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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 25-29 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The original election of Group I, claims 1-11, was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 November 2025. Concurrent with this election, Applicant submitted new claims 21-29. The Office found that claims 25-29 were directed to a non-elected invention, and claims 25-29 were withdrawn by the Examiner in the action mailed 20 January 2026. No traversal to this finding was noted in Applicant’s reply of 22 June 2026.
Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification filed 22 June 2026 have been entered and considered for this action.
The prior rejections of claims 22 and 23 under 35 USC § 112 are withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The formatting of CO2 ([0007]), H2SO4 and HNO3 ([0057]) lack appropriate subscript formatting.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 22 and 24 under 35 USC § 102 and 103, page 8 of the reply filed 22 June 2026, have been fully considered. The argument that Sceresini fails to teach the limitation wherein the adsorbent media comprises silica, as recited in the amended claim, is persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Park et al. (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 172, 447-458 (1995)), as analyzed below.
Applicant’s arguments that Sceresini failed to anticipate the unamended claim have been considered but are moot.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 172, 447-458 (1995)) in view of Sceresini (US 5,427,606 A).
Regarding claim 21, Park teaches a method of extracting an element (copper), the method comprising:
mixing a solution having a first element with an extraction agent (complexing ligand; abstract) to form a first fluid having a first complex, the first complex including the first element bound to the extraction agent (p. 448, “Reagent” );
extracting the first element from the first fluid, at least by: adsorbing, via an adsorbent media, the first complex from the first fluid (p. 447, “Adsorption”; p. 450, col. 2 teaches that the complex is adsorbed),
wherein the adsorbent media comprises silica (silica gel; p. 447, “Adsorption”).
Park further teaches that their adsorption system for copper can be used in processes for the removal of trace metals from natural aquatic systems (p. 447, col. 2, ¶ 2).
Park does not teach removing the first complex from the adsorbent media,
separating the first element from the extraction agent in the first complex; or, recycling the extraction agent to be used in a further extracting step and the adsorbent media to be used in a further extracting step.
However, Sceresini also teaches a method to extract copper from aqueous solution using an extraction agent and adsorbent media (abstract) and further teaches removing the copper complex from the adsorbent media (stripping said cyano-base metal complex from said activated carbon; col. 2, l. 26-27), separating the copper from the extraction agent in the copper complex (subsequent recovery of the base metal values; col. 2, l. 28), recycling the extraction agent to be used in a further extracting step (recover… the cyanide for reuse; col. 10, l. 14-16) , and recycling the adsorbent media to be used in a further extracting step (recovery for reuse of barren activated carbon; col. 2, l. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Park the steps of removing the first complex from the adsorbent media,
separating the first element from the extraction agent in the first complex; and, recycling the extraction agent to be used in a further extracting step and the adsorbent media to be used in a further extracting step, as taught by Sceresini.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to recover the copper metal values and to reduce waste and costs by reusing the extraction agent and the adsorbent media.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 172, 447-458 (1995)) in view of Sceresini (US 5,427,606 A), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lucien et al. (US 2004/0213715 A1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Park teaches the process of claim 21, as analyzed above, and Sceresini further discloses introducing the adsorbent media to a solvent to displace the first complex from the adsorbent media and separating the adsorbent media from the solvent and first complex (eluting said loaded carbon with an appropriate eluant; col. 7, lines 9-10). Sceresini teaches recovering metals that have been released from the adsorbent (col. 2, line 10), but neither Sceresini nor Park disclose evaporating the solvent from the first complex.
However, isolation of compounds from solution by removal of solvent via evaporation is well known in the art. For example, Lucien teaches the recovery metal complexes eluted from an adsorbent (abstract), and further teaches that these metal complexes can be recovered after being released from the adsorbent (eluted) by evaporation of the solvent (eluant) ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the first complex from the adsorbent media in the method of modified Park by introducing the adsorbent media to a solvent to displace the first complex from the adsorbent media and to separate the adsorbent media from the solvent and the first complex, as taught by Sceresini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Sceresini teaches that such steps enable the recovery of the valuable copper and the reuse of the adsorbent media.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evaporate the solvent from the first complex in the method of modified Park, as taught by Lucien. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lucien teaches that evaporation of the solvent is one way to recover the metal values after eluting from adsorbent media.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
A statement of the Examiner’s reasons for allowance appears in the Office action mailed 20 January 2026.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
F.W. Petersen and J. S. J. Van Deventer. “The behaviour of silica in gold cyanide solutions,” International Journal of Mineral Processing, 1997, 50(3), 211-225.
Peterson discloses that silica sand can be used to adsorb significant amount of gold cyanide (abstract).
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 Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights