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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-20 and 22-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-20 and 22-25 recite “A method according to claim 1.” Reference should be made to “the method according to claim 1.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to and also rejected as set forth below for reciting “a method as defined according to claim 5.” Reference should be made to “the method.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 and 22-26 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 recites “between about 40 to 75% copper” in Lines 8-9. It is unclear whether this refers to an amount, a weight percentage, or some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish the presence of copper as it pertains to the matte formed in the furnace.
Claim 14 recites “the fluxes and feed added to the furnace are selected or controlled to produce a slag with a zinc content…” in Lines 1-2. The recitation “selected or controlled” preceding “to produce” renders unclear whether the limitations following “selected or controlled” are an intended use of the acts of “selection” or ‘control,’ or whether this has some other meaning. Further, it is unclear the metes and bounds of what encompasses the action of “selected or controlled.” It is unclear if these are alternatives and what actions would constitute “control” and how “control” would distinguish from “selection.” While each term takes on individual meaning within the art, their usage together in this way renders unclear what action is taken by “selected or controlled.” Appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 18 recites “zinc fumer/zinc fuming furnace” and it is unclear if this is meant to convey a singular unit or alternative devices. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish each claimed element.
Claim 22 recites “substantially digests” in Line 2. As used, “substantially” is a relative term rendering the claim unclear. It is unclear the metes and bounds of “substantially.” The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 recites “glassy solid material.” As this may refer to appearance, texture, viscosity, color, or other material properties, the use of the word “glassy” renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction or explanation is required to establish the metes and bounds of the term “glassy solid material.”
Claim 26 recites “a method as defined according to claim 5” in Line 2. It is unclear whether it is intended for Claim 26 to depend on Claim 1. It is unclear what meaning “defined” has in context of the claim and what reference is being made by the phrase “defined according to.” Additionally, it is unclear whether the limitations of Claim 5 are required in Claim 26 as presently drafted, whether they merely serve to ‘define’ Claim 26, or whether this has some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish the presence of “one or more precious metals comprising silver and/or gold.”
Claims 2-13, 15-17, 19-20, and 22-26 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-7, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bojcevski et al. WO 2019071791 A1 in view of NPL Shamsuddin.
Regarding Claim 1, Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches a method for treating a zinc leach residue comprising the steps of: adding the zinc leach residue and a sulfide material comprising copper and flux to a furnace having a molten bath therein [0002, 0006], operating the furnace to produce a matte comprising copper and a slag comprising zinc; separating the matte from the slag [0129]; and recovering zinc from the slag [0122], Bojcevski et al. ‘641 does not expressly teach the matte formed in the furnace comprises between about 40 to 75% copper.
However, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, NPL Shamsuddin teaches zinc leach residue treatment in a furnace which produces high-grade matte containing approximately 60% copper, lying within the instantly claimed range of between about 40 to 75% copper, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to yield a high-grade matte by utilizing the furnace of NPL Shamsuddin in the process of Bojcevski et al. ‘641 in order to increase the recovery of copper.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 further teaches recovering copper from the matte [0002], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 further teaches treating the slag in a slag fuming furnace to recover zinc therefrom at [0035, 0190], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 further teaches treating the matte in a copper smelter to recover copper therefrom at [0108], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 5-6, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 further teaches recovering gold and silver from the final product of the smelter at [0251], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches teaches zinc leach residue treatment in a top blown furnace at [0023] and NPL Shamsuddin expressly teaches zinc leach residue treatment in a top-blown submerged-combustion lance (TSL) Furnace at (Section 3.1.2), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches adding air, oxygen, or oxygen-enriched air to the furnace at [0069], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches recovering sulfur dioxide off gas at [0070]. Additionally, NPL Shamsuddin teaches at (Section 3.1) sending off gases from the furnace containing sulfur dioxide to an acid plant to produce sulfuric acid therefrom.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to send sulfur dioxide off gas to an acid plant in order to increase the recycling of waste gas based on the teachings of NPL Shamsuddin at (Section 3.1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches adding on or more fluxes to the furnace at [0070], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the one or more fluxes comprises silica or CaO at [0194], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the slag has a CaO/SiO2 ratio of 0.8-1.5 [0109], overlapping the instantly claimed range of between about 0.1 to 0.3, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches an operation temperature of 1100 to 1450 °C [0011], overlapping the instantly claimed range of about 1100 °C to 1250 °C, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the molten slag is sent to a zinc fuming furnace [0025-0026], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches tapping molten matte to a coper smelter at [0108], meeting the limitations for the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the incoming precious metals migrate to the copper-containing matte while zinc migrates to the slag phase [0171], meeting the limitations for the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the generation of slag wool as a by-product [0048], meeting the limitations for the instant Claim for a glassy solid material comprising Fe, Ca, Al, and Si.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the recovery of zinc e.g. at [0070], meeting the limitations for the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 25, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the recovery of copper e.g. at [0006], meeting the limitations for the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the recovery of gold and silver e.g. at [0006], meeting the limitations for the instant Claim.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bojcevski et al. WO2019071791A1 in view of NPL Shamsuddin as applied to Claims 1-7, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 22-26 above further in view of Foo et al. US 5372630 A.
Regarding Claims 8-9, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 and NPL Shamsuddin do not expressly teach an oxygen partial pressure within the instantly claimed range.
However, Foo et al. ‘630 teaches a process for treatment of zinc leach residue comprising adding a sulfide material comprising copper and flux to a furnace having a molten bath therein (Abstract). Et al. ‘630 teaches oxygen partial pressure of 10 -7 bar to 10 -11 bar, overlapping and encompassing the instantly claimed pressure values, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to apply the oxygen partial pressure range taught in Foo et al. ‘630 in order to minimize the production of zinc oxide within the molten bath and increase copper yield based on the teachings of Foo et al. ‘630 at (Column 2, Lines 41-47).
Claims 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bojcevski et al. WO2019071791A1 in view of NPL Shamsuddin as applied to Claims 1-7, 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 22-26 above further in view of Quarm et al. US 3892559 A and NPL Peters.
Regarding Claims 14, 16, and 20, modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 teaches the limitations set forth above. Bojcevski et al. ‘641 and NPL Shamsuddin do not expressly teach a slag composition overlapping the instantly claimed range.
However, Quarm et al. ‘559 teaches a process for treatment of zinc leach residue comprising adding a sulfide material comprising copper and flux to a furnace having a molten bath therein (Example 2, Fig. 2). Quarm et al. ‘559 teaches the slag contains 6.2% zinc when it leaves the furnace, lying within the instantly claimed range of between about 5 to 25 wt.%, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
Quarm et al. ‘559 does not expressly teach the slag composition prior to leaving the furnace. Insofar as the slag composition may be fine-tuned and controlled, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to vary the slag composition to achieve a higher zinc yield. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Nonetheless, additionally and alternatively, NPL Peters teaches at (Section 3.5.2), a slag material having a composition of silica of 25-35%, 25-35% iron, and 8-11% zinc. These ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges of 10-20 wt.% zinc, and ratio of Sio2/(Fe+Zn) of between about 0.6 to 0.8 (e.g. a concentration of 35% silica, 11% zinc, and 35% iron, forming a ratio of approximately 0.76).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the slag in NPL Peters in the method of modified Bojcevski et al. ‘641 in order to produce a higher zinc yield based on the teachings of NPL Peters at (Section 3.5.2). See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 104831078 A teaches a slag composition with 14-25% zinc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights