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 .
Election Acknowledged
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 was filed on 02/28/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of misspelled and inconsistent terminology. Figures 23 and 24 refer to “ammonian thiosulfate.” However, the specification describes the graphs as referring to different concentrations of “ammonium thiosulfate” (para. [0050], [0051]) or “ammonia thiosulfate” (para. [00115]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification as originally filed contains the phrase “Error! Reference source not found” in numerous places throughout (e.g., para. [0067]).
In the ‘Brief Description of the Drawings’ section, there are two different descriptions for Figure 1 (para. [0027], [0028]), but there is only one drawing belonging to the figure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a possible typographical error involving excessive words in the phrase “the organic extractant is selected from a neutral extractant compound with a compounds with a C-O, P-O, S-O, and/or P-S bond” (lines 1-2, emphasis added). 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “low” in the phrase “low-concentration metal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” 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. The specification discloses the recovery of low-concentration valuable species, with examples of various metals (para. [0009]). However, this listing does not set forth a standard wherein one would understand which metals qualify as low-concentration metals which metals would not be considered low-concentration metals. Without an objective standard, one would not be able to determine which metals fall within and outside the scope of the claimed process.
Regarding claims 2-16, the claims are likewise rejected, as they include all limitations of rejected claim 1.
Further regarding claim 10, the claim is indefinite because it is ambiguous. The intended groupings of leachant are unclear. In one interpretation, the leachant could comprise (i) complexing agent and oxidizing agent OR (ii) thiourea and oxygen. In another interpretation, the leachant could comprise (i) complexing agent and either (a) oxidizing agent or (b) thiourea, AND (ii) oxygen. In another interpretation, the leachant could comprise complexing agent and either (i) oxidizing agent or (ii) thiourea and oxygen. Because of the multiple interpretations, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Further regarding claim 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the lixiviant" in the claim.
Further regarding claims 12 and 13, the claims are likewise rejected, as they include all limitations of rejected claim 11.
Further regarding claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the solution" in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are not rejected under prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as noted above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art references are CN 102284190 (A) to Liu et al. (“Liu”) (computer-generated is attached) and CN 112538570 (A) to Han et al. (“Han”) (abstract and computer-generated translation are attached).
Liu is directed to a three-phase solvent air-assist continuous extraction method using a column (abstract). The column is divided into three regions: (i) bottom-phase mass transfer region containing a salt water phase containing organic matter, (ii) intermediate-phase mass transfer region containing a polymer phase, and (iii) top-phase mass transfer containing an organic solvent (abstract; Fig. 1; para. [0009], [0020], [0022]). Gas is provided from the bottom to the top (para. [0012]).
In Liu, the bottom phase brine contains inorganic salts (corresponds to the claimed metal solution) (para. [0014]), which rests below the polymer phase and organic solvent. This is distinct from the claimed process in which the metal solution is contained in the upper segment above the organic phase feed contained in the middle segment. Liu does not teach the claimed bubble formation of gas bubbles, organic droplets, and organic phase-coated bubbles via first and second porous materials because Liu does not teach the claimed order of regions. Thus, Liu does not teach or suggest the invention as claimed.
Han is directed to a method for separating rare and precious metals based on a floating extraction system (abstract). Gas is provided at the bottom (24) by a bubble generator (28). The gas encounters a flotation separation section (23) in which dissolved rare and precious metal solution are fed (22). Above is an extraction enrichment section (21) into which an organic solvent is fed via inlet (26). See Fig. 2.
In Han, the rare and precious metal solution (corresponds to the claimed metal solution) rests below the extraction enrichment section containing organic solvent (para. [n0018]). This is distinct from the claimed process in which the metal solution is contained in the upper segment above the organic phase feed contained in the middle segment. Han does not teach the claimed bubble formation of gas bubbles, organic droplets, and organic phase-coated bubbles via first and second porous materials because Han does not teach the claimed order of regions. Thus, Han does not teach or suggest the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
February 03, 2026