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 claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 10-22-2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-5 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 diffuser”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the diffuser” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes line 1 recites “an oxygen diffuser”. Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1 and hence are also rejected.
Claim 1 line 9 recites “the wall of the leaching or cyanide destruction tank”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the leaching tank or cyanide destruction tank” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes line 1 recites “leaching and cyanide destruction tanks”, therefore there is a lack of antecedent basis for a singular leaching tank or single cyanide destruction tank.
Claim 1 line 11 recites “the leaching tank or cyanide destruction tank ”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the leaching tank” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes line 1 recites “leaching and cyanide destruction tanks”, therefore there is a lack of antededent basis for a singular leaching tank or single cyanide destruction tank..
Claim 1 line 13 recites “the bottom of the leaching and cyanide destruction tank”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the bottom” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 1 line 13 recites “it is fastened to the internal walls of the bottom of such tanks”. Examiner is uncertain as to which structural limitation is represented by the term “it”.
Claim 1 line 14 recites “such tanks”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “such tanks” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 3 recites “the bottom of the leaching and cyanide destruction tank”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the bottom” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 recites “these tanks”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “these tanks” in previous claim limitations”. Examiner notes claim 2 recites “the bottom of the leaching tank or cyanide destruction tank (15) or (28)”, Examiner notes that the claims should provide proper antecedent basis based on the structural limitations claim and not based on numerical designations of figures provided.
Claim 2 line 7 recites “the leaching tank or cyanide destruction tank ”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the leaching tank” in previous claim limitations. Examiner notes line 1 recites “leaching and cyanide destruction tanks”, therefore there is a lack of antededent basis for a singular leaching tank or single cyanide destruction tank.
Claim 4 recites “such as gold and silver from ores containing them”. Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 line 3 and 9 recites “the tank (15) or (28)”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the tank (15) or (28)” in previous claim limitations”. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “leaching and cyanide destruction tanks”, Examiner notes that the claims should provide proper antecedent basis based on the structural limitations claim and not based on numerical designations of figures provided.
Claim 5 recites “the partitions or deflectors in the region (d). There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the partitions or deflectors in the region (d)”. Examiner notes that the claims should provide proper antecedent basis based on the structural limitations claim and not based on numerical designations of figures provided.
Claim 5 line 5 recites “the tanks (15) or (28)”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the tanks (15) or (28)” in previous claim limitations”. Examiner notes claim 1 recites “leaching and cyanide destruction tanks”, Examiner notes that the claims should provide proper antecedent basis based on the structural limitations claim and not based on numerical designations of figures provided.
Claim 5 recites “preferably less than 0.385 of the diameter (g) of the tank”. Regarding claim 5, the word “preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 line 9 recites “said tanks”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “said tanks” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 5 recites “preferably in a ratio between 2/8 and 3/8 of the diameter of the tank”. Regarding claim 5, the word “preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese reference(CN210097678U) taken together with French reference(FR2473351A1).
Chinese reference in figure 1 teaches an oxygen diffuser including a liquid slurry tank(tank body 7), the tank being made of a rotating shaft(9), 2 sets of propellers, an upper one(upper stirrer 8 in figure 1) and a lower one(lower stirrer 8 in figure 1), attached to the shaft and an area of partitions or deflectors(unnumbered deflectors in figure 1 attached to side of tank 7), characterized in that the diffuser is structured as a right truncated cone(gas distributor cone 1) , a conical surface, and the bottom of the diffuser that is open, forming an inner space, the conical surface having at its lower end with a larger diameter angular cuts(translation stating the lower edge of the circumference of the bottom is zigzag) around its entire periphery, a pipe(air inlet pipe 5) that conveys oxygen, having an inlet valve(valve 8) outside the wall of the tank, and an oxygen outlet just in the inner central part of the diffuser(oxygen outlet shown in figure 1), the diffuser regulates the size of the oxygen bubbles, having a ratio of specific dimensions with respect to the tank, the diffuser is located at the lower part of the lower end of the shaft , separated from the shaft, also separated from the bottom of the tank, the diffuser is fastened to the internal walls or the bottom of the tanks, and is made of a material that resists the wear to which it is subjected. Chinese reference is silent as to a right truncated cone with a horizontal flat upper wall.
French reference in figure 1 teaches an oxygen diffuser within a liquid tank(basin 5), the tank including a gas inlet(4) leading to a diffuser tube(1), the diffuser tube extending within a lower region of the diffuser(2), wherein the diffuser includes a gradually reducing diameter wall leading to a horizontal flat upper wall. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the diffuser of Chinese reference with a horizontal flat upper wall in order to provide a diffuser with a gas flow path which significantly increases the residence time of the gas in the liquid(noting translation in French reference).
Chinese reference is further silent as to angular cuts between 25 degrees and 35 degrees around its entire periphery. Chinese reference teaches a conical surface having at its lower end with angular cuts, wherein the angular cuts are provided at an acute angle. Therefore , it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to adjust the angular cuts of the diffuser of Chinese reference to a range between 25 degrees and 35 degrees in order to optimize a bubble size that is produced from mixing the oxygen with the liquid in the tank. Examiner respectfully submits that a range between 25 degrees and 35 degrees is a result effective variable which can be optimized through routine experimentation, wherein cuts having an acute angle are already established within Chinese reference.
Examiner furthermore notes the limitations “that is part of leaching and cyanide destruction tanks, for the recovery of high value metals such as gold and silver from ores containing them and for cyanide destruction” represents an intended use for the claimed oxygen diffuser and therefore the stated limitations are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis. Examiner notes the claim is directed to “an oxygen diffuser” and to structural limitations directed to the “oxygen diffuser”, and any specific leaching and/or cyanide destruction tank is directed to an intended use for the oxygen diffuser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 recites “An oxygen diffuser that is part of leaching and cyanide destruction tanks, for the recovery of high value metals such as gold and silver from ores containing them, according to claim 1, characterized in that: the diffuser (35) is located at a height (b) from the bottom of the leaching tank or cyanide destruction tank (15) or (28) which is between 8% and 12% with respect to the total height of these tanks; the angular cuts (38) have a height i) that has a ratio between 8% and 12% of the total height K of the diffuser; the diffuser (35) has a diameter a) that is between 3/16 and 5/16 of the diameter g) of the leaching tank or cyanide destruction tank (15) or (28); and the center of the diffuser (35) is aligned with the center of the shaft (32).”. Chinese reference taken together with French reference teach a diffuser for a tank, however Chinese reference taken together with French reference does not teach or suggest the diffuser is located at a height (b) from the bottom of the leaching tank or cyanide destruction tank which is between 8% and 12% with respect to the total height of these tanks; the angular cuts have a height i) that has a ratio between 8% and 12% of the total height K of the diffuser; the diffuser has a diameter a) that is between 3/16 and 5/16 of the diameter g) of the leaching tank or cyanide destruction tank ; and the center of the diffuser is aligned with the center of the shaft.
Claim 3 recites “An oxygen diffuser that is part of leaching and cyanide destruction tanks, for the recovery of high- value metals such as gold and silver from ores containing them, according to claim 1, characterized in that: the pipe (39) has an outlet that is at a distance J) from the internal upper wall (36) of the diffuser (35), which is between 5% and 9% of the total height K) of said diffuser; the height K) from the base of the angular cuts (38) to the vertex that would be formed by the upward extension of the conical surface (37), is between 3/8 and 5/8 of the larger diameter a) of the bottom part of the diffuser. Chinese reference taken together with French reference teach a diffuser for a tank, however Chinese reference taken together with French reference does not teach or suggest the pipe has an outlet that is at a distance J) from the internal upper wall of the diffuser , which is between 5% and 9% of the total height K) of said diffuser; the height K) from the base of the angular cuts to the vertex that would be formed by the upward extension of the conical surface , is between 3/8 and 5/8 of the larger diameter a) of the bottom part of the diffuser.
Claim 4 recites “An oxygen diffuser that is part of leaching and cyanide destruction tanks, for the recovery of high- value metals such as gold and silver from ores containing them, according to claim 1, characterized in that the distance L) between the beginning of the angular cuts and the upper horizontal wall of the diffuser is between 6/8 and 7/8 of the height K of the diffuser; the upper horizontal wall has a width m) that is between 5/32 and 8/32 of the lower larger diameter a) of the diffuser; and the height n) from the upper wall of the diffuser and the vertex that would be formed by the upper extension of the conical surface , is between 5/32 and 8/32 of the height K of the diffuser; the upper horizontal wall has a width m) that is between 5/32 and 8/32 of the lower larger diameter a) of the diffuser; and the height n) from the upper wall of the diffuser and the vertex that would be formed by the upper extension of the conical surface , is between 5/32 and 8/32 of the height K of the diffuser.”. Chinese reference taken together with French reference teach a diffuser for a tank, however Chinese reference taken together with French reference does not teach or suggest the distance L) between the beginning of the angular cuts and the upper horizontal wall of the diffuser is between 6/8 and 7/8 of the height K of the diffuser; the upper horizontal wall has a width m) that is between 5/32 and 8/32 of the lower larger diameter a) of the diffuser; and the height n) from the upper wall of the diffuser and the vertex that would be formed by the upper extension of the conical surface , is between 5/32 and 8/32 of the height K of the diffuser; the upper horizontal wall has a width m) that is between 5/32 and 8/32 of the lower larger diameter a) of the diffuser; and the height n) from the upper wall of the diffuser and the vertex that would be formed by the upper extension of the conical surface , is between 5/32 and 8/32 of the height K of the diffuser.
Claim 5 recites “An oxygen diffuser that is part of leaching and cyanide destruction tanks, for the recovery of high- value metals such as gold and silver from ores containing them, according to claim 1, characterized in that: the height c) from the base of the tank to the lower end of the propeller shaft , is preferably between 23% and 27% of the total height (h) of the tank or the tank ; the partitions or deflectors in the region d) have a ratio between 2/32 and 4/32 of the diameter g) of the tanks ; the height e) between the middle part of the propellers and is preferably less than 0.385 of the diameter (g) of the tank ; the width f) of the propellers and preferably in a ratio between 2/8 and 3/8 of the diameter g) of the tank ; and the height h) of the tank divided by the diameter g) of said tanks is equal to 1. (h/g = 1)”. Chinese reference taken together with French reference teach a diffuser for a tank, however Chinese reference taken together with French reference does not teach or suggest the height c) from the base of the tank to the lower end of the propeller shaft , is preferably between 23% and 27% of the total height (h) of the tank or the tank ; the partitions or deflectors in the region d) have a ratio between 2/32 and 4/32 of the diameter g) of the tanks ; the height e) between the middle part of the propellers and is preferably less than 0.385 of the diameter (g) of the tank ; the width f) of the propellers and preferably in a ratio between 2/8 and 3/8 of the diameter g) of the tank ; and the height h) of the tank divided by the diameter g) of said tanks is equal to 1. (h/g = 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
December 4, 2025