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
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/16/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “100” in Fig. 1 appears to not be mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 10-18 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 10 recites “heating, using a geothermal system…a heat transfer fluid” in Lines 2-3. The word “using” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how the system is used in the method step of heating. This is further rendered unclear by the recitation that the transfer fluid is heated via heat transfer with the underground magma reservoir. Appropriate correction is required to provide a sufficient nexus between the geothermal system and any tangible positive active and repeatable method steps regarding the step of heating. The Examiner notes that every instance of “using” does not render a claim unclear: e.g., “crushing, using the crusher, at least a portion of the copper oxide ore directed therethrough” in Claim 11 Line 3.
Claim 10 recites “maintaining, using a temperature control system, temperature” in Line 10. The word “using” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear which steps are taken regarding the maintenance of temperature. Appropriate correction is required to provide a sufficient nexus between the temperature control system and any tangible positive active and repeatable method steps regarding maintaining temperature.
Further regarding Claim 10 Line 11, the term “predefined temperature range” does not provide one of ordinary skill with sufficient detail as to the metes and bounds of the smelting bath temperature. The “predefined temperature range” is not defined in the disclosure and the recitation does not provide a sufficient range for which to provide a repeatable actionable maintenance of any specific temperature.
Claim 10 recites “in a smelting bath” in Line 10. The recitation of “a smelting bath” is disjointed from the rest of the claim language and it is unclear the nexus between the “smelting bath” in Line 10 and “an electrolytic smelter” in Line 8. Appropriate correction is required to establish a nexus between the method steps involving a smelter, the action of smelting, or the formation of a smelting bath.
Claim 10 recites “electricity generated using the heated heat transfer fluid” in Line 13 and it is unclear the source of electricity and what method step is taken to generate electricity “using” heated heat transfer fluid. Appropriate correction is required to establish a nexus between the source of electricity and the conduction of electrical current.
Claim 10 recites “causing a copper coating to form” in Lines 13-14 and it is unclear from the claim language what element is coated. Appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps.
Claim 11 recites “producing, by the leaching reaction, the leach solution” in Line 8. There is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the leach solution.” There is only previous mention in Claim 10 to “receiving, by a settler, a leach solution” in Line 5. It is therefore unclear whether “the received leach solution” in Claim 10 Line 6 is the same as, or different from “the leach solution” in Lines 8 and 9 of Claim 11. Appropriate correction is required to establish the components of any reaction as they pertain to actionable and repeatable method steps.
Claim 12 recites “solvent extraction of copper ions from the leach solution” in Line 4 and “a solvent” in Line 6. It is unclear whether the solvent of Line 6 is the same, or different from the solvent of Line 4. The recitation of “solvent” in Line 4 lacks antecedent basis and because the addition of a solvent has not been claimed, it is unclear the source of any solvent referenced in Claim 12. Appropriate correction is required to establish a nexus between any solvent and the claimed method steps.
Claim 12 recites “wherein producing, by the settler, the copper solution comprises” in Lines 1-2. There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for “producing, by the settler, the copper solution.” Previous mention in Claim 10 is to the phrase “thereby producing a copper solution and impurities” in Line 7 which is a result of “heating, by the settler, the received leach solution via heat transfer with the heated heat transfer fluid” in Claim 10 Lines 6-7. It is therefore unclear what process is being referenced in any actionable and repeatable method step of Claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “using one or more geothermally powered motors powered by the heated heat transfer fluid” in Lines 1-2 and it is unclear what tangible and repeatable positive active method step is taken or how the geothermally powered motors are literally “used.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “pumping heated heat transfer fluids used to heat system components” in Line 8 and “pumping cooling fluids used to cool the system components” in Line 9. It is unclear from the claim language whether heated heat transfer fluids actually heat system components or if heated heat transfer fluids are pumped to some unknown location. It is unclear from the claim language whether cooling fluids actually cool the system components or if cooling fluids used to cool the system components are pumped to some unknown location.
Claim 14 recites “causing one or more heat exchangers to use the heated heat transfer fluid to heat a fluid” in Lines 1-2 It is unclear what tangible and repeatable positive active method step is taken to ‘cause’ the one or more heat exchangers to ‘use’ heated heat transfer fluid. It is additionally unclear whether the supplying of heat is an intended use of the action of “causing one or more heat exchangers to use the heated heat transfer fluid.” Appropriate correction is required to make clear whether the heated fluid actually supplies heat, or if the supplying of heat is an intended use. Further, appropriate correction is required to set forth a tangible and repeatable positive active method step as it pertains to the implementation of a heat exchanger.
Claim 15 recites “heating…if a temperature of the copper solution…is less than a minimum temperature threshold” in Lines 2-4 and “cooling…if the temperature of the copper solution…exceeds a maximum temperature threshold” in Lines 6-7. The term “if” 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). Further, the terms “minimum temperature threshold” and “maximum temperature threshold” render the claim indefinite. The instant Specification a does not limit the claim language to a specific threshold or range of values. Thus, terms “minimum temperature threshold” and “maximum temperature threshold” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which threshold applicant is trying to limit and under what conditions.
Claim 16 recites “causing one or more turbines to use the heated heat transfer fluid to generate the electricity” in Lines 1-2 As set forth above, it is unclear the source of electricity. It is further unclear what tangible and repeatable positive active method step is taken to ‘cause’ the one or more turbines to ‘use’ heated heat transfer fluid. It is additionally unclear whether the generation of electricity is an intended use of the action of “causing one or more turbines to use the heated heat transfer fluid.” Appropriate correction is required to provide a nexus between any source of electricity or generation of electricity by any element within the claimed method.
Claim 17 recites “the heat transfer fluid heated by the geothermal system” in Line 2. It is unclear if this is the same or different from “the heated heat transfer fluid” of Claim 10 Line 4. Appropriate correction is required to establish which fluid is received in Claim 17.
Claim 17 recites “generating a cooling fluid:” in Line 1 and “generating, by the absorption chiller, the cooling fluid using the received heat transfer fluid.” In Line 3 which presents the following issues of clarity:
There is literal antecedent in Claim 17 Line 1 for “generating a cooling fluid:” so it is unclear whether this is a separate step, or some other meaning. It is further unclear whether the “cooling fluid” of Line 1 is the same “cooling fluid” of Line 3 and appropriate correction is required to clearly set forth the tangible and repeatable positive active method step.
It is unclear how the received heat transfer fluid is “used” in Line 3. This is in part because the cooling fluid is described as ‘generated’ in both Line 1 and Line 3. It is further unclear how the absorption chiller “uses” the received heat transfer fluid and what tangible and repeatable method step is actually taken to generate cooling fluid. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is rejected for its dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 10, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parella et al. US 20150159918 A1 in view of NPL Miller and Zhu et al. US 20180081339 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Parella et al. ‘918 teaches heating, using a geothermal system comprising a wellbore extending from a surface into an underground hot fluid reservoir (meeting the limitation for a magma reservoir), a heat transfer fluid via heat transfer with the underground magma reservoir, thereby forming heated heat transfer fluid (Abstract), [0019]. Parella et al. ‘918 expressly teaches the heated heat transfer fluid may be received by a mining leach operation and used to heat and generate electricity for the components of the leach operation [0023-0024].
Parella et al. ‘918 does not expressly teach the details of a copper leach operation.
However, NPL Miller teaches receiving, by a settler, a leach solution, using heat transfer to produce a copper solution and impurities; receiving, by an electrolytic smelter, at least a portion of the copper solution produced by the settler; conducting, by the electrolytic smelter, electrical current through the received copper solution thereby causing a copper coating to form; receiving, by a foundry, the copper coating produced by the electrolytic smelter; heating, by the foundry, the received copper coating, causing the copper coating to melt to become molten copper; and casting, by the foundry, the molten copper to form a copper product (Page 209).
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Miller does not expressly teach maintaining, using a temperature control system, temperature in a smelting bath within a predefined temperature range.
However, Zhu et al. ‘339 teaches maintaining and controlling, using an electronic temperature control system, the electrolytic smelting bath temperature of molten metal, including copper, within a predefined temperature range [0063-0065].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the electrolytic smelting system of Zhu et al. ‘339 in order to control the temperature of the smelting bath based on the teachings of Zhu et al. ‘339 at [0065].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to power the known leach circuit operation taught in NPL Miller with the geothermal heating fluid of Parella et al. ‘918 in order to increase the environmental efficiency of copper production based on the teachings of Parella et al. at [0026].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the limitations set forth above. Parella et al. ‘918 further teaches the generation of electricity at [0008], and using one or more geothermally powered motors powered by the heated heat transfer fluid, wherein the one or more geothermally powered motors are configured to perform rotating a crusher [0081], pumping heated heat transfer fluids used to heat system components; and pumping cooling fluids used to cool the system components [0019], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Parella et al. ‘918 teaches using heat exchangers to transfer heat to fluids used within the leaching process [0024], but does not detail the inclusion of an electrolytic smelter.
However, as set forth above, Zhu et al. ‘339 teaches maintaining and controlling the electrolytic smelting bath temperature of molten metal, including copper, with an electronically controlled electrolytic smelter (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to cause the heat exchangers of Parella et al. ‘918 to use the heated heat transfer fluid to heat a fluid, thereby producing a heated fluid, wherein the heated fluid supplies heat for heating the electrolytic smelter in order to conduct efficient electrowinning of copper based on the teachings of Zhu et al. at (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Parella et al. ‘918 teaches using exchangers to transfer heat to fluids used within the leaching process [0024].
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the electrolytic smelter of Zhu et al. ‘339 in order to conduct efficient electrowinning of copper based on the teachings of Zhu et al. at (Abstract).
Zhu et al. ‘339 further teaches an electronically controlled electrolytic smelter [0063], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for heating, by one or more heat exchangers positioned within or proximate to the electrolytic smelter, the copper solution, if a temperature of the copper solution is less than a minimum temperature threshold, via heat transfer with the heated heat transfer fluid; cooling, by one or more circulating coolers positioned within or proximate to the electrolytic smelter, the copper solution, if the temperature of the copper solution exceeds a maximum temperature threshold, via heat transfer with a cooling fluid; and conducting, by a cathode and an anode, the electricity in the copper solution, thereby forming the copper coating.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Parella et al. ‘918 teaches receiving, by an absorber, the heat transfer fluid heated by the geothermal system; generating, by the absorber, the cooling fluid using the received heat transfer fluid; and providing the cooling fluid to one or more processes requiring cooling [0055-0056], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parella et al. US 20150159918 A1 in view of NPL Miller and Zhu et al. US 20180081339 A1 as applied to Claims 10, 13-15, and 17 above, further in view of Peckham et al. US 5516408 A.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Miller teaches directing, using a hopper, a copper oxide ore through a crusher; crushing, using the crusher, at least a portion of the copper oxide ore directed therethrough, thereby forming crushed copper oxide ore; receiving, by a leach heap, at least a portion of the crushed copper oxide ore (Pages 204, 214).
NPL Miller teaches acid leaching but does not expressly detail the use of sprinklers.
However, Peckham et al. ‘408 teaches distributing, by a sprinkler, leaching reagents onto a copper leach heap to cause a leaching reaction to extract copper from the crushed copper oxide ore, producing, by the leaching reaction, a leach solution, and collecting in by a pond (meeting the limitation for a collection ditch), the leach solution (Column 3, Lines 35-67 – Column 4, Lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the sprinkler system on the heap of modified Parella et al. ‘918 in order to efficiently extract copper based on the teachings of Peckham et al. ‘408 at (Abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parella et al. US 20150159918 A1 in view of NPL Miller and Zhu et al. US 20180081339 A1 as applied to Claims 10, 13-15, and 17 above, further in view of Dempsey US 4290882 A.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Parella et al. ‘918 further teaches heating, by one or more heat exchangers, the leach solution via heat transfer with the heated heat transfer fluid, thereby causing solvent extraction of copper ions from the leach solution [0024]. Parella et al. ‘918 does not expressly detail the leaching operation powered by its geothermal energy system.
However, NPL Miller teaches at (Pages 207-208) agitating, by a mixer, the leach solution in a copper leach recovery system, thereby causing separation of the copper solution and a solvent;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to integrate the leaching operations of NPL Miller with the geothermal powering system of Parella et al. ‘918 in order to effect a green and energy efficient production of copper based on the teachings of Parella et al. ‘918 at [0020].
NPL Miller does not expressly teach directing at least a portion of the impurities produced in the settler to an impurities reservoir positioned within or proximate to the settler.
However, Dempsey ‘882 teaches feeding impurities from a settler in the hydrometallurgical extraction of metals to an electrostatic coalescer (meeting the limitation for an impurities reservoir) proximate to the settler in order to economically eliminate build-up within the settler (Column 1 Lines 48-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to direct at least a portion of the impurities produced in the settler to an electrostatic coalescer (meeting the limitation for an impurities reservoir) in order to economically eliminate the buildup of impurities within the settler based on the teachings of Dempsey ‘882 at (Column 1 Lines 48-68).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parella et al. US 20150159918 A1 in view of NPL Miller and Zhu et al. US 20180081339 A1 as applied to Claims 10, 13-15, and 17 above, further in view of Parella et al. US 20150107243 A1.
Regarding Claim 16, Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the generation of electricity at [0008] but does not expressly teach the incorporation of a turbine.
However, Parella et al. ‘243 teaches causing one or more turbines to use the heated heat transfer fluid to generate the electricity in a geothermally powered operation (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a turbine to provide electricity to the electrical current between a cathode and an anode in the electrolytic smelter of modified Parella et al. ‘918 in order to effect a green energy process based on the teachings of Parella et al. ‘243 at [0022], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parella et al. US 20150159918 A1 in view of NPL Miller and Zhu et al. US 20180081339 A1 as applied to Claims 10, 13-15, and 17 above, further in view of Kauffman et al. US 20120192563 A1.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the limitations set forth above. Parella et al. ‘918 teaches the use of additional known cooling devices [0053] but does not expressly teach the incorporation of a condenser.
However, Kauffman et al. ‘563 teaches receiving, by a condenser, the cooling fluid produced in a geothermal heat recovery system, and condensing, by the condenser, the heat transfer fluid via heat transfer with the received cooling fluid before the heat transfer fluid is returned to the wellbore of the geothermal system [0004, 0013, 0020].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to incorporate a condenser into the method of modified Parella et al. ‘918 in order to efficiently recover heat and recycle coolant based on the teachings of Kauffman et al. ‘563 at [0016].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ZHANG, Yan-sheng, and W. A. N. G. Jun. "Simulated small-scale pilot heap leaching of low-grade copper sulfide ore with selective extraction of copper." Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 18.6 (2008): 1463-1467. Teaches bio-leaching of copper.
Eichelberger, John C., et al. "Magma-sourced geothermal energy and plans for Krafla Magma Testbed, Iceland." Proceedings World Geotherm Congress. Vol. 1. 2020. Teaches magma-sourced geothermal energy for mining heat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733