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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s reply and amendment filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. However, Applicant cancelled all the previous claims and there is no claim left from the original restriction, the Requirement of the Restriction/Election dated 10/03/2025 is no longer applicable to the newly presented claims.
Therefore, claim 21-40 are currently under examination on the merits.
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.
Claim 21, 23, 26-28, 30-31 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Will Barker, et.al. [US20190292627A1] (Barker hereafter) and in view of Wang Jun et.al. [CN112391527A] (machine translation) (Wang hereafter).
Regarding claim 21, Barker teaches a method for extracting a target metal from a material comprising the target metal (Abstract, [0009]), the method comprising:
cultivating a first microorganism in a bioreactor [0159], wherein the bioreactor is in communication with the material comprising the target metal (i.e., see figure 3-6 as an example Bioreactor (9) capable of cultivating a microorganism, is in communication with biosorption vessel (which comprises the target material) (1) via (8) [0159];
PNG
media_image1.png
432
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
contacting the material comprising the target metal with the first microorganism, wherein the first microorganism comprises a lixiviant (Barker’s step c) in [0198] teaches contacting the cultivated microorganism with the pregnant aqueous solution which above in step (a) is taught to include the target metal and a lixiviant [0195-0198]);
oxidizing the material comprising the target metal (Barker teaches treating their barren solution in [0194] in their dissolution step to adjust the pH, the ORP, the temperature, etc. to make it a suitable lixiviant. Barker’s teaching of the use of an ORP [0039] oxidation-reduction potential is interpreted as their methods oxidation of their material;
measuring a parameter (measuring a parameter which is interpreted to be pH, ORP, or temperature is taught as is adjustment of the pH, the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), the temperature or any other physical properties that might be known to those skilled in the art in order to make it a suitable lixiviant) [Section 0048], for example, at the end of the biosorption period (step 4), the pH of the mixture is checked [Section 0226] and in another example, oxidation-reduction potential was measured at the initial and at the end of leaching [Section 0264]);
cultivating a second microorganism in the bioreactor (Barker teaches the use of “a limited mixture of 2-5 microorganisms [0155];
contacting the material comprising the target metal with the second microorganism (Barker teaches the use of “a limited mixture of 2-5 microorganisms [0155])
And finally Barker teaches recovering the target metal [0046][0096]etc.
Barker does not teach the second microorganism is capable of altering the parameter.
Wang teaches the addition of a second microorganism to enhance the leaching of a metal using ferric ions and leaching bacteria and further teaches that this second microorganism is capable of altering the parameter of oxidation. Specifically, Wang teaches the stepwise addition of leaching reagents, first adding ferric ions and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, and then adding a second, iron-oxidizing bacteria after a certain period of time [0006 machine translation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Wang’s teaching of a second bacteria that is capable of altering the parameter of oxidation with the metal recovery process of Barker as Wang teaches that this step enhances the leaching method not only by eliminating the reaction stagnation caused by the accumulation of sulfur, but also achieves efficient utilization of iron source and bacteria, avoiding the premature formation of dense jaundice passivation on the mineral surface caused by the addition of exogenous iron.
Regarding claim 23 all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, Barker is silent about the second microorganism comprises an iron-oxidizing microorganism.
However, Wang teaches the second microorganism comprises an iron-oxidizing microorganism [0012] and addition of iron-oxidizing bacteria in a later stage of the leaching process avoids the formation of jaundice passivation on the mineral surface, and promotes efficient utilization of metal and bacteria during recovering a target material from a mineral [Section 0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Wang’s teaching of a second bacteria as an iron-oxidizing microorganism with the metal recovery process of Barker as Wang teaches a second bacteria an iron-oxidizing microorganism makes the operation simple and enhance the leaching efficiency with low concentration of iron oxidant and reduced reaction costs.
Regarding claim 26 all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, Barker is silent about the first microorganism comprises a sulfur oxidizing microorganism.
However, Wang teaches the first microorganism comprises a sulfur oxidizing microorganism [0011] and the addition of the first microorganism comprising sulfur-oxidizing bacteria produces elemental sulfur and converts the ferric ions to ferrous ions serves as an energy source for the sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and promotes the dissolution of target metal and thus enhances leaching effect [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Wang’s teaching of first microorganism comprising a sulfur oxidizing microorganism with the metal recovery process of Barker as Wang teaches sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and ferric ion promotes the dissolution of target metal, allowing better growth for the microorganism and thus enhances leaching effect.
Regarding claim 27-28 all discussions of claim 21 and 26 are applicable, Barker is silent about the sulfur oxidizing microorganism comprises Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and/or Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans.
However, Wang teaches sulfur oxidizing microorganism comprises Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and/or Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans [0022] and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria significantly promotes the dissolution of target material, serve as an energy source for the growth of microorganism, and thus a significant increase in leaching efficiency [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Wang’s teaching of examples of a sulfur oxidizing microorganism with the metal recovery process of Barker as Wang teaches sulfur-oxidizing bacteria promotes the dissolution of target metal, allowing better growth for the microorganism and thus enhances leaching effect.
Regarding claim 30 all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, wherein Barker already discloses, measuring a parameter comprises the measuring of the pH [0048] and Barker teaches treating their barren solution in [0194] in their dissolution step to adjust the pH, to make it a suitable lixiviant.
Wang also teaches the pH of the liquid phase leaching system is adjusted and iron sulfate is fully dissolved to ensure that the concentration of trivalent iron ions in the liquid phase is about a certain limit ([0026], Claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Wang’s teaching of pH and Barker’s teaching of pH to modify the metal recovery process of Barker for maintain a suitable lixiviant and for ensuring the complete dissolution of iron sulfate to maximize the concentration of trivalent iron ions and hence promoting leaching.
Regarding claim 31 all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, but Barker is silent about a parameter comprises determining a ratio of ferric ions to ferrous ions in a solution.
However, Wang teaches a parameter comprises determining a ratio of ferric ions to ferrous ions in a solution (Claim 6) as Wang teaches the concentration of ferric ion is maintained in a preferred value. Wang teaches utilization of ferric ions and leaching bacteria to synergistically promote the dissolution of material comprising target metal even for improving the leaching efficiency of low-grade material [0002] and when elemental sulfur is produced, the conversion of ferric ions to ferrous ions also serves as an energy source for the sulfur-oxidizing bacteria [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Wang’s teaching of a parameter of the concentration of ferric ion with the metal recovery process of Barker for maintaining a preferred value of the ferric ions for utilizing ferric and conversion of ferric ion to ferrous ion for promoting the dissolution of material and increasing the leaching.
Regarding claim 39 all discussions of claim 21, are applicable here, discloses target metal comprises copper ([0183, Claim 13 and Claim 27).
Wang also teaches discloses target metal comprises copper [0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have Barker’s teachings and Wang’s teachings to recover copper in the metal recovery process of Barker according to intended use of the material with target material and the and need of the required target material with increased leaching efficiency.
Regarding claim 40 all discussions of claim 21, are applicable here, wherein Barker already discloses, a bioreactor comprises a means for contacting a microorganism with a martial comprising the target metal (i.e., see figure 3-6 as an example Bioreactor (9) capable of cultivating a microorganism, is in communication with biosorption vessel (which comprises the target material) (1) via (8) [0159] and different means for handling and passing the microorganism to the vessel containing the martial comprising the target metal ([0159], [0160]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have Barker’s teaching of a bioreactor and means for passing the microorganism for contacting a microorganism with a martial comprising the target metal, so that the bacteria can contact the material and react to extract the target metal that enhance leaching.
Claim 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Will Barker, et.al. [US20190292627 A1] (Barker hereafter) and in view of Wang Jun et.al. [CN112391527A] (machine translation) (Wang hereafter) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Pedro Antonio Morales Cerda et.al. [US20080127779A1] (Cerda hereafter) (IDS provided).
Regarding claim 22 all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, Barker is silent about the first microorganism comprises an iron-oxidizing microorganism.
Wang is also silent about the first microorganism comprises an iron-oxidizing microorganism.
However, Cerda teaches for obtaining the maximum speed of metal recovery (copper recovery from sulfide ore), the first stages involves simultaneous and continuous inoculation of both sulfur oxidizing (sulfo-oxidizing) and iron-oxidizing microorganisms for ensuring the highest possible initial contents of ferric ions in the bioleaching solutions, compatible with controlling their precipitation as jarosite, that could inhibit the recovery of metal. Once the bioleaching stage is in progress, (in the later stage), when the consumption of ferric ions is decreased and a high oxidizing activity is established by the bacteria inside the bioleaching operations [Section 0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Cerda’s teaching of using both iron oxidizing microorganism and sulfur oxidizing microorganism in the beginning stage with Wang’s teachings of using the first microorganism (sulfur oxidizing microorganism) and ferric ion simultaneously in first stage, to modify the metal recovery process of Barker, for enhancing the leaching by controlling the precipitation as well as increasing the supply of maximum amount of ferric ion in the first stage for the efficient utilization of iron ion and the microorganisms.
Regarding claim 24-25 all discussions of claim 21, and 22 are applicable here, Barker is silent about the iron oxidizing microorganism comprises Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and/or Leptospirillum ferriphilum.
However, Wang teaches iron oxidizing microorganism comprises Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, Leptospirillum ferriphilum etc. [Section 0022].
Cerda also teaches iron oxidizing microorganism comprises Acidithiobacillus and Leptospirillum genus, of which, the most common species are A. ferrooxidans for satisfactory recovery and extraction speeds to make the process financially feasible, [Section 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Barker, Wang and Cerda’s teaching of iron oxidizing microorganism to modify Wang’s first microorganism with a combination of both iron-oxidizing and sulfur oxidizing microorganism to modify the metal recovery process of Barker to enhance the leaching by controlling the precipitation and ensuring the supply of maximum amount of ferric ion and for the efficient utilization of iron ion and the microorganisms.
Claim 29, 32, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Will Barker, et.al. [US20190292627 A1] (Barker hereafter) and in view of Wang Jun et.al. [CN112391527A] (machine translation) (Wang hereafter) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Qian Li, et.al. [“Community dynamics and function variation of a defined mixed bioleaching acidophilic bacterial consortium in the presence of fluoride”, Ann Microbiol (2015) 65:121–128] (Li hereafter).
Regarding claim 29 all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, but both Barker and Wang are silent about the measuring a parameter comprises profiling a nucleic acid sequence.
However, Li teaches in bioleaching systems, fluoride is a toxin (can release some deleterious fluorinions, and largely inhibit the growth and activity of the microbes, or even kill the microbes) [Introduction]. Li teaches fluoride stress treatment and physiological characteristics analysis, by adjusting the fluoride concentration of the culture, and the cell concentration, pH variation, and iron oxidation rate are regularly measured and recorded to determine the fluoride resistant bacteria (Abstract Page 121, Materials and Methods) and these are well understood by profiling a nucleic acid sequence (the concentrations of the purified genomic DNA are detected by spectrophotometry) [Page 122, Materials and Methods]. As shown in Fig. 5, fluoride stress has different effects on the metabolic pathways of different strains in the consortium. The dominant species played a very pivotal role in resisting the fluoride stress and maintaining activities in the system, while the inferior species has a valuable function in assisting the survival of the dominant species [page 125, 127, Results and Discussion Fig. 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine Li’s teaching of measuring a parameter comprising profiling a nucleic acid sequence (DNA) to combine with Wang’s teaching of microorganism, and hence, selecting an appropriate microorganism to modify the metal recovery process of Barker, as Li teaches that the dominant species that played a very pivotal role in resisting the fluorides and maintaining activities in the system, while the inferior species plays a valuable function in assisting the survival of the dominant species so that the leaching process is performed efficiently in presence of fluoride.
Regarding claim 32 and 34, all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, but both Barker and Wang does not teach measuring a concentration of a toxin and a toxin comprises fluoride.
However, Li teaches in bioleaching systems, fluoride is a toxin (can release some deleterious fluorinions, and largely inhibit the growth and activity of the microbes, or even kill the microbes) [Introduction]. Li teaches fluoride stress has different effects on the metabolic pathways of different strains in the consortium. The dominant species played a very pivotal role in resisting the fluoride stress and maintaining activities in the system, while the inferior species has a valuable function in assisting the survival of the dominant species [page 125, 127, Results and Discussion Fig. 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to have Li’s teaching of measuring a parameter comprising DNA to combine with Wang and to modify the metal recovery process of Barker, as Li teaches that the dominant species that played a very pivotal role in resisting the fluorides and maintaining activities in the system, while the inferior species plays a valuable function in assisting the survival of the dominant species so that the leaching process is performed efficiently in presence of fluoride.
Regarding claim 37, all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, wherein Barker teaches a second microorganism in the bioreactor (at least a limited mixture of two to five microorganisms) [Section 01555].
But Barker is silent about that “the second microorganism comprises a fluoride resistant microorganism”.
Wang teaches the second microorganism comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria [Section 0012, 0015, claim 2].
But Wang also is silent about that “the second microorganism comprises a fluoride resistant microorganism”.
However, Li teaches in bioleaching systems, fluoride is a toxin (can release some deleterious fluorinions, and largely inhibit the growth and activity of the microbes, or even kill the microbes) [Introduction]. Li teaches fluoride stress has different effects on the metabolic pathways of different strains in the consortium. The dominant species played a very pivotal role in resisting the fluoride stress and maintaining activities in the system, while the inferior species has a valuable function in assisting the survival of the dominant species [page 125, 127, Results and Discussion Fig. 5]. Li teaches from the community dynamics and gene expression are assayed respectively, it has been found that the iron oxidizing microorganism (Leptospirillum ferriphilum) maintained stable growth and is not affected by fluoride stress, i.e. fluoride resistant [Abstract, Table 1 and Fig. 4.].
With these teachings of Li and as Wang’s second microorganism comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria, therefore, Wang’s second microorganism would comprise a fluoride resistant microorganism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Li’s teaching of iron oxidizing microorganism as fluoride resistant with Wang’s teaching of second microorganism is an iron oxidizing microorganism to modify Barker’s process for optimization of highly-tolerant microorganism for maintaining leaching performance in presence of fluoride toxin conditions.
Claim 32 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Will Barker, et.al. [US20190292627 A1] (Barker hereafter) and in view of Wang Jun et.al. [CN112391527A] (machine translation) (Wang hereafter) as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Denis W. Shiers et.al. [“Organic Carbon Utilization by Iron(II)-Oxidizing Bacteria Sulfobacillus Thermosulfidooxidans and Alicyclobacillus Strain FP1 that Inhabit Copper Sulfide Leaching Heaps”, Adv. Mat. Res 1662-8985, Vol. 1130, pp 218-221] (Shiers hereafter).
Claim 33, 35-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Will Barker, et.al. [US20190292627 A1] (Barker hereafter) and in view of Wang Jun et.al. [CN112391527A] (machine translation) (Wang hereafter) as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Denis W. Shiers et.al. [“Organic Carbon Utilization by Iron(II)-Oxidizing Bacteria Sulfobacillus Thermosulfidooxidans and Alicyclobacillus Strain FP1 that Inhabit Copper Sulfide Leaching Heaps”, Adv. Mat. Res 1662-8985, Vol. 1130, pp 218-221] (Shiers hereafter).
Regarding claim 32 and 33, all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, but both Barker and Wang does not teach measuring a concentration of a toxin and a toxin comprises organic carbon.
However, Shiers teaches of a toxin and a toxin comprises organic carbon (the buildup organic compounds) in a heap leaching [Introduction]. Shiers then teaches microorganisms can catalyze the dissolution of minerals through regeneration of ferric ions and oxidation of reduced inorganic sulfur compounds in heap bioleaching and there are different physicochemical parameters and their variations have an effect on both the growth and oxidation activity of individual microorganisms. Mcroorganisms also required to degrade organic carbon (utilize the buildup organic compounds) in a heap leaching [Introduction]. From the measuring the growth behavior of microorganisms (S. thermosulfidooxidans) with variable solution pH [Results and discussion], Shiers teaches the utilization of organic carbon (sugars, such as D-glucose), provides a mechanism to restore an acidic (micro)environment where soluble ferrous ion is more prevalent and can be utilized by iron-oxidizing microorganisms [Conclusion].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Shiers’s teaching of a toxin comprises organic carbon with the teachings of Wang’s process to modify the metal recovery process of Barker for to utilization of organic carbon for restoring an acidic (micro) environment for having more prevalent soluble ferrous ion that can be utilized by iron-oxidizing micro-organisms during leaching.
Regarding claim 35 and 36, all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, wherein Barker teaches a second microorganism in the bioreactor (at least a limited mixture of two to five microorganisms) [Section 01555].
But Barker is silent about that “the second microorganism comprises a microorganism capable of degrading organic carbon”.
Wang teaches the second microorganism is an iron-oxidizing bacteria to the leaching system [Section 0012, 0015, claim 2] and the addition of iron-oxidizing bacteria in a later stage of the leaching process eliminates the passivation layer on the mineral surface, and achieve efficient utilization of metal recovery and the bacteria [Section 0067].
But Wang also is silent about that “the second microorganism comprises a microorganism capable of degrading organic carbon”.
However, Shiers teaches a microorganism comprises a microorganism sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans is capable of degrading organic carbon, and sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans is both iron-oxidizing bacteria and sulfur oxidizing bacteria, that oxidizes both iron and reduced inorganic sulfur compounds (RISC) [Title, Abstract]. Shiers teaches an analysis of total reduced carbon content (degrading the carbon) [Results and Discussions] and the utilization of organic carbon (sugars, such as D-glucose), provides a mechanism to restore an acidic (micro)environment where soluble ferrous ion is more prevalent and can be utilized by iron-oxidizing micro-organisms [Conclusion].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Shiers’s teaching of Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans, an iron-oxidizing bacteria along with Wang’s second microorganism that comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria to modify the metal recovery process of Barker to have a second microorganism comprises a microorganism that is capable of degrading organic carbon for restoring an acidic (micro)environment by utilizing the organic carbon and promoting leaching efficiency.
Regarding claim 38 all discussions of claim 21 are applicable here, wherein Barker already discloses, measuring a parameter comprises the measuring of the pH [0048] and Barker teaches treating their barren solution in [0194] in their dissolution step to adjust the pH, to make it a suitable lixiviant.
But Barker is silent about that “the second microorganism is capable of adjusting a pH of a solution”.
Wang teaches adjusting the pH of the liquid leaching system so that iron sulfate is fully dissolved to ensure that the concentration of trivalent iron ions in the liquid phase is at a certain limit ([0026], Claim 6]. Wang teaches the second microorganism is an iron-oxidizing bacteria in the leaching system ([0012], [0015], Claim 2) and addition of iron-oxidizing bacteria in a later stage of the leaching process eliminates the formation time of the passivation layer on the mineral surface, and provides efficient utilization of the metal resources in the material containing the metal ([0067], [0022].
But Wang also is silent about that “the second microorganism is capable of adjusting a pH of a solution”.
However, Shiers teaches a microorganism comprises a microorganism sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans is capable of degrading organic carbon, and sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans is both iron-oxidizing bacteria and sulfur oxidizing bacteria, that oxidizes both iron and reduced inorganic sulfur compounds (RISC) [Title, Abstract]. Shiers teaches and acid consumption or generation and solution pH in heap leaching depends on the extents of acid consuming and acid-generating reactions and a thin film of solution contacting mineral surfaces during passage through the ore bed, creating a large array of pH-micro-environments within which the microorganisms live. Shiers teaches the solution pH is controlled by maintaining the conversion of iron(III) compounds, and microbial iron(II)-oxidizing activity for restoring acidic conditions [Results and Discussions]. Shiers teaches utilization of organic carbon (sugars, such as D-glucose), provides a mechanism to restore an acidic (micro)environment where soluble ferrous ion is more prevalent and can be utilized by iron-oxidizing micro-organisms [Conclusion].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shiers’s teaching of iron oxidizing microorganism is capable of changing the pH of the solution with Wang’s second microorganism, ( iron-oxidizing bacteria) and to modify the metal recovery process of Barker for adjusting a pH of a solution to restore an acidic (micro)environment suitable for promoting leaching.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Michael L.M. Rodrigues, et.al. [“Bioleaching of fluoride-bearing secondary copper sulphides: Column experiments with Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans”, Chemical Engineering Journal 284 (2016) 1279–1286] (Rodrigues hereafter) teaches bioleaching potential of a low-grade (marginal) ore with a significant content of fluoride, using a strain of At. ferrooxidans, resulted in copper extractions above 89% wherein the dissolution of fluorite from the gangue minerals affected bioleaching shortly after column inoculation. However, the released of ferric iron production by the bacteria reduced fluoride toxicity. A fluoride-toxicity parameter (g) is proposed to represent the mass ratio between total fluoride, and total ferric iron concentrations in the system. Thus, the presence of fluoride-bearing minerals in the ore may be an important issue, but the content of both cations should be also considered [Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM-7:00PM (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 on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738