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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). But no English translation has been provided.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2023, 01/22/2024, 10/23/2024, 12/17/2024, 07/10/2025, and 08/07/2025, are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1-6 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.
Claim 1 and 5 recite “lead/silver-containing” in line 2, renders the claim indefinite, because, it is not clear whether the limitation of lead or silver is required in the claim scope, or which one of this is required, as the paragraph [0040] of the instant specification describes a lead/silver- containing by product is in these experimental example are lead and iron, but paragraph [0042] shows Pb, Fe, Zn, Ag and Au, but again in the paragraph [0034]-[0035] and [0059] describes the leaching residue which is processible in the smelter contains Zn, Cu, Ag, and Au but there is no Pb. The examiner interprets the instant claims require either lead or silver according to broadest reasonable interpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 and 5 recite also “a finishing leaching process” in line 3, renders the claim indefinite, because, it is not clear what step in the zinc hydrometallurgy is being treated as a finishing leaching process. The paragraph [0003]-[0004] and FIG. 1 of the instant specification describes a lead/silver-containing by-product is generated through an acid leaching process S10 of leaching a zinc calcine having passed through a roasting process, a strong acid leaching process S20 of leaching a cake generated in the acid leaching process S10 with a stronger acid, and a finishing leaching process S30 of finally leaching a cake generated in the strong acid leaching process S20. However, specification does not describe about these cakes and what are the difference in cakes in two process and how the cake is being formed into a lead/silver-containing by-product. So how to determine which leaching step is a finishing leaching as the finishing step. For example, in FIG.1. both leaching process S20 and leaching process S30 are processing cake with strong acid, therefore, both leaching process S20 and leaching process S30 can be the same process. Further the example of paragraph [0040] describes “the main components of a lead/silver-containing by-product used in these experimental examples are lead and iron. Lead is mainly in the form of lead sulfate (PbSO4). About 1.0% of the total 8.9% of iron is jarosite, and the remaining about 7.9% of iron is zinc ferrite”, does not provide any information how this by-product is gotten and generated from which finishing leaching process of zinc hydrometallurgy. The examiner interprets as described above in the specification, any hydrometallurgical leaching process of a material containing zinc, iron and lead/silver using an autoclave would read on the claim limitation for the examination purpose according to broadest reasonable interpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 and 5 recite “less than 1% respectively”, in line 4, renders the claim indefinite, because, it is not clear whether the content of zinc is “less than 1%” or the content of iron is “less than 1%” or each of the content of zinc and iron is “less than 1%” or the total content of zinc and iron is “less than 1%”. The examiner interprets the instant claims as the content of “less than 1%” could be any material Zn or Fe, according to broadest reasonable interpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 are rejected because of its dependency on claim 1, and claim 6 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the content of the iron" in , in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaoru Saruta, et al. [JP2004292901A] (Machine translation) (Original provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Saruta teaches a method for processing a by-product of zinc hydrometallurgy, the method comprising a pressure leaching process of pressure leaching a lead/silver-containing by-product, which is generated in a finishing leaching process of zinc hydrometallurgy, by using an autoclave so that contents of zinc and iron contained in a leaching residue are less than 1 wt.%, respectively (using an autoclave, which is a reaction pressure vessel, forcibly circulating oxygen gas or an oxygen-containing gas under oxygen pressure, (II) The oxidation reaction rate of changing to Fe (III) is improved, and the leaching residue was repeatedly leached, and thereby improving the leaching rate and the reprecipitation of iron and copper does not occur, and the recovery of these metals is improved) [Section 0008]. Saruta teaches the slurry after leaching from the leaching reaction tank is first separated by a cyclone classification in the first stage to separate a sulfur residue composed of high purity elemental sulfur which had grown crystals, and the remaining portion is not leached by a cyclone classification in the second stage. It can be separated into ore and ungrown sulfur and leaching residues made of valuable metals such as gold, silver and lead. The slurry containing unleached ore and ungrown sulfur is repeatedly returned to the above-mentioned leaching step to the pressure leaching step, so that the leaching rate of zinc can be increased. Thereafter, a solid content (lead/silver residue) composed of a valuable metal such as gold, silver and lead can be separated from a leachate slurry containing a leach residue composed of a valuable metal such as gold, silver and lead by a filtration step [Section 0011]. The zinc sulfate solution from the pressure leaching step is subjected to an electrolysis step through a purification step including a copper removal treatment and an iron removal treatment to obtain electric zinc. and the lead /silver residue separated by filtration is supplied to a valuable metal recovery step to separate and recover component metals [Section 0012]. Saruta further teaches Zinc concentrate contains Zn, Fe, Cu, Cd and Pb in sulfide form. The soluble metals of Zn, Cu, Cd, and Fe in the zinc concentrate were eluted and existed in the form of ions in the liquid, and the insoluble metal remained as fine crystals in the leaching residue. As shown in in Table 7, the leaching residue extracted from Cyclone-1 is having the Zn% is 0.47 and Fe 0.53% [Section 0038, Table 7].
Therefore, Saruta’s content of Zn and Fe in the leaching residue is within as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 2, wherein Saruta already teaches the lead/silver-containing by-product is leached under pressure (the slurry after the leaching is subjected to cyclone classification, two types of particles having the crystal growth of sulfur and fine crystals of the insoluble metal are extracted, and the residue distributed in the remaining intermediate particle size band is returned to the leaching step and leached again) [Section 0008, 0011 and 0033] (the oxygen gas or oxygen-containing gas is forcibly circulated to increase the leaching rate of zinc in the zinc concentrate. If the oxygen partial pressure is less than 0.8 MPa, the required oxidation rate cannot be obtained, and if it exceeds 1.0 MPa, it is necessary to increase the pressure resistance of the autoclave, which increases the equipment cost)[Section 0016].
Saruta further teaches the lead/silver-containing by-product is leached with a zinc spent leachate (The leaching solution (zinc sulfate solution) from the leaching reaction tank is supplied to the neutral leaching tank of the main system, and the zinc electrolysis tail solution (spent solution) from the electrolysis step of the main system is used as sulfuric acid to the leaching reaction tank. As the diiron solution, a ferrous solution from the main system of the deironing process is used) [Section 0012]
Regarding claim 5, Saruta teaches a method for processing a by-product of zinc hydrometallurgy, the method comprising a pressure leaching process of pressure leaching a lead/silver-containing by-product, which is generated in a finishing leaching process of zinc hydrometallurgy, by using an autoclave so that contents of zinc and iron contained in a leaching residue are less than 1 wt.%, respectively (using an autoclave, which is a reaction pressure vessel, forcibly circulating oxygen gas or an oxygen-containing gas under oxygen pressure, (II) The oxidation reaction rate of changing to Fe (III) is improved, and the leaching residue was repeatedly leached, and thereby improving the leaching rate and the reprecipitation of iron and copper does not occur, and the recovery of these metals is improved) [Section 0008]. Saruta teaches the slurry after leaching from the leaching reaction tank is first separated by a cyclone classification in the first stage to separate a sulfur residue composed of high purity elemental sulfur which had grown crystals, and the remaining portion is not leached by a cyclone classification in the second stage. It can be separated into ore and ungrown sulfur and leaching residues made of valuable metals such as gold, silver and lead. The slurry containing unleached ore and ungrown sulfur is repeatedly returned to the above-mentioned leaching step to the pressure leaching step, so that the leaching rate of zinc can be increased) [Section 0011]. Saruta teaches Zinc concentrate contains Zn, Fe, Cu, Cd and Pb in sulfide form. The soluble metals of Zn, Cu, Cd, and Fe in the zinc concentrate were eluted and existed in the form of ions in the liquid, and the insoluble metal remained as fine crystals in the leaching residue. The slurry after the leaching is subjected to cyclone classification, two types of particles having the crystal growth of sulfur and fine crystals of the insoluble metal are extracted, and the residue distributed in the remaining intermediate particle size band is returned to the leaching step and leached again [Section 0033] and as shown in in Table 7, the leaching residue extracted is having the Zn% is 0.47 and Fe 0.53% [Section 0038, Table 7].
Therefore, Saruta’s content of Zn and Fe in the leaching residue is within as recited in the instant claim.
Saruta teaches, a separation process of separating a leachate and the leaching residue from the pressure leaching process into a liquid and a solid (Thereafter, a solid content (lead/silver residue) composed of a valuable metal such as gold, silver and lead can be separated from a leachate slurry containing a leach residue composed of a valuable metal such as gold, silver and lead by a filtration step) [Section 0011] and (The zinc sulfate solution from the pressure leaching step is subjected to an electrolysis step through a purification step including a copper removal treatment and an iron removal treatment to obtain electric zinc) [Section 0012].
Saruta further teaches, a smelting process of processing the leaching residue using a smelter (the sulfur residue from the first-stage cyclone classification is further melted and filtered (smelting) to obtain purified sulfur, and the lead /silver residue separated by filtration is supplied to a valuable metal recovery step to separate and recover component metals) [Section 0012].
Regarding claim 6, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 2, wherein the Saruta already teaches the leachate filtered in the separation process is sent to a purification process of zinc hydrometallurgy (The zinc sulfate solution from the pressure leaching step is subjected to an electrolysis step through a purification step including a copper removal treatment and an iron removal treatment to obtain electric zinc) [Section 0012].
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 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 have been 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.
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaoru Saruta, et al. [JP2004292901A] (Machine translation) (Original provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 3, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 3, wherein Saruta further teaches a sulfuric acid solution having a free sulfuric acid, which is a zinc electrolytic tail solution (zinc spent leachate), and a ferrous sulfate-containing deironing solution from the deironing step of leaching residue treatment is mixed to cause a zinc leaching reaction. The leaching reaction is as follows.
ZnS + Fe2(SO4)3 → ZnSO4 + 2FeSO4 + S ... A type
That is, trivalent iron ions are required to promote the reaction of the formula A, and iron in the zinc concentrate to be treated is used as the iron ions. The concentration is set in the range preferably 5 to 15 g/L [Section 0013].
Saruta’s concentration of iron ions in a leachate encompasses the as recited ranges in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected concentration of iron ions from the teachings of Saruta that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 4, all the discussions above claim 1 and 3 are applicable for claim 4, wherein the Saruta further teaches a sulfuric acid solution, which is a zinc electrolytic tail solution (zinc spent leachate), and a ferrous sulfate-containing deironing solution from the deironing step of leaching residue treatment is mixed at to cause a zinc leaching reaction. The leaching reaction is as follows.
ZnS + Fe2(SO4)3 → ZnSO4 + 2FeSO4 + S ... A type
That is, trivalent iron ions are required to promote the reaction of the formula A, and iron in the zinc concentrate to be treated is used as the iron ions. The concentration is set in the range preferably 5 to 15 g / L [Section 0013].
Saruta’s concentration of iron ions encompasses the as recited ranges in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected concentration of iron ions from the teachings of Saruta that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Saruta further teaches the leaching solution (zinc sulfate solution) from the leaching reaction tank is supplied to the neutral leaching tank of the main system, and the zinc electrolysis tail solution from the electrolysis step of the main system can be used as sulfuric acid to the leaching reaction tank [Section 0012] and leaching residue is generated by the leaching reaction, but lead jarosite is generated during the reaction depending on leaching conditions. The presence of the lead jarosite leads to an increase in the amount of leaching residue generated, leading to an increase in cost for residue treatment. Therefore, in order to suppress jarosite formation during the leaching reaction, the concentration of free sulfuric acid at the end of leaching needs to be 10 to 50 g / L [Section 0014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, Saruta’s teaching of controlling the concentration of trivalent iron ions and adjusting the spent leaching solution are required to promote the zinc recovery as well as to reduce the amount of leaching residue generated in the leaching procedure.
Conclusion
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 8AM-4:00PM (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, Merkling Sally 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
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738