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(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner, with the exception of the following : MPEP 609.04(a)(II) states, in part, that “In addition to the list of information, each information disclosure statement must also include a legible copy of: … (B) Each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed , other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications unless required by the Office”. In the instant case, no cop ies of CN 105734284 A, CN 103898550 A, CN 102091711 A, CN 202519343 U, CN 103397195 A, or CN 107746959 A ha ve been supplied with the IDS. While the IDS is being considered at this time, subsequent IDS documents are expected to conform to the aforementioned standards. 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: 19 . 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 Objections Claims 1-2 , 6 , 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1: “iron II oxidizing” in line 14 should read “iron II thereby oxidizing” Claim 2: “has” in line 2 should read “have” Claim 6 : “tracking being” should read “tracking is ” Claim 12: “sample” in line 8 should read “ a sample” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-15 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 limitation " different salts " in line 4 . The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the salts are “different” with respect to, as there is no prior mention of salts; or if the term merely means that multiple salts of differing compositions form the mineral medium . Claim 1 recites the limitation " a liquid phase comprising the iron III ions " in line 11 . The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how the iron III ions move from the biomass column of step b) to a liquid phase in step c). Claim 1 recites the limitation "the metals of interest" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation " a solid phase… a liquid phase… " in lines 3-4 . The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what relation the solid and liquid phases have with the separating of the microorganisms from the biomass column . Claim 3 recites the limitation " soluble copper II " in lines 3-4 . The limitation is indefinite as there is no prior mention of copper in claim 3 or parent claim 1, making unclear whether claim 3 is further specifying the “metals of interest” to consist of or comprise copper. The claim is further indefinite as it is unclear whether copper must be present in the invention of claim 1, or if claim 3 is e.g., an optional further limitation for the case where copper is present . Claim 3 recites the limitation "the metallic iron" in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation " but without the iron salt FeSO 4 · 7 H 2 O " in lines 6-7 and 10-11 . The limitation is indefinite as there is no mention in claim 12 or parent claim 1 of the mineral medium comprising iron salt FeSO 4 · 7 H 2 O, making unclear whether the mineral medium of claim 1 comprises iron salt FeSO 4 · 7 H 2 O, is further limited by claim 12 to comprise iron salt FeSO 4 · 7 H 2 O, and how the composition of the solution in lines 6-7 actually differs . The term “ specific amount ” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ specific amount ” is 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 , making unclear how much of a liquid resulting from cleaning of the support material and mineral medium are used. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 2 recites the broad recitation “specific amount” , and the claim also recites “preferably 2 mL” and “preferably 1 mL” which are the narrower statement s of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The term “ a surplus ” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ a surplus ” is 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 , making unclear what amount of sample is a surplus which would be eliminated . Claim 12 recites the limitation " a surplus " in lin e 10 . The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what composition is examined or how the “surplus” of the composition is eliminated . Claim 12 recites the limitation "the mineral medium with the iron salt FeSO 4 · 7 H 2 O" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation " an activity " in line 3 . The limitation is indefinite a s parent claim 12 discloses “a biological activity” and parent claim 1 discloses “a metabolic activity”, making unclear which of the activities the activity in claim 13 relates to if any . Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute. 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 s 1-3, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D orado et al. ( WO 2019206755 A1 , supplied with IDS filed 08/16/2023 ) in view of Zheng et al. ( CN 111778235 A , original document and machine translation supplied herein ) . Regarding claim 1, Dorado teaches a method for the biological recovery of metals in electric and electronic waste (Title), comprising inoculating a series of aerobic iron-oxidizing microorganisms and a mineral medium formed by different salts in solution into a reactor (pg. 5 lines 14-16) and performing a first stage of biological oxidation of iron II ions present in the mineral medium to iron III ions the first stage being catalyzed by a metabolic activity of the iron-oxidizing microorganisms ( pg. 2 lines 1 6 -21 ) performed within a previously fixed range of temperature ( pg. 2 line 20 ) and controlling the pH of the mineral medium or fertilizers ( pg. 2 line s 20 -21), the first stage lasting for at least two hours ( pg. 2 line 2 1). Dorado teaches irrigating a liquid phase comprising the iron III ions into at least one leaching column ( pg. 2 lines 25-27 ) configured for housing an electrical material or one or more printed circuit boards of an electrical material or electronic waste from which metals are to be recovered (pg. 2 lines 25-27), the iron III ions being reduced to iron II oxidizing the metals ( pg. 2 lines 27-28 ) and the iron III ions being reduced to iron II oxidizing the metals ( pg. 2 lines 28-29 ). Dorado teaches separating the metals of interest using a dissolution thereof ( pg. 2 lines 28-29 ) and the electrical material or the one or more printed circuit boards being in contact with the liquid phase inside the leaching column ( pg. 2 lines 29-30 ) for at least one hour (pg. 2 line 30). Dorado teaches extracting the metals of interest from the solution (pg. 2 lines 30-31). Dorado does not teach inoculating into and performing oxidation in a n immobilized biomass column . Zheng teaches a method for solidification and continuous culture of microorganisms (Title), where bacteria is cultured to oxidize ferrous ions into ferric ions [0019, 0024] to extract useful metals from ores via hydrometallurgy [0004], thus Zheng and Dorado are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to using ferrous ion oxidizing microorganisms for recovery of metals. Zheng teaches inoculating iron-oxidizing microorganisms into a biomass column [0009, 0038], wherein the microorganisms require oxygen to perform oxidation (i.e., aerobic iron-oxidizing microorganism) [0044]. Zheng teaches performing oxidation in an immobilized biomass column [0009, 0039, 0045] . Zheng teaches the top-in, bottom-out method of introducing bacteria using oxygen from air to enter the column greatly save s energy [0090 -0091]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the reactor in which microorganisms are inoculated of Dorado with a column as taught by Zheng as doing so would greatly save energy . Regarding claim 2, Dorado teaches separating the iron-oxidizing microorganisms that has been detached from the reactor (analogous to a biomass column ) out of the reactor ( pg. 2 lines 22-24 ), a solid phase comprising the iron-oxidizing microorganisms and the liquid phase comprising the iron Ill ions ( pg. 2 lines 22-24 ). Regarding claim 3, Dorado teaches reducing the extracted metals of interest from soluble state to metallic state through a cementation process which provides a spontaneous reaction between soluble copper II, extracted from the electrical material or from the one or more printed circuit board or boards, and the metallic iron ( pg. lines 19-24 ). Regarding claim 10, Dorado teaches wherein the different salts of the mineral medium include an iron II salt and salts that provide nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, and calcium ( pg. 4 lines 4-5 ). Regarding claim 11, Dorado teaches wherein the mineral medium comprises 30 g/L of FeSO 4 • 7 H 2 O, 3 g/L of (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ; 0.5 g/L of MgSO 4 • 7H 2 O, 0.5 g/L of K 2 HPO 4 , 0.10 g/L of KCI and 0.01 g/L of Ca(NO 3 ) 2 • 4 H2O (pg. 4 lines 5-8), which is within the claimed ranges. Regarding claim 14, Dorado teaches re-circulating iron III from a lower part of the at least one leaching column to an upper part thereof, step c) being performed at room temperature and at a pH less than 1.8 ( pg. 3 lines 3-5, pg. 5 lines 3-4 ). Regarding claim 15, Dorado teaches wherein the method further comprises recirculating the solution to the first step (analogous to the biomass column ) (pg. 9 lines 1-2, Fig. 2). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorado in view of Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pickering et al. ( US 3440155 A ) . Dorado teaches reducing the extracted metals of interest from soluble state to metallic state through electrolysis ( pg. 3 lines 27-28 ), but does not teach using stainless steel or lead electrodes. Pickering teaches extraction and recovery of metals from ores, concentrates , and residues (Title), where lead is recovered from solution by reducing via electrolysis (abstract, pg. 1 lines 48-49), thus Dorado and Pickering are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of recovering metals from solutions by reducing via electrolysis. Pickering teaches the electrodes are made of stainless steel (pg. 7 lines 60-61). Because Dorado is silent with respect to the type of electrodes used , in order to carry out the invention of Dorado one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching electrodes suitable for electrolyzing to reduce metal from solution within the process of Dorado , such as stainless steel electrodes as taught by Pickering . As Dorado and Pickering both relate to reducing metals into solid form by electrolysis , one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the stainless steel electrodes of Pickering . Claim s 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorado in view of Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Butler ( US 20120144959 A1 ) . Regarding claim 5, Dorado teaches tracking the biological oxidation of the iron II ions to iron III ions using one or more optical sensors (pg. 4 lines 25-28, pg. 7 lines 3-18). Dorado does not teach the tracking to be automatic, tracking a metal extraction in the at least one leaching column, or wherein the tracking continuously and non-invasively monitor s a color change of the liquid of the at least one l eaching column as a result of the solubilization of the metals being extracted . Butler teaches a s melting method (Title), where base metals are leached from gold-containing source material with an aqueous leach liquor [0066] to remove base metal [0068] comprising iron (III) [0087], thus Butler and Dorado are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to hydrometallurgical processes of leaching metal involving iron (III). Butler teaches tracking a metal extraction in the leaching by colorimetry (i.e., using an optical sensor) [0087]. Butler teaches the colorimetry observes decoloration of material after leaching from dissolutions of moieties such as iron (III) [0087], and does not disclose any invasive step as part of the observation, thus Butler teaches continuously and non-invasively monitor ing a color change of the liquid of the at l eaching as a result of the solubilization of the metals being extracted . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tracked metal extraction using an optical sensor as taught by Butler in the leaching column of Dorado, as doing so would determine the amount of metal leached during the leach step, which would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to enable closer control and better inform decisions regarding the process . W hile Dorado in view of Zheng and Butler does not teach the tracking of biological oxidation and metal extraction to be automated , Dorado in view of others teaches performing the functions manually . It has long been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art and presents a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.04 (III). Regarding claim 6, Dorado teaches the process to be continuous (pg. 3 line 6, claim 4), therefore the tracking of biological oxidation and metal extraction (both part of the process) would be executed simultaneously . Regarding claim 7, Dorado teaches wherein at least the tracked biological oxidation is further processed, calibrated and/or diagnosed using a processing unit operatively connected to the one or more optical sensors ( pg. 4 lines 29-30 ). Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorado in view of Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al. ( US 4298578 A ) . R e garding claim 8, Dorado does not teach wherein the irrigation of is performed in batches programmed and controlled using an automatic control device . Yan teaches a leach method of uranium (Title, abstract), where uranium is leached in to a column 11 by a leach solution and desorbed by an eluent ( Col . 2 lines 51- 65 , Fig. 1), thus Yan and Dorado are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to leaching metals comprising the use of columns interacting with leach solutions. Yan teaches the column may be two columns ( Col . 2 lines 59-60), where one column is eluted to remove the metal of interest (i.e., irrigated), while the other column is loaded ( Col . 2 lines 58-62), thus irrigation is performed in batches with respect to each column. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used multiple columns used alternately in series as taught by Dorado, as doing so would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to enable constant irrigation to remove material despite depletion of a mineral of interest from a particular column . W hile Dorado in view of Zheng and Yan does not teach wherein the irrigation is programmed and controlled using an automatic control device , Dorado in view of others teaches performing the functions manually . It has long been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art and presents a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.04 (III). Regarding claim 9, Yan suggests using two irrigation columns as noted above, and teaches wherein in the liquid phase is irrigated into two leaching columns , which exchange the liquid phase from one column to the other (Col. 2 lines 58-60). W hile Dorado in view of Zheng and Yan does not teach automatically exchanging the liquid phase from one column to the other by an automatic control device , Dorado in view of others teaches performing the functions manually . It has long been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art and presents a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.04 (III). Claims 1 2 -1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorado in view of Zheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasuya et al. ( US 20170253999 A1 ) and Rosengren et al. ( US 20170333957 A1 ) . Regarding claim 1 2 , Dorado teaches tracking an activity of the iron-oxidizing microorganisms in the immobilized biomass column by preparing a solution with a same mineral medium composition but without the iron salt FeSO 4 • 7 H 2 O ( pg. 4 lines 13-14 ), extracting a specific amount of sample, preferably 2 ml, centrifuging it for 10 minutes at 5000 rpm ( pg. 4 lines 15-16 ), eliminating a surplus and adding another specific amount, preferably 2 ml, of the mineral medium but without the iron salt FeSO 4 • 7 H2O (pg. 4 lines 17-18 ), stabilizing the temperature by putting the sample in a thermostatic bath at 30 °C (pg. 4 line 19 ), adding another specific amount, preferably 2 ml, of the mineral medium with the iron salt FeSO 4 • 7 H 2 O and performing homogenization (pg. 4 lines 20-21 ). Dorado teaches extracting a specific amount, preferably 1 ml, of the mineral medium and introducing it in a container which is again placed in said thermostatic bath under mechanical stirring (pg. 4 lines 22-24 ), introducing an oxygen microsensor in the container until contacting the sample or introducing the sample in the container with a sensor adhered thereto (pg. 4 lines 25-27 ), and recording a progression of the oxygen concentration via the microsensor or the sensor and determining a biological activity of the sample based on a time progression slope obtained (pg. 4 lines 28-30 ). Dorado in view of Zheng does not teach extracting and cleaning a support material from the biomass column . Kasuya teaches fibers for protein adsorption in a column (Title), where the fibers are contained in a column irrigated with a solution [0003], thus Kasuya and Dorado are analogous as both are directed to columns for treating solutions. Kasuya teaches removing a carrier of the fibers (i.e., a support material ) from the column during a measuring operation [0080] . Rosengren teaches a method of assessing cleanness of a bed support in a column (title), comprising cleaning a support material from the column [0025] before conveying liquid through the bed (Claim 6, [0018, 0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removed and cleaned a support material as taught by Kasuya and Rosengren in the tracking method of Dorado as doing so would be expected by one of ordinary skill to prevent the support material from interfering with the process of tracking of an activity of the microorganisms . Regarding claim 13, Dorado teaches linking an activity of the sample with the concentration of iron-oxidizing microorganisms by means of using a prior calibration ( pg. 4 lines 31-32 ) and calibrating the oxygen microsensor in an oxygen-free aqueous medium and under saturation conditions at a constant temperature ( pg. 5 lines 1-2 ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1995 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 /NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733