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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
1. This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/00778, which was filed on 02/25/2022.
Claims 1-8 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending in this application and under consideration.
Specification
2. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
It would appear that claim 1 is not positively reciting the process steps for the claimed method, thus renders the claim unclear and not particularly pointed out the claimed invention.
*Claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend on claim 1 and they do not cure the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (US 7,004,326 B1), hereinafter “Dai et al. ‘326”.
The claimed invention relates to a method for producing low-arsenic copper concentrate, wherein oxoacids of sulfur and hydrogen peroxide are used together as additive reagents in producing the copper concentrate by flotation of an arsenic-containing copper ore as a raw material.
Dai et al. ‘326 discloses a flotation process for selectively recovering valuable metals while rejecting arsenide minerals from an ore containing both said valuable metals and arsenide minerals comprising the steps of:
wet-grinding the ore into a slurry,
adjusting the pH of the slurry to a preset value by the addition of reagents,
providing an oxidizing environment to the slurry,
adding a reagent suite of a polyamine and a sulfur-containing species to the slurry for depressing flotation of arsenide minerals,
readjusting the pH of the slurry to a preset value by the addition of reagents,
adding a collector and a frother at effective dosages to the slurry to float valuable minerals to be recovered and subjecting the slurry containing the collector and frother to flotation to float and selectively recover the valuable metals while rejecting the depressed arsenide minerals (see col. 8, claim 1).
The oxidizing environment is created by utilizing an oxidant selected from a group hydrogen peroxide (col. 8, claim 4).
The sulfur-containing species is selected from a group including thiosulfate and sulfites (col. 8, claim 6).
The polyamine and sulfur-containing species are provided in a ratio ranging from about 1:1 to 1:8 and most preferably from about 1:1 to 1:4 (col. 8, claim 7).
With regard to claim 1, Dai et al. ‘326 teaches the same method for producing a low-arsenic copper concentrate using the same oxoacids of sulfur and hydrogen peroxide as additive agents by flotation of an arsenic-containing copper ore as raw material as claimed (col. 8, claim 1), thus anticipates the instant claim.
With regard to claim 2, thiosulfate and sulfites are disclosed as suitable sulfur additive reagents (col. 8, claim 6).
With regard to claim 5, the claim further defined “the order of addition of the additive reagents is the oxoacids of sulfur, followed by the hydrogen peroxide”. The sulfur-containing species and hydrogen peroxide in the disclosed process are added in the same order as claimed (col. 8, claim 1).
With regard to claims 6 & 7, the claim limitations are met by the reference because the same arsenic minerals are used and recovered in the process disclosed and claimed.
With regard to claim 8, it is considered the claimed limitation doesn’t add anything to or further limit the limitation of claim 1, it is however met by the disclosed method (col. 8, claim 1).
The instant claims are anticipated because there is no patentable distinction seen between the claimed method and the method disclosed by the reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claim(s) 3 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 7,004,326 B1), hereinafter “Dai et al. ‘326”.
Dai et al. ‘326 discloses a flotation process for recovering of valuable metals and arsenide minerals as discussed in the precedent paragraph, except for the following difference(s).
Dai et al. ‘326 does not appear to teach the sulfur-containing species (thiosulfate or sulfites) at the claimed amount of “0.1 to 3 kg per 1 ton of the arsenic-containing copper ore” and “an amount of the hydrogen peroxide added is 0.1 to 5 kg per 1 ton of the arsenic-containing copper ore” as recited in claims 3 & 4, respectively.
However, Examiner considered finding of an optimum/effective amount of such sulfur- containing species and hydrogen peroxide with predictable results of achieving a useful product is prima facie obvious to a person of skilled in the art, because the amounts of such additive reagents are results-effective variables, in view of In re Boesch.
Citations
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
7. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights