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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 21-22 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 1 and 21 are amended. Claims 2, 8, and 13-20 are cancelled. Claim 22 is new.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) to claim 21 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 21.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/05/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 21, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “metal bearing” at line 17 should read “metal-bearing” to be consistent with the spelling of the term at line 1
Claim 21: “metal bearing” at line 12 should read “metal-bearing” to be consistent with the spelling of the term at line 1
Claim 22: “metal bearing” at line 17 should read “metal-bearing” to be consistent with the spelling of the term in line 1
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “returning the raffinate comprising the retained concentration of the silver agent directly to the leaching solution to generate additional leaching solution”, however the instant specification does not disclose generating leaching solution by returning raffinate comprising the retained concentration of the silver agent directly to the leaching solution, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites “leaching, at least one additional time, the metal bearing material with the additional leaching solution to achieve between about 72% and about 85% recovery of the remaining metal value from the metal-bearing material”. The instant specification discloses wherein 72% and 85% of Cu is recovered during leaching of a copper-containing material (instant specification: [0050-0052], Table 2), however the instant specification does not disclose leaching an additional time as part of the recovery or wherein the recovery percentages are applicable to metal-bearing materials as a whole and not just to copper, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites “recovering additional metal value from the additional leaching solution”, however the instant specification does not disclose recovering additional metal value from additional leaching solution, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the raffinate comprising the retained concentration of silver agent is returned directly to the leaching solution to generate additional leaching solution”, however the instant specification does not disclose generating leaching solution by returning raffinate comprising the retained concentration of the silver agent directly to the leaching solution, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the metal bearing material is leached at least one additional time with the additional leaching solution”. The instant specification does not disclose leaching an additional time as part of the recovery, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 21 recites “wherein additional metal value is recovered from the additional leaching solution”, however the instant specification does not disclose recovering additional metal value from additional leaching solution, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 22 recites “returning the raffinate comprising the retained concentration of the silver agent directly to the leaching solution to generate additional leaching solution”, however the instant specification does not disclose generating leaching solution by returning raffinate comprising the retained concentration of the silver agent directly to the leaching solution, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 22 recites “leaching, at least one additional time, the metal bearing material with the additional leaching solution to achieve between about 72% and about 85% recovery of the remaining metal value from the metal-bearing material”. The instant specification discloses wherein 72% and 85% of Cu is recovered during leaching of a copper-containing material (instant specification: [0050-0052], Table 2), however the instant specification does not disclose leaching an additional time as part of the recovery or wherein the recovery percentages are applicable to metal-bearing materials as a whole and not just to copper, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 22 recites “recovering additional metal value from the additional leaching solution”, however the instant specification does not disclose recovering additional metal value from additional leaching solution, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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, 3-7, 9-12, 21, and 22 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 the limitation "to generate additional leaching solution" in line 11. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how additional leaching solution is generated (e.g., whether the raffinate is simply used as “additional leaching solution”, if the raffinate must be treated, if a reagent added to the raffinate, and/or if a component must be removed from the raffinate).
Claim 21 recites the limitation "to generate additional leaching solution" in line 11. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how additional leaching solution is generated (e.g., whether the raffinate is simply used as “additional leaching solution”, if the raffinate must be treated, if a reagent added to the raffinate, and/or if a component must be removed from the raffinate).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "to generate additional leaching solution" in line 16. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how additional leaching solution is generated (e.g., whether the raffinate is simply used as “additional leaching solution”, if the raffinate must be treated, if a reagent added to the raffinate, and/or if a component must be removed from the raffinate).
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (US 20230090475 A1, cited in Office Action dated 06/27/2024) in view of Kittelty et al. (US 20240035113 A1, cited in Office Action dated 06/27/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Lyons teaches a method for recovering a metal value from a metal-bearing material (Abstract, [0010]). Lyons teaches agglomerating the metal-bearing material with an agglomeration solution which comprises raffinate, citric acid, and hydrogen peroxide [0013, 0019].
Lyons teaches leaching the metal-bearing material with a leaching solution to produce a pregnant leaching solution (Abstract, [0010]). Lyons teaches the leaching solution comprises a raffinate, citric acid, and hydrogen peroxide [0010, 0013], and the metal-bearing material comprises a concentration of iron [0003, 0005-0006]. Lyons teaches recovering the metal value from the pregnant leaching solution to produce the raffinate [0010]. Lyons teaches returning the raffinate 112/144 comprising the retained concentration of the silver agent directly to the leaching solution (Fig. 1, [0118]), where it is combined with leaching solution in leaching process 120 [0119], thus the raffinate is returned and generates additional leaching solution. Lyons teaches a cyclic process where after leaching and recovering metal value from the pregnant leach solution, raffinate is recycled to the leaching (i.e., leaching at least one additional time with the additional leaching solution) on the heap (i.e., the metal bearing material) (Fig. 1, [0010]). As Lyons teaches the leaching to be cyclic [0010], the additional leaching solution is also treated to recover metal values (i.e., recovering additional metal value from the additional leaching solution).
Lyons does not teach adding a low concentration of a silver agent or wherein the raffinate comprises a retained concentration of the silver agent.
Kittelty teaches a microbial-assisted heap leaching (Title, abstract), where copper-containing sulfidic ore such as chalcopyrite ore is subjected to agglomeration followed by leaching to recover copper (Abstract), thus Lyons and Kittelty are analogous as both are directed to processes of agglomerating and leaching chalcopyrite to obtain copper metal. Kittelty teaches adding silver during the agglomeration of the ore enhances leaching of copper [0129]. Kittelty teaches the added silver may be added to the agglomeration step in any suitable form, such as in the agglomeration solution [0257]. Kittelty teaches the added silver concentration in the agglomerates may be less than 5 g silver per kg copper in the ore (<0.5%) or less than 1 g silver per kg copper in the ore (<0.1%) [0265], but does not teach the concentration of silver relative to the agglomeration solution. However, it has long been held that where 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. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a silver agent concentration sufficient to catalyze copper leaching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added silver to copper-containing ore during agglomeration as taught by Kittelty to the ore during the agglomeration step of Lyons, as doing so would improve the leaching of copper.
Lyons is modified by Kittelty to teach adding silver to the copper-containing ore during agglomeration, and is not relied upon to teach adding a regeneration circuit, therefore as Lyons does not teach further additions of silver agent, Lyons in view Kittelty teaches the raffinate is rendered amenable for reuse in the agglomerating or the leaching without further additions of the silver agent.
Lyons in view of Kittelty is silent to wherein silver agent is retained in the raffinate. However, page 15 of the present specification, discloses that “due to the retention effect citric acid has on silver ions, the raffinate 112 may comprise a retained concentration of the silver agent after leaching process 120”. As Lyons in view of Kittelty suggests substantially the same process that Applicant states produces this feature, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable assumption that this feature would also occur when practicing the method of Lyons in view of Kittelty. See MPEP 2112 § (III-V) and 2112.01 § (I).
Lyons in view of Kittelty is silent to leaching at least one additional time to achieve between about 72% and about 85% recovery of the remaining metal value from the metal-bearing material in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where 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. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use leaching conditions (e.g., temperature, duration, number of cycles) suitable to recover a desired percentage of metal value.
Further, the mere recitation of a numerical parameter in an otherwise known process will not generally result in patentability of a claim directed to that process, absent evidence of criticality of the numerical parameter. In the instant case the numerical parameter (the percentage of metal value recovered) does not appear to be critical to the invention.
Thus, the disclosure of Lyons in view of Kittelty is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Lyons teaches the presence of citric acid (C6H8O7, the acid form of citrate C6H5O73-) in the agglomeration solution [0019]. Kittelty teaches the addition of silver (Ag1+) into the agglomeration solution [0129], where the combination of silver and citric acid is together equivalent to silver citrate (C6H5Ag3O7), Lyons and Kittelty teaching all of the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Lyons teaches concentrations of hydrogen peroxide in the leaching solution of 1 % (Table 1) and 5 % (Table 2), which are both within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Lyons teaches the concentration of citric acid in the leaching solution is preferably about 3 g/L [0063], which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Lyons teaches the agglomeration solution comprises a concentration of citric acid between 2 and 10 g/L [0062], and a concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the range of about 1% to about 6 % by weight [0061] which are within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 9, Kittelty teaches the added silver concentration in the agglomerates may be less than 5 g silver per kg copper in the ore (<0.5%) or less than 1 g silver per kg copper in the ore (<0.1%), but does not teach the concentration of silver relative to the agglomeration solution. However, in general it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B.
Regarding claim 10, Lyons teaches forming at least a portion of a heap with the agglomerated metal-bearing material after the step of agglomerating [0067, 0072, 0102].
Regarding claim 11, Lyons teaches the metal-bearing material may be chalcopyrite [0038].
Regarding claim 12, Lyons teaches leaching may comprise an injection of air or oxygen into the heap [0026-0027].
Regarding claim 21, Lyons teaches a method for recovering a metal value from a metal-bearing material, wherein the metal-bearing material comprises a concentration of iron (Lyons: [0171], Table 4) and the method includes leaching the metal-bearing material with a leaching solution comprising raffinate as noted above. The combination of Lyons and Kittelty as applied to claim 1 above suggests all elements of the current invention, as discussed above.
Therefore, the combined disclosures of Lyons and Kittelty would have suggested a method as presently claimed to one ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Kittelty as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Schlitt (“Kennecott's million-ton test heap -The active leach program”, supplied herein).
Lyons teaches the metal-bearing material comprises run of mine ore [0014]. Lyons in view of Kittelty does not teach wherein the concentration of iron in the metal-bearing material is more than about 2 g/L.
Schlitt teaches a heap leach program (Title), where chalcopyrite run of mine ore is heap leached (pg. 1 Introduction paragraph 3). Schlitt teaches the heap overall comprises 4.0% Fe, where the heap is 16 m high, the top horizontal surface is 130 m by 190 m (pg. 4 Construction of the first lift paragraph 1), and the bottom horizontal surface is 175 m by 205 m (pg. 3 The leach pad and piping paragraph 1), therefore the total volume of the heap is 481,827 m3. Schlitt teaches the mass of the heap is 960 kt (pg. 1 Introduction paragraph 3), thus the heap comprises 38,400 metric tons of iron over the volume of the heap, equivalent to 80 g/L, which is within the claimed range.
Because Lyons is silent with respect to the run of mine ore used, in order to carry out the invention of Lyons one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching run of mine ore suitable for use within the process of Lyons, such as chalcopyrite run of mine ore taught by Schlitt. As Lyons and Schlitt both relate to heap leaching of chalcopyrite run of mine ore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the ore of Schlitt.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Kittelty and Schlitt.
Lyons teaches a method for recovering a metal value from a metal-bearing material (Abstract, [0010]). Lyons teaches agglomerating the metal-bearing material with an agglomeration solution which comprises raffinate, citric acid, and hydrogen peroxide [0013, 0019].
Lyons teaches leaching the metal-bearing material with a leaching solution to produce a pregnant leaching solution (Abstract, [0010]). Lyons teaches the leaching solution comprises a raffinate, citric acid, and hydrogen peroxide [0010, 0013], and the metal-bearing material comprises a concentration of iron [0003, 0005-0006]. Lyons teaches recovering the metal value from the pregnant leaching solution to produce the raffinate [0010]. Lyons teaches returning the raffinate 112/144 comprising the retained concentration of the silver agent directly to the leaching solution (Fig. 1, [0118]), where it is combined with leaching solution in leaching process 120 [0119], thus the raffinate is returned and generates additional leaching solution. Lyons teaches a cyclic process where after leaching and recovering metal value from the pregnant leach solution, raffinate is recycled to the leaching (i.e., leaching at least one additional time with the additional leaching solution) on the heap (i.e., the metal bearing material) (Fig. 1, [0010]). As Lyons teaches the leaching to be cyclic [0010], the additional leaching solution is also treated to recover metal values (i.e., recovering additional metal value from the additional leaching solution).
Lyons does not teach adding a low concentration of a silver agent or wherein the raffinate comprises a retained concentration of the silver agent.
Kittelty teaches a microbial-assisted heap leaching (Title, abstract), where copper-containing sulfidic ore such as chalcopyrite ore is subjected to agglomeration followed by leaching to recover copper (Abstract), thus Lyons and Kittelty are analogous as both are directed to processes of agglomerating and leaching chalcopyrite to obtain copper metal. Kittelty teaches adding silver during the agglomeration of the ore enhances leaching of copper [0129]. Kittelty teaches the added silver may be added to the agglomeration step in any suitable form, such as in the agglomeration solution [0257]. Kittelty teaches the added silver concentration in the agglomerates may be less than 5 g silver per kg copper in the ore (<0.5%) or less than 1 g silver per kg copper in the ore (<0.1%) [0265], but does not teach the concentration of silver relative to the agglomeration solution. However, it has long been held that where 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. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a silver agent concentration sufficient to catalyze copper leaching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added silver to copper-containing ore during agglomeration as taught by Kittelty to the ore during the agglomeration step of Lyons, as doing so would improve the leaching of copper.
Lyons is modified by Kittelty to teach adding silver to the copper-containing ore during agglomeration, and is not relied upon to teach adding a regeneration circuit, therefore as Lyons does not teach further additions of silver agent, Lyons in view Kittelty teaches the raffinate is rendered amenable for reuse in the agglomerating or the leaching without further additions of the silver agent.
Lyons teaches the metal-bearing material comprises run of mine ore [0014]. Lyons in view of Kittelty does not teach wherein the concentration of iron in the metal-bearing material is more than about 2 g/L.
Schlitt teaches a heap leach program (Title), where chalcopyrite run of mine ore is heap leached (pg. 1 Introduction paragraph 3). Schlitt teaches the heap overall comprises 4.0% Fe, where the heap is 16 m high, the top horizontal surface is 130 m by 190 m (pg. 4 Construction of the first lift paragraph 1), and the bottom horizontal surface is 175 m by 205 m (pg. 3 The leach pad and piping paragraph 1), therefore the total volume of the heap is 481,827 m3. Schlitt teaches the mass of the heap is 960 kt (pg. 1 Introduction paragraph 3), thus the heap comprises 38,400 metric tons of iron over the volume of the heap, equivalent to 80 g/L, which is within the claimed range.
Because Lyons is silent with respect to the run of mine ore used, in order to carry out the invention of Lyons one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching run of mine ore suitable for use within the process of Lyons, such as chalcopyrite run of mine ore taught by Schlitt. As Lyons and Schlitt both relate to heap leaching of chalcopyrite run of mine ore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the ore of Schlitt.
Lyons in view of Kittelty and Schlitt is silent to wherein silver agent is retained in the raffinate. However, page 15 of the present specification, discloses that “due to the retention effect citric acid has on silver ions, the raffinate 112 may comprise a retained concentration of the silver agent after leaching process 120”. As Lyons in view of Kittelty and Schlitt suggests substantially the same process that Applicant states produces this feature, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable assumption that this feature would also occur when practicing the method of Lyons in view of Kittelty and Schlitt.
Lyons in view of Kittelty and Schlitt is silent to leaching at least one additional time to achieve between about 72% and about 85% recovery of the remaining metal value from the metal-bearing material in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where 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 the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use leaching conditions (e.g., temperature, duration, number of cycles) suitable to recover a desired percentage of metal value.
Further, the mere recitation of a numerical parameter in an otherwise known process will not generally result in patentability of a claim directed to that process, absent evidence of criticality of the numerical parameter. In the instant case the numerical parameter (the percentage of metal value recovered) does not appear to be critical to the invention.
Thus, the disclosure of Lyons in view of Kittelty and Schlitt is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Lyons in view of Kittelty does not teach or suggest returning raffinate comprising retained concentration of silver agent directly to the leaching solution to generate additional leaching solution and then leaching at least one additional time, (see pg. 7 and 8-9 of remarks) the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, the method of Kittelty uses a regeneration circuit and does not return raffinate directly to a leaching solution, it is not the Examiner’s position to use the regeneration circuit of Kittelty or to incorporate a regeneration circuit according to Kittelty into the method of Lyons. Instead, Kittelty is only relied upon to teach adding a silver agent to the heap of Lyons during the agglomeration step.
While Lyons does not teach a retained concentration of silver agent, the Examiner’s assertation that silver would be found in the raffinate stream of Lyons in view of Kittelty is that because Lyons in view of Kittelty teaches a leaching solution comprising raffinate, citric acid, and hydrogen peroxide (Lyons: [0010, 0013]) and silver (Kittelty: [0129]), which is subjected to a leaching process (Lyons: Abstract, [0010]) and a metal recovery process (Lyons: [0010]); which are the same features recited in the instant claims and in the instant specification, where the only disclosure regarding retention of silver in the raffinate is “due to the retention effect citric acid has on silver ions, the raffinate 112 may comprise a retained concentration of the silver agent after leaching process 120 and metal recovery process 130” (instant specification: [0040]), the composition of Lyons in view of Kittelty is the same as that of the instant claims and subjected to the same steps that retain silver. As the composition of the prior art and the steps performed are the same, it necessarily follows that the composition have the same function of comprising a retained concentration of silver agent, where such a conclusion has no relation to a regeneration circuit in Kittelty.
Further, as Lyons already teaches returning the raffinate directly to the leaching solution, Lyons in view of Kittelty would intrinsically result in returning a raffinate comprising retained concentration of silver agent.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Kittelty fails to provide any guidance as to what “other additives” are added to the raffinate in a regeneration circuit (see pg. 7-8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, a number of different feeds may be added to a raffinate when returned to a leaching step in the invention of Kittelty, as noted above, the instant claims are rejected over Lyons in view of Kittelty or over Lyons in view of Kittelty and Schlitt, where in either case Kittelty is solely relied upon to teach the addition of silver agent in an agglomeration step. Therefore any “other additives” added to a raffinate in Kittelty have no bearing on the combination of Lyons and Kittelty as applied to the instant claims.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the particular ratios of iron in the metal-bearing material and silver in the raffinate lead to enhanced copper recovery without undue waste and expense that could result from silver consumption (see pg. 9 of remarks), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., particular ratios of iron in the metal-bearing material and silver in the raffinate, the avoidance of undue waste, interplay between the metal-bearing material’s iron concentration and the concentration of silver agent that results in enhanced metal value recovery when the raffinate comprising retained silver is returned directly to the leaching solution for additional leaching/recovery of enhanced amounts of metal value) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, 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
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733