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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2026, 06/26/2026, 08/02/2026, 08/28/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments/ Status of Claims
An amendment, filed 07/21/2026, is acknowledged.
Claim 1, 22, 24 and 32 have been amended,
Claims 21 and 27 are cancelled.
Claims 1-20, 22-26 and 28-42 are currently pending, and therefore, under consideration for this office action.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 recites “a range of about 0.1 % by volume to about 10% by volume, however, there is no support from the specification, for example, the paragraphs [0029]-[0030] of the instant disclosure describes “the addition of 10% ethylene glycol as a co-solvent in a chemical leaching system” and paragraph [0038] describes “the alcohol concentration in the acidic ferric chloride and/or cupric chloride solution, may be about 10%, but lower or higher concentrations (e.g., less than about 0.5% or more than about 10%) may be used.” But none of this paragraph describes any unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-20, 22-26 and 28-42 are directly and indirectly dependent of claim 1 and therefore rejected for the same above reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-18, 20, 22, 24-26, 28, and 30-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, Zihe et.al. [WO2022056622A1] (provided in the IDS) and further in view of Serdar Aktas [“A novel purification method for copper sulfate using ethanol”, Hydrometallurgy 106 (2011) 175–178], as evidenced in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Regarding claim 1, 18, 20, and 22, Ren discloses a method for extracting a base metal from a material, the method comprising: contacting the material under acidic conditions with a cosolvent system and a catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl (a method for extracting a base metal from a material comprising the base metal, the method comprising contacting the material under acidic conditions with a wetting agent and a reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group, see Ren’s page 2, [007]).
With respect to the term “cosolvent system”, as evidenced in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the cosolvent is a solvent that in conjunction with another solvent can dissolve a solute. Ren discloses an acidic aqueous solution comprising ferric sulfate, a suitable acid (such as sulfuric acid) and the desired amount of the wetting agent (a polyethylene glycol (see Ren’s page 4, [0026]- [0028], ethylene glycol, see Ren’s page 19, [003]), and reagents comprising thiocarbonyl for agglomerated copper sulfide ore (see Ren’s page 26, [0024]). Therefore, as evidenced in the dictionary, Ren’s disclosed system contains more than one solvent, ferric sulfate, water, acid, wetting agent and reagents comprising thiocarbonyl, therefore, Ren’s disclosed system is a cosolvent system, and Ren’s acid, ferric sulfate, water, wetting agent, reagents comprising thiocarbonyl all are cosolvents.
With respect to claim 18, the cosolvent system comprises an acid, (as Ren’s disclosed system contains a suitable acid, (such as sulfuric acid) see Ren’s page 26, [0024]).
With respect to claim 20, the cosolvent system comprises a cosolvent (as shown above, Ren’s acid, ferric sulfate, water (see Ren’s page 26, [0024]) and wetting agent (see Ren’s page 19, [003]) and as shown above, Ren’s disclosed system contains more than one solvent, ferric sulfate, water, acid, wetting agent and reagents comprising thiocarbonyl, therefore, Ren’s disclosed system is a cosolvent system, and Ren’s acid, ferric sulfate, water, wetting agent, reagents comprising thiocarbonyl all are cosolvents.
But Ren is silent about the comprising an alcohol, wherein the alcohol is at a concentration in a range of about 0.1 % by volume to about 10% by volume.
However, Serdar teaches copper sulfate can be produced by the action of sulfuric acid on a variety of copper(II) compounds, wherein copper is oxidized to copper(II) oxide and subsequently converted to copper sulfate (see Serdar’s Introduction) and Serdar teaches the sulfate precipitation method using ethanol can be used to purify metal sulfates depending on their concentration in the solution (see Serdar’s Introduction) and the optimal precipitation parameters were determined by evaluating the effects of the following factors: initial copper concentration, ethanol/solution volume ratio, followed by solid/liquid separation to get final copper content following each precipitation experiment, (see Serdar’s Experiment).
Serdar then teaches cosolvent comprising the alcohol is at a concentration in a range of about 1% (ethanol/solution vol. ratio=1, see Serdar’s Fig. 1 and 2) and volume ratio of 0.5, a precipitation of 68% was achieved; with a volume ratio of 2.0, a precipitation of 97% was achieved. From this observation, we concluded that a higher ethanol/solution volume ratio leads to greater precipitation. see Serdar’s Results and discussion Fig. 3 and 2).
Serdar’s alcohol concentration in cosolvent is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Serdar further teaches ethanol allowed the selective separation of copper sulfate from other impurities and the optimum conditions for maximizing copper sulfate precipitation and minimizing other sulfate precipitation are investigated and the presence of ethanol lowers the thermodynamic activity of water and makes it less available as a ligand for Cu2+ and SO4−. With fewer water ligands, these two ions form direct bonds more easily, and they precipitate as copper sulfate pentahydrate when a substantial amount of ethanol is added to the solution (see Serdar’s Results and discussion Fig. 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 22, Serdar’s ethanol is a monohydric alcohol as contains one -(OH).
Serdar is in the field of extracting a base metal (copper) with cosolvent system from a material (copper sulphate) and therefore, analogous to both the instant claim and Ren.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Serdar’s teaching to combine with Ren’s method of extracting base metal from a material, for optimum conditions for maximizing copper sulfate precipitation and minimizing other sulfate precipitation and increasing the extraction rate of copper.
Regarding claim 2, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 2, in addition, Ren discloses contacting the material under acidic conditions comprises: contacting the material with an acidic mixture comprising the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl (contacting the material with an acidic mixture comprising the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group, see Ren’s page 2, [008]) .
Regarding claim 3, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 3, in addition, Ren discloses the material is agglomerated prior to contact (the material is agglomerated prior to contact, see Ren’s page 2, [0011]).
Regarding claim 4, all the discussions above claim 1 and 2 are applicable for claim 4, in addition, Ren discloses the acidic mixture comprises an oxidizing agent (the acidic mixture further comprises an oxidizing agent, see Ren’s page 2, [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, all the discussions above claim 1, 2 and 4 are applicable for claim 5, in addition, Ren discloses the oxidizing agent comprises ferric sulfate (the oxidizing agent comprises ferric sulfate, see Ren’s page 2, [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 6, in addition Ren discloses the material comprises an iron-oxidizing bacteria (the material further comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria, see Ren’s page 2, [0014]).
Regarding claim 7, all the discussions above claim 1 and 2 are applicable for claim 7, and in addition, Ren discloses the acidic mixture comprises an iron-oxidizing bacteria (the acidic mixture further comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria, see Ren’s page 2, [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 8, in addition, Ren discloses the material comprises a base metal sulfide (the material is a material comprising a base metal sulfide, see Ren’s page 2, [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 9, in addition, Ren discloses the material comprises an ore (the material comprises an ore, see Ren’s page 3, [0017]).
Regarding claim 10, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 10, in addition, Ren discloses the base metal comprises copper (the base metal comprises copper, see Ren’s page 3, [0018]).
Regarding claim 11, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 11, and in addition, Ren discloses the material comprises a copper sulfide ore (the material comprises a copper sulfide ore, see Ren’s page 3, [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, all the discussions above claim 1 and 11 are applicable for claim 12, in addition, Ren discloses the copper sulfide ore comprises chalcopyrite (the copper sulfide ore comprises chalcopyrite, see Ren’s page 3, [0019]). Ren further discloses examples for extracting a base metal copper from pulverized chalcopyrite (CuFeS2)), under acidic conditions (ferric sulphate (Fe2(SO4)3) adjusted by sulfuric acid to a pH of about 2) with wetting agent and a catalyst (reagent) comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group (see Ren’s page 40, [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 13, and in addition, Ren discloses further comprising adding sulfuric acid to obtain the acidic conditions (the method comprises adding sulfuric acid to obtain the acidic conditions, see Ren’s page 3, [0020]).
Regarding claim 14, all the discussions above claim 1 and 2 are applicable for claim 14, in addition, Ren discloses wherein the pH of the acidic mixture is in a range of about 1.5 to about 2.5 (the pH of the acidic mixture is in a range of about 1.5 to about 2.5, see Ren’s page 3, [0020]).
Ren’s disclosed pH range is exactly same as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 15, in addition, Ren discloses the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl is added to the method in monomeric form (the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group is added in monomeric form, see Ren’s page 3, [0021]).
Regarding claim 16, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 16, in addition, Ren discloses the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl is added to the method in the form of the corresponding dimer (the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group is added to the method in the form of the corresponding dimer, see Ren’s page 3, [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 17, in addition, Ren discloses the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl comprises thiourea (the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group comprises thiourea, see Ren’s page 3, [0022]).
Regarding claim 26, all the discussions above claim 1 and 20 are applicable for claim 26, wherein Ren already discloses aqueous ferric sulfate is one of the cosolvent of the cosolvent system (see Ren’s page 26, [0024]), in addition Ren further discloses the cosolvent comprises a solubility in water of about 1.5 g/L to about 3 g/L ( the ferric sulfate, a water-soluble salt having a concentration of from about 1.5 g/L to about 3 g/L (see Ren’s page 13, [0090]).
Ren’s disclosed concentration of the cosolvent is exactly same as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 28, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 28, in addition, Ren discloses the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl is at a concentration in the range of about 0.002 mM to about 100 mM (the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group is at a concentration in the range of about 0.002 mM to about 100 mM, see Ren’s page 19, [0097]).
Ren’s disclosed concentration range is exactly same as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 30, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 30, in addition Ren discloses the material is contacted with the cosolvent system and the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl in a method comprising a percolation leach (the material is contacted with the wetting agent and the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group in a method comprising a percolation leach, see Ren’s page 4, [0030]).
Regarding claim 31, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 31, in addition, Ren discloses the material is contacted with the cosolvent system and the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl in a method comprising a heap leach (the material is contacted with the wetting agent and the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group in a method comprising a heap leach, see Ren’s page 4, [0030]).
Regarding claim 32, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 32, in addition, Ren discloses the material is contacted with the cosolvent system and the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl in a method comprising a column leach (the material is contacted with the wetting agent and the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group in a method comprising a column leach, see Ren’s page 4, [0030]).
Regarding claim 33, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 33, in addition, Ren discloses further comprising recovering the base metal (the method further comprises recovering the base metal, see Ren’s page 4, [0031]).
Regarding claim 34, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 34, in addition, Ren discloses the contacting of the material with the cosolvent system and the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl produces a pregnant leach solution comprising the base metal and the method further comprises recovering the base metal from the pregnant leach solution (the contacting of the material with the wetting agent and the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group produces a pregnant leach solution comprising the base metal and the method further comprises recovering the base metal from the pregnant leach solution, see Ren’s page 4, [0031]).
Regarding claim 35, all the discussions above claim 1 and 33 are applicable for claim 35, in addition, Ren discloses wherein the recovering comprises solvent extraction (the recovering comprises solvent extraction see Ren’s page 4, [0031]).
Regarding claim 36, all the discussions above claim 1 and 33 are applicable for claim 36, in addition, Ren discloses wherein the recovering comprises electrowinning (the recovering comprises electrowinning see Ren’s page 4, [0031]).
Regarding claim 37, all the discussions above claim 1, 33 and 35 are applicable for claim 37, in addition, Ren discloses further comprising a solid-liquid separation (prior to the solvent extraction, the method further comprises a solid- liquid separation see Ren’s page 4, [0031]).
Regarding claim 38, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 38, in addition, Ren discloses recovering the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl (recovering the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group, see Ren’s page 5, [0031]).
Regarding claim 39, all the discussions above claim 1 and 38 are applicable for claim 39, in addition, Ren discloses recycling the recovered catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl for use in the contacting of a further portion of the material (the method further comprises recycling the recovered reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group for use in the contacting of a further portion of the material, see Ren’s page 5, [0031]).
Regarding claim 40, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 40, in addition, Ren discloses the material is contacted with the cosolvent system and the catalyst comprising a thiocarbonyl at ambient temperature and pressure (the material is contacted with the wetting agent and the reagent comprising a thiocarbonyl functional group at ambient temperature and pressure, see Ren’s page 5, [0032]).
Regarding claim 41, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 41, in addition, Ren discloses the method is a batch method (the method comprises a batch method, see Ren’s page 5, [0033]).
Regarding claim 42, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 42, in addition, Ren discloses the method is a continuous method (the method comprises a continuous method, see Ren’s page 5, [0034]).
Claims 19, 24-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, Zihe et.al. [WO2022056622A1] (provided in the IDS) in view of Serdar Aktas [“A novel purification method for copper sulfate using ethanol”, Hydrometallurgy 106 (2011) 175–178], and as evidenced in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Xiaohua Li, et.al. [Solvometallurgical process for extraction of copper from chalcopyrite and other sulfidic ore minerals, Green Chem., 2020, 22, 417].
Regarding claim 19, all the discussions above claim 1 and 18 are applicable here, Ren teaches acid as a cosolvent (as Ren’s disclosed system contains a suitable acid, (such as sulfuric acid) see Ren’s page 26, [0024]), but Ren is silent about the acid comprises a carboxylic acid.
Serder is also
However, Li teaches Leaching of the sulfidic ore minerals wherein the leaching of chalcopyrite are optimized by different leaching parameter of the oxidizing agents include iron(III) chloride and the solvent effect using FeCl3 dissolved in ethylene glycol (polyhydric alcohol), propylene glycol or ethanol (monohydric alcohol) (see Li’s page 418, Leaching Procedure). Li further teaches the standard solutions of CuCl are prepared from CuCl2 in ethylene glycol solution which is reduced quantitatively by ascorbic acid (carboxylic acid) (see Li’s page 419, Analytical techniques). Li also teaches ethylene glycol instead of the corrosive acidic aqueous solutions in hydrometallurgical processes is employed and it is a recommended green solvent according to the CHEM21 selection guide and the Global Harmonized System (GHS), which ensures the greenness of our process. It is safer and the potential for explosion is low, because the leaching can be operated at atmospheric pressure (see Li’s page, 424, Conceptual process flow sheet).
Li is analogous to Ren and the instant claim, as Li is in the same field of a base metal from a material similar as instantly claimed and as taught by Ren.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Li’s teaching of using ethylene glycol and carboxylic acid to modify Ren’s acidic aqueous solutions for extracting base metal from a material, to reduce CuCl2 in ethylene glycol solution for ensuring a green hydrometallurgical processes with efficient and higher rate of extraction of copper from complex ore like chalcopyrite.
Regarding claim 24-25, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable here, but both Ren and Serdar are silent about the polyhydric alcohol.
However, Li teaches Leaching of the sulfidic ore minerals wherein the leaching of chalcopyrite are optimized by different leaching parameter of the oxidizing agents include iron(III) chloride and the solvent effect using FeCl3 dissolved in ethylene glycol (polyhydric alcohol), propylene glycol or ethanol (monohydric alcohol) (see Li’s page 418, Leaching Procedure).
Li’s experimental results have shown, copper and iron in chalcopyrite can be extracted quantitatively with the lixiviant FeCl3–EG (cosolvent) and sulfur can be removed as solid elemental sulfur. The metallic copper can be produced by direct electrodeposition from the pregnant leachate without any other competing electro-chemical reactions. Meanwhile, Fe(III) can be regenerated for reusing in the next cycle by oxidizing the Fe(II) in the anode. However, due to the fact that the concentration of Fe(II)is higher than Cu(I) in the pregnant leachate, not all Fe(II) can be oxidized when all Cu(I) was reduced to Cu(0). Thus the Fe(II)in the Cu-depleted leachate needs to be removed before the re-cycling of FeCl3–EG solutions. Ethylene glycol instead of the corrosive acidic aqueous solutions in hydrometallurgical processes is employed and it is a recommended green solvent according to the CHEM21 selection guide and the Global Harmonized System (GHS), which ensures the greenness of our process.43 It is safer and the potential for explosion is low, because the leaching can be operated at atmospheric pressure (see Li’s page, 424, Conceptual process flow sheet).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Li’s teaching of using alcohol as a recommended green solvent to combine with Ren’s method of extracting base metal from a material, in a green hydrometallurgical processes with very efficient and higher rate of extraction of copper from complex ore like chalcopyrite.
Regarding claim 29, all the discussions above claim 1 and 2 are applicable for claim 29, in addition, Ren discloses the oxidizing agent comprises a source of Fe3+ (ferric) ions. The term "source" as used herein in reference to Fe3+ ions may include both direct sources of Fe3+ ions and indirect sources of Fe3+ ions, as appropriate. The term "direct source" as used herein in reference to a source of Fe3+ ions refers to a substance such as a suitable iron(III) salt that directly releases the Fe3+ ions upon dissolution in an aqueous environment such as the acidic mixtures of the present disclosure. The iron(III) salt may be water-soluble. Page 15, [0090]), with these teachings of Ren, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that any ferric salt, like ferric chloride would be applicable too. But Ren is silent about the ferric chloride solution.
However, Li also teaches Leaching of the sulfidic ore minerals, chalcopyrite are optimized by different leaching parameter of the oxidizing agents include iron(III) chloride and the solvent effect using FeCl3 dissolved in ethylene glycol, propylene glycol or ethanol (see Li’s page 418, Leaching Procedure).
Li teaches a process that could effectively extract copper from different copper sulfidic minerals, with FeCl3 in ethylene glycol used as lixiviant at elevated temperature and at atmospheric pressure, without forming any passivation layer, which ensures the quantitative extraction of copper in relatively short time, and the leaching products are ferrous chloride, cuprous chloride and solid elemental sulfur. The production of elemental sulfur instead of sulfuric acid makes the downstream processing easier and can avoid the acid drainage problem. Copper can be directly electrodeposited from the pregnant leachate without the contamination of iron. This simplifies the process and minimizes the operation steps. The regeneration of FeCl3 during the electrochemical process ensures the sustainability of the developed process (see Li’s page 425, Conclusions).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Li’s teaching of using ferric chloride to combine with Ren’s method of extracting base metal from a material, for ensuring a green hydrometallurgical processes with very efficient and higher rate of extraction of copper from complex ore like chalcopyrite.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, Zihe et.al. [WO2022056622A1] (provided in the IDS) in view of Serdar Aktas [“A novel purification method for copper sulfate using ethanol”, Hydrometallurgy 106 (2011) 175–178], and as evidenced in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Abooali Golzary [“Recycling of copper from waste printed circuit boards by modified supercritical carbon dioxide combined with supercritical water pre-treatment”, Journal of CO₂ Utilization 41 (2020) 101265].
Regarding claim 23, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable here, both Ren and Serdar are silent about the monohydric alcohol comprises propanol.
However, Golzary discloses a process of extracting copper from used in printed circuit boards (PCBs) of electronic products, for this purpose, supercritical water was applied to PCBs waste as a Pre-treatment process to increase the concentration of copper during the initial solid feed. To increase copper's solubility in CO2, the solvents methanol, ethanol, propanol solvents are used (Golzary’s abstract).
Golzary is analogous to the instant claim and Ren as well as Serdar, as Golzary is in the same field of a base metal from a material.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Golzary’s teaching of using propanol solvents to modify Ren’s acidic aqueous solutions for extracting base metal from a material, to increase copper's solubility and the concentration of copper based on extraction source material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remark dated 07/21/2026 regarding the 35U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims in the previous office action, dated 04/21/2026 have been fully acknowledged.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments, about Ren, “Ren does not teaches the amended limitation”, seems persuasive, however, Serdar Aktas [“A novel purification method for copper sulfate using ethanol”, Hydrometallurgy 106 (2011) 175–178], teaches cosolvent comprising the alcohol is at a concentration in a range of about 1% (ethanol/solution vol. ratio=1, see Serdar’s Fig. 1 and 2) and volume ratio of 0.5, a precipitation of 68% was achieved; with a volume ratio of 2.0, a precipitation of 97% was achieved. From this observation, we concluded that a higher ethanol/solution volume ratio leads to greater precipitation. see Serdar’s Results and discussion Fig. 3 and 2), and Serdar’s alcohol concentration in cosolvent is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Solis have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference of Solis applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Therefore, new rejections of the claims have been made due to the amendments of the claims (please check the section of the 35U.S.C. 103 rejection associated with this office action for further details).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM-7:00PM (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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights