Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 – U.S.C. § 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 19 – 20 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 19, the term “coarse” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. For purposes of examination, any particle size is interpreted as meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 20 is rejection by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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.
Claims 1 – 6, 13, 17 – 18, and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connor (US 3,679,397)
Regarding claims 1 and 18, O’Connor teaches a method of leaching comprising bacteria [Title]. O’Connor teaches that the leaching process is performed on low-grade sulfide ore [Claim 7], meeting the claimed limitation of leaching an ore containing a metal sulfide. O’Connor teaches that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.” [Col 2, line 56 – 60]
O’Connor teaches a particular leaching solution that forms an acidic sulfuric/sulfate solution and that also contains thiourea and ferrous sulfate [Example VIII], meeting the claimed limitation of a reagent having a thiocarbonyl group and thiourea of claim 18.
O’Connor does not expressly state that the presence of thiourea results in an increased metal ion extraction rate relative to an acidic sulfate solution that does not contain the reagent. However, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999)” (MPEP 2112 I) and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” MPEP (2112.01 II).
As such, given that thiourea is an exemplary thiocarbonyl functional group-containing reagent (and also claimed in claim 18) there is a reasonable expectation that O’Connor inherently possesses the claimed property.
Regarding claims 2 – 6, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor teaches that the example has 0.5 g of thiourea added to 1000 mL of water [Example VIII]. The molar mass of thiourea is 76.12 g/mol and as such, the millimole content is ~6.57 ((0.5 g/76.12 g/mol)*1000). As such, the molarity is ~6.57 mM [Example VIII], which anticipates the ranges of claims 2 – 6.
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962))
Regarding claims 13 and 17, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper and nickel can be recovered [Col 2, line 57 – 58], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 21 – 22, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor teaches that bacteria is present and that the bacteria oxidizes ferrous iron [Col 2, line 60 – 67]. O’Connor also states that the metallic constituents of the ore are oxidized by bacterium activity [col 2, line 45 – 50]. Wherein ferrous iron has an oxidation state of (+2) and ferric iron has a higher oxidation state of (+3). As such, there is a reasonably expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the bacteria present in the solution would oxidize the ferrous iron and produce ferric iron, at least in part, thereby meeting the claimed limitation of ferric iron ions being present which oxidize metal sulfide (claim 21) and that they are at least partially generated by a bacterium (claim 22).
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7 – 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397)
Regarding claims 7 – 12, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor teaches that thiourea can be provided in an amount of 0.001 – 10 g/liter of water [Claims 3 – 4]. The molar mass of thiourea is 76.12 g/mol. As such, the molarity content ranges from 0.013 ((0.001/76.12) *1000) to 131.37 mM ((10/76.12) *1000), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 7 – 12.
“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Regarding claim 16, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor expressly states that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.”. While cadmium is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have extracted cadmium as one of the metals using the process of O’Connor with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results because cadmium is a recognized metal element and O’Connor states that the variety of metals can be captured/recovered using the process. Moreover, zinc (which is a metal element in the same Periodic Table Group as cadmium) is expressly recognized as being capable of recovery further indicating that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 14 – 15, 19 – 20, and 23 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397), as applied to claim 1, Schlesinger (“Extractive Metallurgy of Copper”, 2011)
Regarding claim 14 – 15, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor teaches that sulfide ores can be used as the material and copper can be retrieved [Col 2, line 55 – 59; Col 4, line 70 – 75], but O’Connor does not expressly teach using chalcopyrite or an atomic ratio of copper to sulfur in the metal sulfide of the ore .
Schlesinger teaches information related to the extraction of copper, in particular via hydrometallurgical routes [Title]. Schlesinger teaches that the leaching of copper sulfide using an oxidizing agent such as ferric iron and acid (sulfuric acid) to retrieve copper [Page 3]. Schlesinger teaches that chalcopyrite is a primary sulfide ore for mining/retrieving copper and that the atomic ratio is 1:2, which meets the limitation of claim 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of O’Connor and used chalcopyrite as the copper sulfide ore, as disclosed by Schlesinger. Schlesinger’s teachings include recovering copper via leaching of sulfide minerals and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings pertinent to the method of O’Connor (which notes recovering metals from sulfide ores, including copper). Moreover, given Schlesinger states that chalcopyrite is a primary sulfide mineral in the recovery of copper and that O’Connor expressly recognizes copper as a metal that can be recovered and that sulfide ore can be used as the starting material, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using chalcopyrite as the starting sulfide ore.
Regarding claim 19 – 20, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor does not teach that the ore is provided as particles and/or agglomerated particles.
Schlesinger teaches information related to the extraction of copper, in particular via hydrometallurgical routes [Title]. Schlesinger teaches that copper leaching using sulfuric acid can be performed via heap leaching and others [page 16]. Schlesinger states that percolation leaching is common and that heap leaching in particular accounts for the majority of the copper recovered via hydrometallurgy [page 6]. Schlesinger states that permeability of the ore for these processes is achieved by blasting and crushing the ore material and then agglomerating fine material to further improve permeability [page 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of O’Connor and performed blasting/crushing on the ore followed by agglomeration to improve permeability, as taught by Schlesinger. Schlesinger’s teachings are directed to recovering copper using leaching (including sulfide minerals) and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings pertinent to the method of O’Connor (which notes recovering metals from sulfide ores, including copper). Moreover, given that O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper is a metal that can be recovered and sulfide ore can be used as the starting material, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to perform blasting/crushing on the ore followed by agglomeration because Schlesinger teaches that it improves permeability of ore material.
Regarding claims 23 – 24, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor does not expressly teach that following leaching, solvent extraction and/or electrowinning is used to extract the metal.
Schlesinger teaches information related to the extraction of copper, in particular via hydrometallurgical routes [Title]. Schlesinger teaches that modern flowsheets for copper extraction have three essential steps which are leaching followed by solvent extraction and then electrowinning [Page 1], meeting the claimed limitation of claims 23 – 24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of O’Connor and used solvent extraction and electrowinning to recover the copper in the pregnant leach solution, as disclosed by Schlesinger. Schlesinger is directed to recovering copper from a leach solution and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings pertinent to the method of O’Connor (which teaches recovering metals including copper via leaching). Moreover, given that Schlesinger teaches that solvent extraction and electrowinning are standard procedures in the recovery of copper and that O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper is a metal that can be recovered, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success and would have been motivated to combine/apply the method steps.
Claims 25 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397) in view of Dixon (US2012/0067174)
Regarding claim 25, O’Connor teaches a method of leaching comprising bacteria [Title]. O’Connor teaches that the leaching process is performed on low-grade sulfide ore [Claim 7], meeting the claimed limitation of leaching an ore containing a metal sulfide. O’Connor teaches that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.” [Col 2, line 56 – 60].
O’Connor teaches that the leaching solution can contain thiourea as part of the lixiviant, wherein thiourea contains a thiocarbonyl functional group, but does not teach or suggest using thioacetamide.
Dixon teaches a method of recovering metal (in particular nickel) [Title] from a source material [0010] which can be a sulfide ore [0067]. The ore can be subjected to leaching and treated with a sulfur-containing reductant which facilitates leaching of nickel by accelerating corrosion of the source material (i.e. sulfide ore) [0054]. Dixon expressly states that thiourea can be used [0056] and that as an alternative to this, thioacetamide can be selected [0056], meeting the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of O’Connor and substituted thiourea with thioacetamide, as taught by Dixon to achieve predictable results. Both O’Connor and Dixon include teachings of recovering metal from sulfide ore and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered Dixon pertinent. Moreover, both O’Connor and Dixon teach that thiourea can be included in the leaching solution and Dixon acknowledges that thioacetamide can be used instead of thiourea. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting thiourea with thioacetamide.
O’Connor nor Dixon expressly state that the presence of thiourea or thioacetamide results in increased metal ion extraction rate relative to an acidic sulfate solution that does not contain the reagent. However, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999)” (MPEP 2112 I) and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” MPEP (2112.01 II). As such, there is a reasonable expectation that thioacetamide would result in an increased recovery rate as claimed.
Regarding claims 26 and 28, O’Connor in view of Dixon teaches the invention as applied in claim 25. O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper and nickel can be recovered [Col 2, line 57 – 58], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 27, O’Connor in view of Dixon teaches the invention as applied in claim 25. O’Connor expressly states that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.”. While cadmium is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have extracted cadmium as one of the metals using the process of O’Connor with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results because cadmium is a recognized metal element and O’Connor states that the variety of metals can be captured/recovered using the process. Moreover, zinc (which is a metal element in the same Periodic Table Group as cadmium) is expressly recognized as being capable of recovery, further indicating that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 37 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397) in view of Little (US 4,645,535)
Regarding claim 37, O’Connor teaches a method of leaching comprising bacteria [Title]. O’Connor teaches that the leaching process is performed on low-grade sulfide ore [Claim 7], meeting the claimed limitation of leaching an ore containing a metal sulfide. O’Connor teaches that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.” [Col 2, line 56 – 60].
O’Connor teaches that the leaching solution can contain thiourea as part of the lixiviant, wherein thiourea contains a thiocarbonyl functional group, but does not teach or suggest using thiosemicarbazide.
Little teaches a method of recovering metal (in particular precious metals) from ores [Title] which can be a sulfide ore [Col 3, line 15 – 19]. The ore can be subjected to leaching with a lixiviant solution including sulfuric acid [Col 3, line 29 – 32]. Little expressly states that thiourea can be used [Col 3, line 20 – 28] and that alternative to this, thiourea derivatives including thiosemicarbazide can be selected [Col 3, line 20 – 28], meeting the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of O’Connor and substituted thiourea with thiosemicarbazide, as taught by Little to achieve predictable results. Both O’Connor and Little include teachings of recovering metal from sulfide ore and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered Little pertinent to the process of O’Connor. Moreover, both O’Connor and Little teach that thiourea can be included in the leaching solution and Little acknowledges that thiosemicarbazide can be used as an alternative to thiourea. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting thiourea with thiosemicarbazide.
O’Connor nor Little expressly state that the presence of thiourea or thiosemicarbazide results in increased metal ion extraction rate relative to an acidic sulfate solution that does not contain the reagent. However, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999)” (MPEP 2112 I) and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” MPEP (2112.01 II). As such, there is a reasonable expectation that thiosemicarbazide would result in an increased recovery rate as claimed.
Regarding claims 26 and 28, O’Connor in view of Little teaches the invention as applied in claim 25. O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper and nickel can be recovered [Col 2, line 57 – 58], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 27, O’Connor in view of Little teaches the invention as applied in claim 25. O’Connor expressly states that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.”. While cadmium is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have extracted cadmium as one of the metals using the process of O’Connor with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results because cadmium is a recognized metal element and O’Connor states that the variety of metals can be captured/recovered using the process. Moreover, zinc (which is a metal element in the same Periodic Table Group as cadmium) is expressly recognized as being capable of recovery, further indicating that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting Rejections
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 17 and 19 – 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,865,460. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore with metal sulfide using thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 17, 19 – 24, and 29 – 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,870,903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore with metal sulfide using sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (SDDC), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 17, 19 – 24, and 37 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,876,187. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore with metal sulfide using thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 17, 19 – 24, and 33 – 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,876,186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore with metal sulfide using ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 40 of U.S. Patent No. 10,954,583. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore with metal sulfide using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), dimethyldithiocarbamate, and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 71 of U.S. Patent No. 11,859,263. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore with metal sulfide using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (SDDC), and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 40 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,993. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore with metal sulfide using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (SDDC), and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2007/0266827 – recovering precious metal using thiourea or thiosemicarbazide
US 4,816,235 – thiourea leaching of precious metal with activated carbon capture afterwards
US 4,342,591 – recovering metal from ore (in particular gold and silver) by sulfurous leaching with a description that iron and copper should be removed first to reduce usage of thiourea.
CA1236308 – recovering precious metal using thiourea
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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 on (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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights