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 01/22/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 11/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 11/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 11/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden et al (US 7,736,487 B2).
Marsden et al teaches recovering copper from a copper-containing ore, concentrate, or other copper-bearing material as represented below in FIG. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
686
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The raw material is the ore, concentrate or other material containing copper (column 1, lines 18-20). The pressure leaching occurs with oxygen (column 2, lines 61 and 62) and recycle stream 127 via 123. The lean electrolyte recycle stream 123 contains preferably from about 30 to 45 g/L Cu and 100-180 g/L of acid to yield a product stream (column 6, lines 61-66). The product stream from pressure leaching contains acid (column 7, lines 58-60). No additional acid is removed or added during atmospheric flash. Steam is removed at 119. The residence time for pressure leaching is 30 minutes to 3 hours (column 10, line 41), which overlaps the claimed range. The acid concentration after the atmospheric flash is from 10-60 g/L (column 12, line 41), which overlaps the claimed range. Regarding the residence time and the acid concentration, the upper ranges read on the claimed lower ranges. Regarding all of the ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, The raw material is the ore, concentrate or other material containing copper
Regarding Claim 3, flashed product slurry 108 may contain iron oxide, a byproduct of pressure leaching (column 13, lines 52-54)
Regarding Claim 4, the iron oxide is hematite (column 9, line 18).
Regarding Claim 6, the temperature is 140-180 °C (column 10, line 50).
Regarding Claim 8, the concentration of solid metal-bearing material is less than 50% by weight of the stream (column 6, lines 24-26), or less than 50 kg material/100 L solution. The concentration of solid solution is less than 500 g/L. The total acid addition is 400-500 kg/tonne (column 9, lines 35 and 36), or 400-500 g/1000 g. Marsden et al does not specifically teach a solid density as described in Claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that Marsden et al would read on the claimed solid density range, since Marsden et al teaches substantially the same operating conditions to achieve copper extraction of greater than 90%, or 96.6% in TABLE 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pike (US 1,570,777 A).
Marsden et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Marsden et al does not teach an autoclave for pressure leaching as claimed.
Pike teaches treating sulfide ores or concentrates with solutions containing ferric chloride or sulfate in an autoclave under a steam pressure (page 1, lines 81-84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an autoclave for pressure leaching in Marsden et al, since Pike teaches the speed of reaction and percentage of metals taken into solution is greater than that which results by the use of other methods (page 1, lines 87-91).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden et al in view of Pike.
Marsden et al teaches recovering copper from a copper-containing ore, concentrate, or other copper-bearing material as represented above in FIG. 1. The raw material is the ore, concentrate or other material containing copper (column 1, lines 18-20). The pressure leaching occurs with oxygen (column 2, lines 61 and 62) and recycle stream 127 via 123. Pressure leaching occurs in any pressure leaching vessel (column 9, lines 46 and 47). The lean electrolyte recycle stream 123 contains preferably from about 30 to 45 g/L Cu and 100-180 g/L of acid to yield a product stream (column 6, lines 61-66). The product stream from pressure leaching contains acid (column 7, lines 58-60). No additional acid is removed or added during atmospheric flash. Steam is removed at 119. The residence time for pressure leaching is 30 minutes to 3 hours (column 10, line 41), which overlaps the claimed range. The acid concentration after the atmospheric flash is from 10-60 g/L (column 12, line 41), which overlaps the claimed range. Regarding the residence time and the acid concentration, the upper ranges read on the claimed lower ranges. Regarding all of the ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. However, Marsden et al does not teach an autoclave for pressure leaching as claimed.
Pike teaches treating sulfide ores or concentrates with solutions containing ferric chloride or sulfate in an autoclave under a steam pressure (page 1, lines 81-84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an autoclave for pressure leaching in Marsden et al, since Pike teaches the speed of reaction and percentage of metals taken into solution is greater than that which results by the use of other methods (page 1, lines 87-91).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Imamura (US 2003/0230171 A1) or Marsden (US 2006/0144717 A1) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights