain falls within wherein the conditions comprise; contacting the at least partially reduced oxidizing agent with the aqueous oxidizing solution at ambient temperature and at a temperature between about 20-80°C of claim 57.
Claims 113, 115, 121, 135, 138, 140, 148, 150, 155, 157, and 178 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US 2018/0112289 A1, hereinafter “Foley”) in view of Crush et al. (US 2020/0263275 A1, hereinafter “Crush”).
Regarding claims 113, 115, 140, 150, and 157, Foley teaches methods for leaching and extraction of precious metals by contacting the substance containing the precious metals with an acid, an oxidizing agent, and a water-miscible organic solvent (Foley, Abstract, and [0031-0034]). Foley further teaches the invention is geared toward recovering gold, palladium, and/or platinum, however, Foley also teaches that silver and copper belong in the same group as gold and are also present in ores (Foley, [0002-0003]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also recover silver and/or copper using the method of Foley as they are in the same group as gold.
Foley further teaches the acid in the mixture is selected from HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, H3PO4, and HI, the oxidizing agent is selected from H2O2, Cl2, Br2, I2, Ca(ClO)2, HNO3, MnO2, KMnO4, and K2Cr2O7, preferably H2O2, and the water-miscible organic solvent is selected from acetic acid, ethyl acetate, and acetonitrile (Foley, [0036-0039]). Foley also teaches the leaching occurs for 0.1 minute to about 4 hours and at a temperature of about 10-80°C (Foley, [0183]).
However, Foley does not explicitly disclose a first and second aqueous leach solution to leach a first and second coinage metal from the substance.
With respect to the difference, Crush teaches a method for recovering precious metals from electron waste including a pre-processing step in which grinding and a base metal leach step can be included in the pre-processing and are followed by a dissolution step comprising contacting the pre-processed e-waste with a lixiviant such that at least a portion of the target metal(s) dissolve into the lixiviant to produce a pregnant leach solution (Crush, [0010-0027]). Crush also teaches target metals and non-target materials are substantially selectively dissolved by the lixiviant, where the lixiviant can include acetic acid (Crush, [0040] and [0042]). Crush further teaches in the base metal leach, the e-waste is treated with a leaching agent comprising sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide and a lixiviant (Crush, [0171]). Crush teaches the base metal include copper, zinc, aluminum, iron, and tin (Crush, [0159]).
As Crush expressly teaches the base metal leach reduces the volume of material to be processed in the target metal recovery step, removes a certain fraction of materials that may interfere with the precious metal recovery or reduce the efficiency of the target metal lixiviant, and enables selective capture of certain valuable fractions (Crush, [0142]).
Foley and Crush are analogous art as they are both drawn to recovering a target metal through leaching (Foley, Abstract; Crush, Abstract).
In light of the motivation to perform a base metal leach prior to a target metal leach as taught in Crush above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the base metal leach prior to leaching the precious metals in Foley in order to reduce the volume of material to be processed in the target metal recovery step, remove a certain fraction of materials that may interfere with the precious metal recovery or reduce the efficiency of the target metal lixiviant, and enable selective capture of certain valuable fractions (Crush, [0142]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The method of Foley in view of Crush corresponds to a method of leaching coinage metal from a substance comprising coinage metal of claim 113. The recovery of copper and the precious metals of Foley in view of Crush corresponds to the coinage metal, the first coinage metal and the second coinage metal of claim 113, the substance comprising copper and/or silver of claim 150, and wherein the first leached coinage metal is copper of claim 157. Leaching precious metals and base metals using the leaching solutions of Foley in view of Crush corresponds to contacting the substance with a first aqueous leach solution and a second aqueous leach solution of claim 113.
The H2SO4 of Foley in view of Crush corresponds to (a) a first and second leaching acid of claim 113 and a) the first leaching acid and/or the second leaching acid is an acid having a first pKa ≤ 1, H2SO4 of claim 115.
The hydrogen peroxide oxidizing agent of Foley in view of Crush corresponds to (b) a first and second oxidizing agent of claim 113 and (b) the first oxidizing agent and/or the second oxidizing agent has a standard reduction potential of >0.6V and is H2O2 of claim 115.
The acetic acid as a water-miscible organic solvent/lixiviant of Foley in view of Crush corresponds to (c) a first and second water-miscible stabilizer of claim 113 and (c) the first stabilizer and/or the second stabilizer is a water-miscible carboxylic acid having a first pKa >31 and acetic acid, carboxylates thereof, or a combination thereof of claim 115.
Leaching at a temperature of 10-80°C for 0.1 min to 4 hours of Foley corresponds to under conditions to leach a second coinage metal from the substance of claim 113 and the conditions of claim 140 regarding leaching the second coinage metal. Moreover, while Foley in view of Crush do not explicitly disclose the leaching conditions for the first coinage metal, i.e., copper, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine leaching at room temperature and at atmospheric pressure for cost saving purposes. Therefore, the limitations of claim 113 are taught by Foley in view of Crush.
Regarding claim 121, Foley teaches the concentration of the acid can be any suitable concentration, including 0.01-4 M (foley, [0184]). The range of Foley falls within the range of claim 121. Moreover, the use of “and/or” after the limitations directed to the first oxidizing agent allow for all other limitations to be optional. Therefore, claim 121 is satisfied by meeting only the limitation regarding the concentration of the second leaching acid.
Regarding claims 135 and 138, Foley teaches the method further includes separating the water-miscible organic solvent containing the leached metal from insoluble impurities and evaporating the water-miscible organic solvent from the leached metal (Foley, [0115-0117]). Foley also teaches the separating can be by electrowinning or reduction (Foley, [0180-0182]). The separation of the metal from the insoluble impurities of Foley corresponds to separating the leach solution containing the leached coinage metal from insoluble impurities of claim 135. The separating by electrowinning or reduction of Foley corresponds to treating the leached coinage metal in the leach solution under conditions to obtain the coinage metal and separating the coinage metal from the leach solution of claim 135 and wherein treating the leached coinage metal in the leach solution under conditions to obtain the coinage metal comprises reduction, electrowinning, ion exchange, metal-salt precipitation, or a combination thereof of claim 138.
Regarding claim 148, given that Foley in view of Crush are recovering copper and a precious metal which are substantially identical to the copper and precious metal, i.e., silver, as recovered in the present invention, it is clear that the second coinage metal would inherently have a standard reduction potential greater than the standard reduction potential of copper as presently claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 155, Foley teaches the gold-containing substance is selected from ore, anode slime, a PGM concentrate, electronic scrap, and jewelry scrap and also comprises iron, copper, cobalt, nickel, or silver (Foley, [0003], [0188] and [0190]). The substance of Foley and the possible recovery of silver corresponds to wherein the substance comprising copper and/or silver further comprises; gold, palladium, rhodium, and/or platinum, and the method selectively dissolves the copper and/or silver from the substance; and/or base metals and/or ferrous metals, and the method leaches base metals and/or ferrous metals from the substance of claim 155.
Regarding claim 178, Foley teaches that gold can be leached up to 100% (Foley, Tables 1-8). Crush also teaches that the pre-processing step removes at least 50%, preferably at least 95%, of the non-target metal(s) prior to precious metal recovery (Crush, [0144]). The leaching rates of Foley and Crush fall within the leaching yields of the coinage metals is >65% of claim 178.
Claims 159, 161, 163, and 175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley in view of Crush as applied to claim 113 above, and further in view of Fountain et al. (US 6319389 B1, hereinafter “Fountain”).
Regarding claims 159, 161, 163, and 175, while Foley teaches the use of an oxidizing agent in the leaching of metals (Foley, [0031-0034]), Foley and Crush do not explicitly disclose regenerating the oxidizing agent or the process associated with regeneration.
With respect to the difference, Fountain teaches a method of recovering metals from copper ores including leaching the ore with a ferric sulfate lixiviant to generate a copper pregnant leach solution while the ferric sulfate is reduced to ferrous sulfate (Fountain, Column 5, lines 25-67). Fountain further teaches a step of oxidizing the ferrous sulfate produced in the previous steps to ferric sulfate in a separate ferric sulfate regeneration step using sulfuric acid and oxygen at temperatures of 50-80°C and pressures of 3-10 atm and reusing the regenerated ferric sulfate in the leaching step (Fountain, Column 5, lines 62-67).
As Fountain expressly teaches the process is used to facilitate material handling and reduce capital and operating costs (Fountain, Column 4, lines 48-54).
Foley, Crush, and Fountain are analogous art as they are all directed to recovering metals via leaching (Foley, Abstract; Crush, Abstract; Fountain, Abstract).
In light of the motivation to perform the oxidizing agent regeneration as taught in Fountain above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regenerate the oxidizing agent in Foley in view of Crush in order to reuse the oxidizing agent and to reduce capital and operating costs (Fountain, Column 4, lines 48-54), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The regeneration of the ferrous sulfate of Foley in view of Crush and Fountain corresponds to regenerating the first and/or second oxidizing agent of claim 159. Reducing the ferric sulfate to ferrous sulfate and then oxidizing the ferrous sulfate with sulfuric acid and oxygen of Fountain corresponds to wherein the first and/or second oxidizing agent is at least partially reduced and regenerating the first and/or second oxidizing agent comprises contacting the at least partially reduced oxidizing agent with an aqueous oxidizing solution comprising:(a) an oxidant; (b) an acid; and (c) optionally a water-miscible stabilizer; under conditions to oxidize the at least partially reduced oxidizing agent to regenerate the oxidizing agent of claim 161.
The acid being sulfuric acid of Fountain corresponds to the acid is H2SO 4 of claim 163. The temperature used during the oxidizing step of Fountain falls within wherein the conditions comprise; contacting the at least partially reduced oxidizing agent with the aqueous oxidizing solution at ambient temperature and at a temperature between about 20-80°C of claim 175.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights