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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claim 1- 9, 13-14, 17-19, 21, and 27, drawn to a method for the extraction of a trace metal from a granular material comprising a metal oxide, in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 53-55, drawn to a method for the extraction of a trace metal from a granular material comprising a metal sulfide and claims 58-64, and 68, drawn to a method for comminuting a starting material comprising a metal oxide are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Therefore, claims 1- 9, 13-14, 17-19, 21, and 27 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 is cancelled but there is another duplicate claim 27. Applicant is advised to cancel claim 27 or amend the claim number.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 4, 6, 8 and 18 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 4 recites the limitation "the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the group" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites list of Geobacter spp. bacteria, while claim 4 from which claim 6 depends from, recites only Shewanella spp. bacteria, therefore, it is not clear whether the claim 6 recites additional limitation to claim 4, i.e. requires both Shewanella spp. and Geobacter spp or claim 6 depends from either claim 2 or claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-9, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cam, David Victor, et.al. [AU2019201161A1] (Cam hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, 8-9, and 18, Cam teaches a method for the extraction of a trace metal from a granular material comprising a metal oxide (a process for improving the grade of iron or for producing at least one iron oxide, or to iron produced by such a process, which may overcome to improve the grade of iron obtainable from a slurry, a waste water slurry from mineral beneficiation and extraction process (see Cam’s [0002]-][0009] and [0012]-[0015]). Cam defines "slurry" is a sludge, slime, paste, or tailing, or may be derived from a waste ore, are often regarded as worthless or of limited commercial value, and contains a liquid including particles of iron minerals, in an aqueous solution, including a saline aqueous solution (water soluble metal salt) (see Cam’s [0019]-[0020) and Cam’s process contains iron oxide (see Cam’s [0026]-[0032]).
Cam’s process comprising the steps:
contacting the granular material with at least one species of metal-oxide reducing bacteria in an aqueous medium (a microorganism, an iron (III) reducing bacteria added to the mineral to assist or catalyze the production of an iron oxide, and thereby enhance yields (see Cam’s [00101]));
(1) converting at least a portion of the metal oxide to a water soluble metal salt, and (2) releasing at least a portion of the trace metal into the aqueous medium (increases in the grade of iron in the slurry achieved by changing in the crystal structure of an iron mineral or by removal or separation of components of the slurry, such changes in the crystal structure of an iron mineral include one or more of the group consisting of such as water, or ions such as hydroxide, carbonate, sulfate or chloride etc. (see Cam’s [00101])). The electrical conductivity of the interstitial water, a feature of the total dissolved solids of the water used. The electrode spacing may be changed to suit the particular flow characteristics required of the slurry as well as the required effectiveness of the treatment of the ore within the slurry. The spacing of the electrodes in developing the electrical field strength required to 'flip' or realign the outer electrons contributing to the covalent bonding of the iron containing minerals which can hold hydroxyl, chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate and/or sulfate anions and other cationic metals within the layered iron oxide hydroxide lattice and therefore, therefore, the yield of iron products can be improved (see Cam’s [00152]).
Cam teaches recovering at least a portion of the trace metal from the aqueous medium (a process to produce an iron micro or nanoparticles more cost-effectively (see Cam’s [0017])).
With respect to claim 8 and 9, as shown above Cam discloses iron oxide.
With respect to claim 18, as shown above, Cam discloses iron ion and chloride ion in an aqueous medium and hence meets the limitation of a portion as water soluble iron chloride salt.
Cam discloses the particulars of the present invention, as disclosed above, but does so through the collective teachings of the disclosure, rather than in one neatly packaged embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Cam’s teachings for utilizing for all that, it teaches and looking to various portions of the reference would have been obvious. As the MPEP § [2143.I (A)] notes that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is a matter of obviousness and in this case, Cam’s bioprocessing of granular iron-oxide ore, using microbially assisted reduction and the extraction of trace metals can be realized by transforming solid compounds into soluble and extractable elements, which is recovered in an increasing acceptable yield and product quality within the same reference document.
Regarding claims 2-7, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 2-7, in addition, Cam teaches at least one species of metal-oxide reducing bacteria comprises at least one species selected from Shewanella spp., (the microorganism may be an iron (III) reducing bacteria and exemplary microorganisms may include at least one of the group consisting of: Shewanella spp., especially Shewanella putrefaciens, more especially Shewanella putrefaciens CN32, and Geobacter spp., especially Geobacter sulfurreducens. Such microorganisms may assist in or catalyze the production of an iron oxide, and thereby enhance yields. (see Cam’s [00101])).
Cam’s Shewanella putrefaciens CN32, is in one of the listed bacteria from the list as recited in the claim 4.
Cam’s Geobacter sulfurreducens, is in one of the listed bacteria from the list as recited in the claim 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have teaching of selecting a bacteria from Cam’s list for assisting and/or catalyzing the production of an iron oxide, and thereby enhance yields for producing iron particle.
Regarding claims 27, all the above discussions regarding claim 1, are applicable to claim 27, in addition, Cam teaches, the process further comprising a preprocessing stage wherein a starting material is subjected to one or more steps selected from the steps, (a) comminution, (b) softening the starting material, and (c) oxidizing the starting material, hereby producing a granular material comprising a metal oxide (the slurry is derived from iron mineral processing, may be the overflow (or reject) of a hydrocyclone from the wet beneficiation of iron mineral processing; includes either magnetite (Fe3Q4) or hematite (Fe2O3) alternating with bands of predominantly amorphous materials (see Cam’s [0038]) and an electrochemical reactions relating to the conversion of iron (III) hydroxide (Fe(OH)3) to magnetite to increase the solid content in the slurry to enhance the recovery of the metal, (Fe3Q4) (see Cam’s [0057])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Cam’s teaching of a pretreatment beneficiation process to increase the solid content in the mineral slurry to enhance the recovery of the metal, and thereby enhance yields of producing iron particle.
Claims 2-7, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cam, David Victor, et.al. [AU 2019201161 A1] (Cam hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Patricia Rusin et.al. [“Developments in Microbial Leaching -Mechanisms of Manganese Solubilization”, Advances in Biochemical Engineering/ Biotechnology, Vol. 52, 1995] (Rusin hereafter).
Regarding claims 2-7, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 and 2 are applicable to claim 6, wherein Cam already teaches at least one species of metal-oxide reducing bacteria comprises at least one species selected from Shewanella spp., Cam’s Shewanella putrefaciens CN32, and Geobacter spp. including Geobacter sulfurreducens (see Cam’s [00101])) and therefore, sufficient to meet the claim 5-7.
Rusin also teaches manganese-reducing bacteria can be used to extract manganese from low-grade manganiferous ore, to separate manganese from iron in ferromanganiferous ore, and to release silver from refractory manganese oxide ores (see Rusin’s Abstract). Rusin teaches in some cases, microbial reduction of manganese requires anaerobic conditions, manganese reduction may be inhibited by molecular oxygen and takes place only under anaerobic conditions. Some of the bacteria that reduce manganese only under anaerobic conditions include Geobacter metallireducans GS-15, Shewanella putrefaciens, etc. Geobacter metallireducans GS-15 is a strict anaerobe, unable to grow in the presence of oxygen. Shewanella putrefaeiens is aerobic but is able to survive without oxygen by using anaerobic respiration if suitable electron acceptors, such as Mn(IV), are present. Rusin further teaches in general, the most rapid rates of manganese dissolution are achieved under microaerobic or anaerobic conditions (see Rusin’s Page 17, 6.3 Atmospheric Oxygen).
Rusin’s Geobacter metallireducans GS-15 is one of the bacteria as listed in the claim 6.
Rusin further teaches strains of bacteria that reduce Mn(IV) only under anaerobic conditions may use iron as an electron shuttle. Ferrous iron is much more susceptible to autoxidation at a neutral pH than manganous manganese so organisms using ferrous iron as an electron carrier could only do so under anaerobic conditions. Shewanella putrefaciens contains a c-type cytochrome in its outer membrane when grown anaerobically and this c-type cytochrome could represent the iron or it could be a carrier for the reduction of ferric iron in a polynuclear complex (see Rusin’s Page 7, 3.1 Direct Reduction).
Rusin is directed to recover trace metal from a low grade ferromanganese ore using metal-oxide reducing microbial activities and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Cam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Rusin’s teachings of selection of bacteria, from the list Shewanella spp. and Geobacter spp. to combine with Cam’s processes for recovering trace metal from the low grade manganiferous and ferromanganiferous, based on the type of manganese oxide present in the ore material in a suitable process condition.
Regarding claims 14, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 and 8 are applicable to 14, but Cam is silent about the manganese oxide.
However, Rusin teaches the manganese-reducing bacteria can be used to extract manganese from low-grade manganiferous ore, to separate manganese from iron in ferromanganiferous ore, and to release silver from refractory manganese oxide ores (see Rusin’s Abstract) and Rusin’s ore is granular material (see Rusin’s MnO2 particle ore FIG.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Rusin’s teachings of granular manganese oxide from the low grade ferromanganese or similar mineral to combine with Cam’s processes for recovering iron for extracting the trace metal both iron and manganese or for releasing other materials for intended use.
Regarding claims 17, all the above discussions regarding claim 1, 8 and 14 are applicable to 17, but Cam is silent about the manganese oxide and thus, silent about at least 50% by weight of the manganese oxide present in the granular material is converted to a water-soluble manganese salt.
However, Rusin teaches an example of the manganese-reducing bacteria to separate manganese from ferromanganiferous ore, that contains 5.8% manganese and 12% iron to separate (see Rusin’s page 12, 5.2 Separation of Manganese from Iron). Rusin teaches (as shown in Fig. 3), the manganese solubilization and the apparent step-wise solubilization of manganese and iron may have been due to the oxidation of Fe(II) by Mn(IV) as shown in the reaction (9) and (10). The order in which metals are reduced may also depend on the relative abundance and availability of different electron acceptors, the affinity of different organism's respiratory enzymes for available electron donors, abiotic reactions between the respiratory product of one organism and the electron acceptor of another, and other factors (see Rusin’s page 13,Fig. 3 5.2 Separation of Manganese from Iron). Rusin teaches the biotreated tails are separated and digested by aqua regia, and analyzed for residual metals (see Rusin’s page 13,Fig. 3 5.2 Separation of Manganese from Iron) and as shown in Table 2, the recovery of Mn is 99% (see Rusin’s page 14, Table 2, 5.2 Separation of Manganese from Iron).
With all these teachings of Rusin, specially Rusin’s reaction (9) and (10) and % amount of recovery of Mn, indicates that, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Rusin’s at least 50% by weight of the manganese oxide of the manganese oxide present in the granular material is converted to a water-soluble manganese salt to have 99% Mn recovery, and therefore, meets the claimed limitation, and within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Rusin’s teachings of granular manganese oxide from the low grade ferromanganese or similar mineral to combine with Cam’s processes for higher manganese recovery as well as iron.
Claims 13, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cam, David Victor, et.al. [AU 2019201161 A1] (Cam hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of M.M. Zhang [“Feasible bioprocessing technologies for low-grade iron ores”, Minerals & Metallurgical Processing, 2015, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 78-87] (Zhang hereafter).
Regarding claims 13, and 21 all the above discussions regarding claim 1, 8 and 9 are applicable to claim 13 and 21, but Cam is silent about the at least about 50% by weight of the iron oxide present in the granular material is converted to a water-soluble iron salt.
However, Zhang teaches a bioprocessing for iron-oxide ore, utilizing microbially assisted reduction or oxidation, the extraction of metals is realized by transforming solid compounds into soluble and extractable elements, and then recovered (see Zhang’s page 79, column 1, Figure 1), Zhang teaches instead of lumps, closely sized ore particles (granular) enhances the oxidation rate, for better air distribution and agglomeration, (see Zhang’s page 79, column 2), and Zhang’s recovered metals are Fe and Cu (bio oxidized product Fe and Cu).
Zhang then teaches wherein at least about 50% by weight of the iron oxide present in the granular material is converted to a water-soluble iron salt (microorganisms can act as reagents, collectors or modifiers for beneficiation of iron ores (see Zhang’s page 81, column 1) wherein microbially induced iron ore flotation and flocculation, products derived from the microorganisms, functions as flotation and flocculation agents and act as flotation collectors, depressants and activators depending on their interactions and adhesion of relevance to minerals, which typically change the surface chemistry of the minerals, modify the mineral surfaces and selectively dissolve minerals, (see Zhang’s page 83, column 2) and Zhang’s example of bioflotation of hematite, wherein recovery of about 70% of hematite can be obtained with a concentrate grade of 49% for a head grade of 35% of total Fe, see Zhang’s page 84, column 1).
With respect to claim 13, Zhang’s weight % of the iron oxide present in the dissolved granular material is 70% which within the recited in the instant claim.
With respect to claim 21, Zhang’s weight % of the trace metal (total Fe) present in the dissolved granular material is 35%, which is within the recited 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 a metal oxide content in a mineral composition and an amount of metal in the mineral composition from the teachings of Zhang that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges “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].
Zhang further teaches microorganisms and iron oxide particles can coagulate effectively
and bioflotation is a suitable for the separation of iron oxide minerals (see Zhang’s page 85, column 1).
Zhang is directed to recover trace metal from a low grade mineral containing metal oxide, using metal-oxide reducing microbial activities and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Cam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Zhang’s teaching of biobenefication using bioflotation for low grade iron to combine with Cam’s processes to modify the mineral surfaces for a suitable separation of iron oxide from the attached mineral composition and to provide a selective dissolution of minerals to enhance bioleaching efficiency.
Regarding claims 19, all the above discussions regarding claim 1, are applicable to claim 19, in addition, Cam is silent about the group consisting of lithium, zinc, copper, chromium, nickel, cobalt, vanadium and molybdenum etc.
However, Zhang teaches the trace metal is selected from the group consisting of zinc, copper, nickel, cobalt, etc. (Zhang’s Figure 1 shows microbially assisted reduction or oxidation, the extraction of metals can be realized by transforming solid compounds into soluble and extractable elements, which can then be recovered and this is an industrially important process and has been commercially applied in recovering nonferrous metals like copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt and gold from their sulfide minerals. selective removal of undesired elements or mineral constituents from iron ores through interactions with microorganisms (see Zhang’s page 79, column 1 and Zhang’s page 79, column 2)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Zhang’s teaching of bioprocessing to combine with Cam’s processes for recovering variety of metals from different minerals and/or selective removal of undesired elements from iron ores through beneficiation and interactions with microorganisms, that would further enhance leaching efficiency.
Claims 1, 2-4, 8-9, 13, 19, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M.M. Zhang [“Feasible bioprocessing technologies for low-grade iron ores”, Minerals & Metallurgical Processing, 2015, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 78-87] (Zhang hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, Zhang teaches a method for the extraction of a trace metal from a granular material comprising a metal oxide (Zhang’s Figure 1 shows the bioprocessing routes involving biobeneficiation and bioleaching using the interactions between microorganisms and minerals, iron-oxide ore, utilizing microbially assisted reduction or oxidation, and the extraction of metals can be realized by transforming solid compounds into soluble and extractable elements, which is then be recovered (see Zhang’s page 79, column 1, Figure 1), Zhang teaches use of closely sized ore particles (granular) enhances the oxidation rate, for better air distribution and agglomeration, (see Zhang’s page 79, column 2), and Zhang’s recovered metals are Fe and Cu (bio oxidized product Fe and Cu). Zhang teaches a process comprising:
contacting the granular material with at least one species of metal-oxide reducing bacteria in an aqueous medium (ore is immersed in solution for, all or part of the treatment process, (see Zhang’s page 79-80, column 1) and contacting the granular material with at least one species of metal-oxide reducing bacteria in an aqueous solution (see Zhang’s page 80, Figure 2)).
thereby (1) converting at least a portion of the metal oxide to a water soluble metal salt, and (2) releasing at least a portion of the trace metal into the aqueous medium (for selective dissolution of iron minerals, iron-reducing bioleaching processes are the most effective methods due to the fact that the reduced (Fe2+) form of iron has higher solubility than oxidized Fe3+ compounds. Using a reductive microorganism, iron can be converted into Fe2+ (ferrous) iron salts that are considerably more soluble than ferric iron salts, and so will dissolve under only mildly acidic conditions, (see Zhang’s page 81, column 2) and (reductive iron leaching to be most effective for dissolving the more hydrated and amorphous iron oxides, and if given sufficient adaptation and leaching time, selected microorganisms can produce iron-bearing solutions containing high Fe2+ ion. A high-purity iron deposits are obtained from an electrolysis tank with an addition of sodium sulfate salt into the sulfate solution to increase conductivity to extract an acceptable yield and product quality (see Zhang’s page 82, column 1); and
recovering at least a portion of the trace metal from the aqueous medium (a high-purity iron deposits are obtained from an electrolysis tank (see Zhang’s page 82, column 1).
Zhang discloses the particulars of the present invention, as disclosed above, but does so through the collective teachings of their disclosure, rather than in one neatly packaged embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Zhang’s teachings for utilizing for all that it teaches and looking to various portions of the reference would have been obvious. The MPEP § [2143.I (A)] notes that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is a matter of obviousness and in this case, Zhang’s bioprocessing of granular iron-oxide ore, using microbially assisted reduction or oxidation, the extraction of metals can be realized by transforming solid compounds into soluble and extractable elements, which is recovered in an acceptable yield and product quality within the same reference document.
Regarding claims 2-4, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 2-4, in addition, Zhang teaches at least one species of metal-oxide reducing bacteria comprises at least one species selected from Shewanella spp., (there are different types of microorganisms are used in bioleaching of iron ore deposits based on the mineral. One of the Zhang’s example of an iron-reducing bacterium is Shewanella putrefaciens, which is capable of producing intracellular particles of iron minerals (see Zhang’s page 81, column 1 and 2, Table I), which is one of the listed bacteria from the list as recited in the claim 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Zhang’s teaching of selecting a specific bacteria for bioleaching of a specific low grade iron oxide ore for having high yield and quality product.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 8 and 9, in addition, Zhang teaches wherein the granular material comprises a metal oxide selected from the group consisting of iron oxides (reductive iron leaching found to be most effective for dissolving the more hydrated and amorphous iron oxides, with low dissolution rates for highly crystalline oxides such as hematite, see Zhang’s page 82, column 1).
Regarding claims 13, and 21 all the above discussions regarding claim 1, 8 and 9 are applicable to claim 13 and 21, in addition, Zhang teaches wherein at least about 50% by weight of the iron oxide present in the granular material is converted to a water-soluble iron salt (microorganisms can act as reagents, collectors or modifiers for beneficiation of iron ores (see Zhang’s page 81, column 1) wherein microbially induced iron ore flotation and flocculation, products derived from the microorganisms, functions as flotation and flocculation agents and act as flotation collectors, depressants and activators depending on their interactions and adhesion of relevance to minerals, which typically change the surface chemistry of the minerals, modify the mineral surfaces and selectively dissolve minerals, (see Zhang’s page 83, column 2) and example of bioflotation of hematite, wherein recovery of about 70% of hematite can be obtained with a concentrate grade of 49% for a head grade of 35% total Fe, see Zhang’s page 84, column 1).
With respect to claim 13, Zhang’s weight % of the iron oxide present in the granular material is 70% which within the recited in the instant claim.
With respect to claim 21, Zhang’s weight % of the trace metal (total Fe) present in the granular material is 35%, which is within the recited 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 a metal oxide content in a mineral composition and an amount of metal in the mineral composition from the teachings of Zhang that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges “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].
Zhang further teaches microorganisms and iron oxide particles can coagulate effectively
and bioflotation is a suitable for the separation of iron oxide minerals see Zhang’s page 85, column 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Zhang’s teaching of biobenefication using bioflotation for low grade iron to modify the mineral surfaces for a suitable separation of iron oxide from the attached mineral composition and to provide a selectively dissolve minerals to enhance leaching efficiency.
Regarding claims 19, all the above discussions regarding claim 1, are applicable to claim 19, in addition Zhang teaches the trace metal is selected from the group consisting of zinc, copper, nickel, cobalt, etc. (Zhang’s Figure 1 shows microbially assisted reduction or oxidation, the extraction of metals can be realized by transforming solid compounds into soluble and extractable elements, which can then be recovered. This process is called bioleaching, and it is an industrially important process that has been commercially applied in recovering nonferrous metals like copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt and gold from their sulfide minerals. selective removal of undesired elements or mineral constituents from iron ores through interactions with microorganisms (see Zhang’s page 79, column 1 and Zhang’s page 79, column 2)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Zhang’s teaching of bioprocessing for recovering variety of metals from different minerals and/or selective extraction or separation of different trace elements or undesired elements from iron ores through interactions with microorganisms, that would further enhance the leaching efficiency.
Regarding claims 27, all the above discussions regarding claim 1, are applicable to claim 27, in addition, Zhang teaches,
the process further comprising a preprocessing stage wherein a starting material is subjected to one or more steps comprising steps, selected from (a) comminution, (b) softening the starting material, and ( c) oxidizing the starting material, hereby producing a granular material comprising a metal oxide (Zhang’s Figure 1 shows the bioprocessing routes derived from the interactions between microorganisms and minerals, microbially assisted reduction or oxidation, the extraction of metals can be realized by transforming solid compounds into soluble and extractable elements, which can then be recovered (see Zhang’s page 79, column 1), Zhang teaches the beneficiation process using microorganism-mineral interactions and the roles of mineral-specific bioreagents: 1. Selective dissolution of mineral phases in an ore matrix, 2. Sorption, accumulation and precipitation of ions and compounds, 3. Alteration of surface chemistry of minerals or generation of surface active chemicals (see Zhang’s page 79, column 1, Figure 1), the ore is pre-treated or concentrated before the biotreatment process. Bacterial oxidation of ground mineral slurry can be carried out in aerated and agitated vessels and the use of closely sized ore particles aids the oxidation rate, for better air distribution and agglomeration and pre-inoculation to aid in permeability and oxidation rate. (see Zhang’s page 79, column 2, Figure 1)).
Zhang further teaches biobenefication microbially induced iron ore flotation and flocculation products derived from the microorganisms, functions as flotation and flocculation agents depending on their interactions and adhesion of relevance to minerals, which typically change the surface chemistry of the minerals, modify the mineral surfaces and selectively dissolve minerals and separating iron oxide from the other mineral contents (see Zhang’s page 83, column 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Zhang’s teaching of biobenefication for pretreatment of an iron ore for recovering metals using bioflotation for low grade iron to modify the mineral surfaces for a suitable separation of iron oxide from the attached mineral composition and to provide a selectively dissolution of the minerals and thus, enhances leaching efficiency and provides high quality product.
Claims 5-7, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M.M. Zhang [“Feasible bioprocessing technologies for low-grade iron ores”, Minerals & Metallurgical Processing, 2015, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 78-87] (Zhang hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Patricia Rusin et.al. [“Developments in Microbial Leaching -Mechanisms of Manganese Solubilization”, Advances in Biochemical Engineering/ Biotechnology, Vol. 52] (Rusin hereafter).
Regarding claims 5-7, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 and 2 are applicable to claim 5-7, wherein Zhang already teaches at least one species of metal-oxide reducing bacteria comprises at least one species selected from Shewanella spp., (one of the Zhang’s example of an iron-reducing bacterium Shewanella putrefaciens, which is capable of producing intracellular particles of iron minerals (see Zhang’s page 81, column 1 and 2, Table I).
But Zhang is silent about the at least one species of metal-oxide reducing bacteria comprises at least one species selected from Geobacter spp.
However, Rusin teaches the manganese-reducing bacteria can be used to extract manganese from low-grade manganiferous ore, to separate manganese from iron in ferromanganiferous ore, and to release silver from refractory manganese oxide ores (see Rusin’s Abstract).
Rusin teaches in some cases, microbial reduction of manganese requires anaerobic conditions, manganese reduction may be inhibited by molecular oxygen and takes place only under anaerobic conditions. Some of the bacteria that reduce manganese only under anaerobic conditions include Geobacter metallireducans GS-15, Shewanella putrefaciens, etc. Geobacter metallireducans GS-15 is a strict anaerobe, unable to grow in the presence of oxygen. Shewanella putrefaeiens is aerobic but is able to survive without oxygen by using anaerobic respiration if suitable electron acceptors, such as Mn(IV), are present. Rusin further teaches in general, the most rapid rates of manganese dissolution are achieved under microaerobic or anaerobic conditions (see Rusin’s Page 17, 6.3 Atmospheric Oxygen).
Rusin’s Geobacter metallireducans GS-15 is one of the bacteria as listed in the claim 6.
Rusin further teaches strains of bacteria that reduce Mn(IV) only under anaerobic conditions may use iron as an electron shuttle. Ferrous iron is much more susceptible to autoxidation at a neutral pH than manganous manganese so organisms using ferrous iron as an electron carrier could only do so under anaerobic conditions. Shewanella putrefaciens contains a c-type cytochrome in its outer membrane when grown anaerobically and this c-type cytochrome could represent the iron or it could be a carrier for the reduction of ferric iron in a polynuclear complex ((see Rusin’s Page 7, 3.1 Direct Reduction).
Rusin is directed to recover trace metal from a low grade ferromanganese ore using metal-oxide reducing microbial activities and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Zhang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Rusin’s teachings of selection of bacteria, from Shewanella spp. and Geobacter spp. and combination thereof to combine with Zhang’s processes for recovering trace metal from the low grade manganiferous and ferromanganiferous, based on the type of manganese oxide present in the ore material, in a suitable process condition.
Regarding claims 14, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 and 8 are applicable to 14, but Zhang is silent about the manganese oxide.
However, Rusin teaches the manganese-reducing bacteria can be used to extract manganese from low-grade manganiferous ore, to separate manganese from iron in ferromanganiferous ore, and to release silver from refractory manganese oxide ores (see Rusin’s Abstract) and Rusin’s ore is granular material (see Rusin’s MnO2 particle ore FIG.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Rusin’s teachings of granular manganese oxide to combine with Zhang’s processes for recovering manganese or separating manganese for releasing other material from the low grade ferromanganese or mineral containing iron oxide and manganese oxide for intended use.
Regarding claims 17, all the above discussions regarding claim 1, 8 and 14 are applicable to 17, but Zhang is silent about the manganese oxide and therefore silent about at least 50% by weight of the manganese oxide present in the granular material is converted to a water-soluble manganese salt.
However, Rusin teaches an example of the manganese-reducing bacteria to separate manganese from ferromanganiferous ore, that contains 5.8% manganese and 12% iron to separate (see Rusin’s page 12, 5.2 Separation of Manganese from Iron). Rusin teaches (as shown in Fig. 3), the manganese solubilization and the apparent step-wise solubilization of manganese and iron may have been due to the oxidation of Fe(II) by Mn(IV) as shown in the reaction (9) and (10). The order in which metals are reduced may also depend on the relative abundance and availability of different electron acceptors, the affinity of different organism's respiratory enzymes for available electron donors, abiotic reactions between the respiratory product of one organism and the electron acceptor of another, and other factors (see Rusin’s page 13,Fig. 3 5.2 Separation of Manganese from Iron). Rusin teaches the biotreated tails are separated and digested by aqua regia, and analyzed for residual metals (see Rusin’s page 13,Fig. 3 5.2 Separation of Manganese from Iron) and as shown in Table 2, the recovery of Mn is 99% (see Rusin’s page 14, Table 2, 5.2 Separation of Manganese from Iron).
With all these teachings of Rusin, specially Rusin’s reaction (9) and (10) and % amount of recovery of Mn, indicates that, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Rusin’s at least 50% by weight of the manganese oxide of the manganese oxide present in the granular material is converted to a water-soluble manganese salt to have 99% Mn recovery, and therefore, meets the claimed limitation and which is within as recited in the instant claim.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M.M. Zhang [“Feasible bioprocessing technologies for low-grade iron ores”, Minerals & Metallurgical Processing, 2015, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 78-87] (Zhang hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cam, David Victor, et.al. [AU 2019201161 A1] (Cam hereafter).
Regarding claims 18, all the above discussions regarding claim 1, are applicable to 18, wherein Zhang teaches for selective dissolution of iron minerals, iron-reducing bioleaching processes are the most effective methods due to the fact that the reduced (Fe2+) form of iron has higher solubility than oxidized Fe3+ compounds. Using a reductive microorganism, iron can be converted into Fe2+ (ferrous) iron salts that are considerably more soluble than ferric iron salts, and so will dissolve under only mildly acidic conditions, (see Zhang’s page 81, column 2);
but Zhang is silent about the wherein the water-soluble metal salt is selected from the group consisting of iron chloride and manganese chloride.
However, Cam teaches a process for improving the grade of iron or for producing at least one iron oxide, or to iron or iron minerals produced by such a process, which may overcome to improve the grade of iron obtainable from a slurry, slurry contains a liquid including particles of iron minerals especially from a waste water slurry from mineral beneficiation and extraction (see Cam’s [0002]-][0009] and [0012]-[0015], [0019]-[0020]).
Cam teaches an increases in the grade of iron achieved by changes in the crystal structure of an iron mineral or by removal or separation of components of the slurry, such changes in the crystal structure of an iron mineral include one or more of the group consisting of such as water, or ions such as hydroxide, carbonate, sulfate or chloride (see Cam’s [00101])) and the electrical conductivity of the interstitial water, a feature of the total dissolved solids of the water used. The electrode spacing may also be changed to suit the particular flow characteristics required of the slurry as well as the required effectiveness of the treatment and the number of times the ore within the slurry will be recirculated. The spacing of the electrodes is a consideration in developing the electrical field strength required to 'flip' or realign the outer electrons contributing to the covalent bonding of the iron containing minerals which can hold hydroxyl, chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate and/or sulfate anions and other cationic metals within the layered iron oxide hydroxide lattice and therefore, the yield of iron products can be improved (see Cam’s [00152]).
Cam is directed to recover trace metal from a low grade iron ore using metal-oxide reducing microbial activities and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Zhang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Cam’s teachings of soluble metallic salt for altering the conductivity of the solution to combine with Zhang’s processes for recovering trace metal from the low grade with increasing yield and product quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ann E. Grow [US20050013759A1] (provided in the IDS) (Grow hereafter) teaches production of nanophase material using a suitable microorganism or mixture of microorganisms in suitable media, inoculated with material with metal oxide and separation of the nanophase material from the microbial cell, and the like (see Grow’s [0019], [0046]), mainly microbial formation of iron and manganese oxides influence from ferromanganese concentrations abundant in natural environments (see Grow’s [0046]). Grow then teaches manganese precipitates from manganese oxide are not the only produce nanophase (hydr)oxides, but also many other metals and metalloids and mixtures thereof by microbial extracellular precipitation processes, using microbial Fe(III) reduction, e.g., by dissimilatory Fe(III)-reducers such as Geobacter metallireducens and Shewanella putrefaciens, can be used in the production of a variety of Fe-containing precipitates, just as microbial Mn(II) oxidation can be used in the formation of a variety of Mn-containing precipitates (see Grow’s [0063]). Grow further teaches additionally, some manganese binding and oxidizing proteins have an affinity for other metals besides manganese, like oxidizing zinc and cobalt, in the presence or even in the absence of manganese. Hence, these microorganisms may be used to produce nanophase materials containing a variety of metals and metal mixtures. As before, the structure, composition, and properties of these nanophase materials can be controlled, tailored, and modified through the selection of the microorganism that is used in their production, and the conditions under which the microorganisms are incubated. Iron- or manganese-free nanophase materials can be produced, even in the presence of iron and/or manganese for example, by incubating such microorganisms under environmental conditions (e.g., low pH, anaerobic) that do not allow manganese or iron oxides to form. (see Grow’s [0063]).
Michael E. Dollhopf et.al. [“Kinetics of Fe (III) and Mn (IV) reduction by the Black Sea strain of Shewanella putrefaciens using in situ solid state voltametric AurHg electrodes”, Marine Chemistry 70 2000] teaches strain MR-4 of Shewanella putrefaciens like other isolates of S. putrefaciens, is capable of growing aerobically as well as anaerobically, via the utilization of a number of other electron acceptors, including nitrate, Mn (III), Mn (IV), Fe (III) etc. and few more other reductants (see, page 171, col.2). Dollhopf teaches an experiment that contains Amorphous MnO2 and synthetic goethite, using microbial activity Shewanella spp. were used for all bacterial reduction studies. S. putrefaciens strain MR-4 (see, page 172, col. 2, 173 col. 1, Experimental).
Shingo Kato et.al. [“Microbial metabolisms in an abyssal ferromanganese crust from the Takuyo-Daigo Seamount as revealed by metagenomics”, Marine Chemistry 70 2000] (Kato hereafter) teaches ferromanganese (Fe-Mn) oxide coatings, such as Fe-Mn crusts and nodules, comprises elements such as cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), nickel (Ni), copper (Co), and zinc (Zn) (see, page 1, Introduction). Kato teaches some microorganisms can reduce solid Fe(III) and Mn(IV) oxides or oxidize dissolved Fe2+ and Mn2+ in the crusts. For Shewanella spp. in Gammaproteobacteria and Geobacter spp. in Deltaproteobacteria, are involved in the reduction of Fe(III) and Mn(IV) oxides via extra-cellular electron transfer. high similarity to these outer membrane Cyc of Shewanella spp. and Geobacter spp. are found in the crust metagenome, see (see, Kato’s page 7, Metabolic potential of the crust community). Kato further teaches the microbial metabolisms potentially contribute to geochemical cycling of Fe and Mn. The Mn reducers possessing extracellular Cyc is involved in the Mn reduction and dissolution, while Fe oxides can be reduced and dissolved by Fe reducers possessing extracellular Cyc. These microbial activities contribute to both the acceleration and suppression of the growth of the Fe-Mn crust and thus potentially control the balance of the acceleration and suppression of oxidation/reduction and dissolution/precipitation of Mn and Fe by microbial activities, (see, Kato’s page 15, Biological contribution to geochemical cycling of Fe and Mn).
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, 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
Prosecution Insights