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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23, 26 and 30 is/are pending in this application, of which claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23 and 26 are examined herein. Claim(s) 30 is/are withdrawn. Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are amended. Claim(s) 4-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 19, 22, 24-25, and 27-29 is/are cancelled.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) to claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23 and 26 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) to claim(s) 11 and 20 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1 and 20 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “selectively leaching copper from the material” in line 4. The instant specification discloses selecting leach conditions so that there is substantially no copper leached in the gold stage (pg. 3, lines 33-34) and so that there is substantially no gold leached in the copper leach stage pg. 4 lines 8-9), however the instant specification does not disclose the copper leaching to be broadly selective, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3, 7, 10-11, 16-18, 20-21, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 112458277 A, cited in IDS filed 01/02/2025, translation supplied with Office Action mailed 02/25/2025) in view of Le Capitaine et al. (Heap Leaching A Growing Technology in Beneficiation, supplied with Office Action mailed 06/30/2025), Kohr (US 5766930 A, cited in Office Action mailed 02/25/2025), and Brown et al. (US 20190382869 A1, cited in Office Action dated 02/25/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Cai teaches a method of leaching a gold/copper-containing sulfidic mined material (Title, [n0006, n0014]) that includes two leach stages with a thiourea-based gold leach stage leaching gold from the material with a gold leach liquor [n0020] and a copper leach stage leaching copper from the material with a copper leach liquor [n0014]. As Cai teaches the copper leach stage to only leach Cu, Zn, and Co metals [n0014], while leaving gold unleached in the residue [n0014, n0020], Cai teaches the copper leach stage to be selective of copper compared to gold.
Cai does not teach wherein the leach stages are heap leach stages.
Le Capitaine teaches heap leaching to be useful in the copper and gold industries, thus Cai and Le Capitaine are analogous to the instant specification as both are directed to extraction of copper and gold. Le Capitaine teaches heap leaching offers a wide range of advantages, including low capital investment and operating costs, fast payback, no tailings disposal, lower energy and water requirements, the ability to be applied to tailings and waste piles, viability in a wide range of climates, and simple setup and operation (pg. 2 paragraphs 1-2), as well as using technology that can be contracted locally, fewer acid rock drainage problems, and less sensitivity to commodity price changes, longer mine life, and larger operations (pg. 2 paragraphs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the leach stages of Cai heap leach stages as taught by Le Capitaine as doing so would result in low capital and operating costs, fast payback, no tailings disposal, lower energy and water requirements, the ability to be applied to tailings and waste piles, viability in a wide range of climates, simple setup and operation, use technology that can be contracted locally, have fewer acid rock drainage problems, and have less sensitivity to commodity price changes, longer mine life, and larger operations.
Cai does not teach wherein the copper heap leach stage leaching copper from the material with a copper leach liquor is assisted by use of microorganisms
Kohr teaches a method of biotreatment for solid materials (Title) comprising a method of recovering metal from ore such as copper ore (Col. 25 lines 51-54) such as tailings or waste heaps (Col. 20 lines 41-44). Thus, Kohr and Fang are analogous as both are directed to wet processes of recovering metal by leaching ore. Kohr teaches a copper leach stage 26 leaching copper from the material with a copper leach liquor (Col. 26 lines 5-14) and assisted by use of bacteria (i.e., microorganisms) (Col. 26 lines 5-10). Kohr teaches the microorganisms degrade undesired compounds in the solid material (Col. 1 lines 17-20, Col. 8 lines 26-33)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have assisted copper leaching by adding microorganisms as taught by Kohr to the copper heap leach stage of Cai in view of Le Capitaine as doing so would degrade undesired compounds in the solid material, which would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to improve the purity and yield of the copper obtained.
Le Capitaine teaches forming a heap of the material (e.g., pg. 3 paragraphs 1-4). Cai in view of Le Capitaine and Kohr does not teach carrying out the gold heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively on the gold/copper-containing sulfidic mined material or carrying out the copper heap leach stage and the gold heap leach stage successively on the gold/copper-containing sulfidic mined material.
Cai teaches wherein the gold/copper-containing material is a mined ore or a mined waste material [n0011]. Cai teaches the copper heap leach stage comprises leaching copper from the material with a low concentration of sulfuric acid (i.e., the copper leach liquor) [n0014] and producing a leachate (i.e., a copper-containing solution) and a leached slag (i.e., copper-depleted material [n0014]). Cai further teaches the thiourea-based gold heap leach stage comprises leaching gold from the copper-depleted material [n0020] with thiourea, sulfuric acid, and hydrogen peroxide (i.e., the gold leach liquor) and producing a gold-containing solution [n0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the heap leaching stages successively on the material in the heap of Cai as taught by Wan as doing so would make it unnecessary to disturb the structure of the heap, which would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to simplify performing the leaching.
Cai teaches a copper leaching temperature of 80-90 C [n0025], and does not teach controlling a heap temperature to be less than 75 °C in the copper heap leach stage.
Brown teaches leaching at lower temperatures of <50 °C avoids temperature control and other problems associated with higher temperature heap leach operations, and avoid the higher capital and
operating costs associated with higher temperature heap leach operations [0119].
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 a temperature of less than 50 °C as taught by Brown in the copper heap leaching of Cai, as doing so would avoid temperature control and other problems associated with higher temperatures, and avoid higher capital and operating costs.
Cai performs copper leaching followed by gold leaching of the copper-depleted material instead of gold leaching followed by copper leaching of a gold-depleted material, however it has long been held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144 IV (C). Therefore, as the instant application does not disclose any new or unexpected result due to changing the order of mixing steps compared to the prior art, it would have been obvious to select any order of the addition of components because the leaching of copper and gold from the material occurs regardless of the sequence of leaching steps, thus Wan suggests both carrying out the gold heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively, and the copper heap leach stage and gold copper heap leach stage successively, on the material in the heap as claimed.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 10-11, 16-18, 20-21, 23, and 26 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 12/16/2025. Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 10-11, 16-18, 21, 23, and 26 has/have not been amended since that time, and the amendments to claim(s) 20 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Le Capitaine, Kohr, Wan, and Brown as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shaw (US 5236492 A, cited in Office Action mailed 02/25/2025).
Claim(s) 14 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 12/16/2025. Claim(s) 14 has/have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cai does not disclose selectively leaching copper using copper leach liquor, as Cai leaches leaching copper, cobalt, iron, and zinc in the leaching step of Cai (see pg. 7 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The instant application does not provide any special definition of “selectively” (and in fact does not provide written support for the copper leaching being selective generally), therefore even though Cai leaches other metals in step 3 of Cai (analogous to a copper leach stage), as Cai teaches the leaching leaves gold in the residue produced in step 3, Cai teaches the leaching of copper to be selective of copper with respect to gold, teaching “selectively leaching copper” as claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to modify the system of Cai to use a leaching temperature of less than 75 °C in view of Brown, as one of ordinary skill in the art would allegedly have no rational reason or basis for applying the temperature range of Brown to Cai as Brown teaches leaching copper from chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), rather than from a deep sea polymetallic sulfide ore according to Cai (see pg. 7-8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
CuFeS2 is itself a polymetallic sulfide ore, as it contains multiple different metals and is a sulfide, and thus the chalcopyrite leached by Brown is similar to the polymetallic sulfide ores leached by Cai. Further, both Brown and Cai teach leaching using the same reagents, Brown introduces sulfuric acid during the agglomeration step of constructing a heap leach, while Cai teaches directly leaching the ore with sulfuric acid, therefore Brown and Cai leach similar ores with the same reagent, where one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success to e.g., modify Cai based on teachings of Brown as claimed. See MPEP 2143.02. Therefore, as Brown teaches using temperatures below 50 °C in a similar leaching process to be associated with advantages of avoiding temperature control and other problems associated with higher temperatures, and avoiding higher capital and operating costs, one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the art would have been motivated to use the lower temperatures of Brown in order to benefit from the advantages taught by Brown.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights