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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by '943 (WO 2015/031943 A1).
Regarding claim 19, ‘943 teaches a leaching solution comprising an amino acid lixiviant and an alkali stable transition metal complex (‘943, Page 21, lines 16-20, glycine is an amino acid; pH is 10 (alkaline condition); Page 7, lines 12-13, “The stability constant of gold with glycine at pH 9 is 18.0.”).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (U.S. 2010/0025259).
Regarding claim 19, Xia teaches a leaching solution comprising a lixiviant (Xia, [0088]-[0089]).
The embodiment of Xia cited above (Xia, Example 4A, [0088]-[0089]) does not explicitly teach that the lixiviant is an amino acid lixiviant. However, Xia teaches generally that glycine is suitable to use as a copper complexing agent in the leaching solution (Xia, [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected glycine as a component in the lixiviant. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, glycine was known to be a suitable copper complexing agent for gold extraction (Xia, [0015]).
Because it would be obvious for glycine to be used as a copper complexing agent in the leaching solution, it would also be obvious for an alkali stable copper complex to be present in the leaching solution (Xia, [0008], the solution has a pH from about 7 to about pH 14, which is equivalent to an alkaline solution).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (U.S. 2010/0025259), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Csicsovszki (WO 2011/154607 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Xia renders the leaching solution of claim 19 obvious, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach that the alkali stable transition metal complex is one or more of ferrocyanide, ferricyanide, ferric gluconate and ferric EDTA. However, Csicsovski teaches that ferric EDTA reduces the consumption of thiosulfate during gold leaching (Csicsovski, Page 1, line 20 – Page 2, line 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the leaching solution of Xia by incorporating ferric EDTA as an alkali stable transition metal complex, as Csicsovski teaches that ferric EDTA reduces the consumption of thiosulfate during gold leaching (Csicsovski, Page 1, line 20 – Page 2, line 10). This teaching would be applicable to Xia’s leaching solution because Xia uses thiosulfate as a reagent (Xia, [0055], [0061], [0068]-[0069], [0084]-[0086]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to realize the advantage of reduced thiosulfate consumption taught by Csicsovski.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736