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 II in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/09/2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/15/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 13, for purposes of examination based on prior art, Claim 13 is assumed to be a treatment to produce the zinc oxide recited in Claim 9, line 4.
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 9-16 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 9 recites the limitation "the leach product produced by the leach tank" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is support for the leach product, but there is no support for the product being produced by the leach tank.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "impurities from the received portion" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no positive recitation for the presence of “impurities” in the received portion.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "electricity generated using the heated transfer fluid" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no positive recitation for the presence or generation of “electricity.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the … flotation reagents" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is support for the froth formed by the flotation tank.
Claim 14 not clear what is meant by “one or more of rotating a mixer” in line 3. It is not clear if there are more than one types of rotating or more than one mixer.
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 9, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107385472 A, based on the machine translation, in view of Schwark (US 2013/0333383 A1).
CN 107385472 A (CN ‘472) teaches producing electrolytic zinc. ZnO, maintained at 65-75 °C, is leached with H2SO4 at 85-95 °C to produce ZnSO4 (pages 3 and 4). ZnSO4 undergoes electrolysis, which reads on “electrolytic smelter,” to produce Zn on the cathode and on the anode, which reads on coating. Zinc is smelted at 450 °C, which reads on a foundry, and cast into an ingot (page 5). However, CN ‘472 does not teach heating the ZnO or H2SO4 via heat transfer with the heated heat transfer fluid, conducting an electric current via electricity generated using the heated transfer fluid, or heating via heat transfer with the heated heat transfer fluid to cause the zinc to melt and become molten as claimed.
Schwark teaches a closed-loop heat exchange system and method for harnessing subterranean heat energy from a subterranean zone (abstract). The subterranean material includes magma; heat energy is harnessed [0013]. Heated fluid is used to operate turbines or utilized in other processes [0003]. The system uses a wellbore boring or otherwise boring a substantially vertical well to a depth proximate to the targeted subterranean zone [0008]. Regarding heating ZnO or H2SO4 or causing the zinc to melt with the heated heat transfer fluid, a working fluid is circulated down the vertical transfer section within the vertical well and through the passive heat transfer device to harvest the thermal energy, which reads on heat transfer [0007]. Regarding conducting an electric current, the vertical wells can be linked to a convergence point for a turbine for power generation [0019]. The desired heated subterranean zone can comprise a magma chambers [0018]. The temperature range for magma is 1000 °C to 6000 °C [0117]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide heating ZnO or H2SO4 with the heated fluid of Schwark, using electricity generated from the power generation by Schwark, and heating for smelting zinc by Schwark, since Schwark teaches harnessing subterranean heat energy in an efficient manner that is cost-effective and reliable without excessively depleting the source of the subterranean heat energy, for efficient adjustment of harnessing thermal energy according to a given consumption rate, and to utilize resources of varying temperatures within various subterranean resources having varying fluid quantities [0007].
Regarding Claim 11, CN ‘472 teaches “residue” or the filter slag is stored (page 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Schwark teaches the working fluid is used to power turbines or a series of turbine [0009] for power generation [0019].
Regarding Claim 16, Schwark teaches harnessing thermal energy as stated above that can be used for heating in CN ‘472 during leaching (85-95 °C), electrolysis (80-90 °C), and smelting (450 °C).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘472 in view of Schwark as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Pagel (US 3,113,860).
CN ‘472 in view of Schwark discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Schwark teaches at least one heat transfer device. CN ‘472 teaches “residue” or the filter slag is stored (page 4). However, CN ‘472 in view of Schwark does not teach agitation as in Claim 10 or a geothermally powered motor to perform one or more of rotating a mixer as in Claim 14.
Pagel teaches recovering metal values including zinc from ferric oxide complexes. In the usual commercial process of electrowinning zinc, zinc oxide is dissolved in sulfuric acid. The resultant zinc sulfate solution, after purification, is brought into an electrolytic cell, where the zinc is deposited as metallic zinc (column 1, lines 14-33). Dispersion of particulate solids within the acid solution can be accomplished by agitation (column 2, lines 30-33).
Regarding Claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide agitation in the process of CN ‘472 in view of Schwark as taught by Pagel, since Pagel teaches dispersion keeps ferrite particles from settling into a mass thereby allowing more particles to be exposed to the action of the acid. Agitation also allows metals below metallic iron in the electromotive force series to plate out on the iron, which can be dislodged (column 2, lines 38-45).
Regarding Claim 14, Schwark teaches providing power for turbine generators as described above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the turbines to produce electricity in CN ‘472 in view of Schwark, further in view of Pagel, since turbine generators are used to produce electrical power.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘472 in view of Schwark as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Reinhardt et al (US 3,966,569).
CN ‘472 teaches purifying the zinc in the ZnSO4 solution at 80-90 °C (pages 4 and 5) before electrolysis, which reads on cooling. Electrolysis to produce metallic zinc on the cathode and anode is by electricity (page 5). However, CN ‘472 in view of Schwark does not teach using circulating coolers as claimed. Reinhardt et al teaches electrolytically recovering zinc by cooling a zinc electrolyte solution by precooling a zinc sulfate solution resulting from the leaching of zinc ore to a temperature suitable for electrolysis of zinc (Claim 1). The electrolyte is circulated (column 2, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the zinc sulfate solution in CN ‘472 in view of Schwark as taught by Reinhardt et al, since Reinhardt et al teaches causing impurities to precipitate in gel form during the cooling (column 2, lines 10-14).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘472 in view of Schwark as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Foroutan et al in Scientific Reports, Lazarov et al in Minerals Engineering, and Wilcox (US 2,327,370).
CN ‘472 in view of Schwark discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding heating using a geothermal system and a heat transfer fluid, Schwark teaches using subterranean heat energy in an efficient manner that is cost-effective and reliable without excessively depleting the source of the subterranean heat energy, for efficient adjustment of harnessing thermal energy according to a given consumption rate, and to utilize resources of varying temperatures within various subterranean resources having varying fluid quantities [0007] as described above. However, CN “472 in view of Schwark does not teach the steps of directing, crushing, receiving, suspending, receiving, suspending, heating the slurry, receiving, and heating in the roaster as claimed, specifically causing zinc sulfide to convert to zinc oxide.
Regarding the directing to suspending steps recited in Claim 13, Foroutan et al teaches flotation of sphalerite and galena from a low-grade lead-zinc ore as represented in Figure 2 from page 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
408
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The presence of “feed” reads on a hopper for storing the feed before crushing and milling. The flotation cell reads on the presence of a flotation tank. The zinc flotation was performed for 3 minutes with the injection of air, which reads on suspending; the slurry is taught by a pulp of the combination of zinc ore and reagents (pages 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of Foroutan et al to produce zinc concentrate, since Foroutan et al teaches preventing zinc losses using optimized pH in the lead flotation stage (page 8).
Regarding heating the slurry in the flotation tank, Lazarov et al teaches the kinetics of froth flotation and the effects of elevated temperature (20-40 °C) on ore including sphalerite (page 503). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the slurry in the flotation as taught by CN ‘472 in view of Schwark and Foroutan et al, since Lazarov et al teaches an intensification of flotation kinetics at 30 and 40 °C (page 508).
Regarding the roaster, Wilcox teaches treating zinc ore by crushing, grinding, and collecting mineral values by flotation into concentrate. The concentrate is roasted (column 1, lines 15-29) to form zinc oxide (column 2, lines 31 and 32). The ore includes sphalerite ore (column 1, line 55). The temperature in the roaster is 2300 or 2400 °F (column 2, line 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the ore in CN ‘472 in view of Schwark, Foroutan et al, and Lazarov et al to produce zinc oxide, since Wilcox teaches removing sulfur, iron, and silica in a single operation for easier separation and purification (column 1, lines 23-27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lindberg et al (US 11,913,679 B1) claims operating a geothermal system and providing heated heat transfer fluid to a thermal process (Claim 1). Kohad in IIME teaches flotation of sulfide ores including sphalerite (page 19) with a process represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image2.png
384
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The ore is reduced in size (“crusher”) (page 22), which reads on using some type of storage (“hopper”). The flotation reagents include collectors, frothers, activators, depressant, modifier, dispersants, etc. (page 22). The ore is in suspension in the flotation cell with the slurry (page 21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733