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 06/06/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: the phrase "means for contacting a microorganism” in line 1 in claim 44. The non-structural term “means” is modified by the sufficient structure as the paragraph [0018] of the instant specification of the disclosure describes “the step of contacting the metal ore with the microbial lixiviant may be conducted by supplying the microbial lixiviant into the tank”, therefore, tank is being considered as a structure to perform the function of contacting.
Because this claim limitations is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 26-30, 32-35 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedro Antonio Morales Cerda, et.al. [US020080127779A1] (Provided in the IDS) (Cerda hereafter).
Regarding claims 26 and 43, Cerda discloses a method of extracting a target metal from a material (a process to improve the bioleaching conditions of sulfide metal ores, such as chalcopyrite, bornite, chalcocite, covellite, etc., by adding a leaching biomass of improved bacterial activity of iron and sulfur oxidization and simultaneously, sufficiently high concentrations of ferric ion to ensure sufficiently high speeds in leaching to make low grade sulfide ore, financially feasible, see Cerda’s [0020])), comprising the target metal (extracting copper, see Cerda’s [0027], FIG.1), the method comprising:
cultivating a first microorganism in a bioreactor wherein the bioreactor is in communication with the material comprising the target metal (bacteria are grown in continuous chemostats (bioreactor) in a liquid culture environment for iron and sulfur oxidizing bacteria (DSM 17318), and iron oxidizing bacteria (DSM 16786) (see Cerda’s [0001], [0021], [0056]-[0057] and exit via chemostats exit to a leaching tank, the bioleaching process takes place in a mechanically stirred tank, wherein ore is mixed with the leaching solution, forming a slurry with the presence of microorganisms see Cerda’s [0027]);
contacting the material comprising the target metal with the first microorganism, wherein the first microorganism comprises a lixiviant (in a mechanically stirred tank, finely divided ore is mixed with the leaching solution forming a slurry with microorganisms, (see Cerda’s [0027]), and the leaching solutions, is a lixiviant, a liquid culture environment see Cerda’s [0056]);
contacting a source of pyrite with the microorganism (ore is mixed with microorganisms see Cerda’s [0027], and Cerda’s example chalcopyrite, CuFeS2 is a source of pyrite, see Cerda’s equation (4) [0017]);
oxidizing the source of pyrite (as shown in Cerda’s equation (4), chalcopyrite is oxidized to elemental sulfur, and is catalyzed by leaching bacteria, see Cerda’s equation (4) [0017]);
oxidizing the material comprising the target metal (Cerda’s material, chalcopyrite CuFeS2 contains target metal copper see Cerda’s [0017], [0021]);
cultivating second microorganism in the bioreactor, (bacteria grown in continuous chemostats (bioreactor) in a liquid culture environment for iron and sulfur oxidizing bacteria (DSM 17318), and iron oxidizing bacteria (DSM 16786), see Cerda’s [0021], [0056] and [0057]).
With respect to the first microorganism and second organism, claim does not specify any microorganism as a first or second microorganism. However Cerda teaches two kinds of microorganisms and either one of them can be considered as first and/or second microorganism and can meet the claim limitations. However, as shown in the Cerda’s leaching reactions, wherein in early stages reactions(2)-(5) occurs to oxidize the sulfide to elemental S, and the process is catalyzed by leaching microorganisms, and then the same microorganisms oxidize the resulting ferrous sulfate to ferric sulfate according to the reaction (6), (see Cerda’s [0017]). Cerda further teaches two types microorganisms of Cerda’s strategies for obtaining the maximum speed of copper recovery from sulfide ore, the first stages involve bioleaching of secondary sulfide ore, in addition to the continuous inoculation of sulfur-oxidizing and iron-oxidizing microorganisms, that ensures the highest possible initial contents of ferric ions in the bioleaching solutions for controlling their precipitation as jarosite that could inhibit the recovery of copper Once the bioleaching stage is in progress, the Fe(III) contents in the solution may be decreased, the progress of the secondary sulfide ore leaching increases, as when the consumption of ferric ions is decreased and a high oxidizing activity is established by the bacteria inside the bioleaching operations, the level may become lower as the process becomes self-sustaining due to the generation of iron and oxidizing action of the bacteria (see Cerda’s [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, Cerda’s microorganism promotes the first stages of the reactions (2)-(5), i.e. sulfur-oxidization, would be considered as first microorganism, while microorganism in the iron-oxidizing activity reaction (6) would be considered as second microorganism.
With all these teachings as shown above, as Cerda’s microorganisms controlling the reaction (6) has been considered as second microorganism, Cerda further meets the limitations of the second oxidizing microorganism is capable of adjusting the rate of pyrite oxidation, as Cerda teaches the increase in the concentration of ferric ions at initial stage, significantly increase the speed of copper extraction naturally, because the copper extraction speed is directly related to the amount of microorganisms and the concentration of oxidizing ions (ferric iron) (see Cerda’s [0044]). However, in the bacteria oxidize the resulting ferrous sulfate and due to the oxidizing activity of the bacteria (Cerda’s reaction (6)), in the solution or forming bio-films over the ore on the iron and sulfur that results from the process and the bioleaching speed depends on the concentration of ferric ion, and therefore, in practice is limited by the reoxidation speed of the ferrous ions (6), (see Cerda’s [0017]), therefore, iron oxidizing activity of reaction (6), controls the overall rate of the chalcopyrite oxidation, i.e. pyrite oxidation);
contacting the material comprising the target metal with the second microorganism (in a mechanically stirred tank, finely divided ore is mixed with the leaching solution forming a slurry with microorganisms, (see Cerda’s [0027], [0056], and simultaneous presence of sulfur-oxidizing microorganisms (DSM 17318) and iron-oxidizing microorganisms (DSM 16786) in the tank and promotes the bioleaching of copper recovery from sulfide ore, see Cerda’s [0064], [0074]);
adjusting the rate of pyrite oxidation (the levels of ferric ion vary according to the processing stage, with concentrations and in an oxidizing potential of the solution is higher than 800 mV, produced by the bio-oxidizing reactions of the iron in the biomass production reactors (see Cerda’s [0001], [0040]-[0041], claim 9); and
recovering the target metal (Cu recovery see Cerda’s [0017], [0021], [0027], FIG.1).
With respect to claim 43, as shown above target metal is copper.
Cerda 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, the examiner notes that simply 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, notes that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is a matter of obviousness and in this case using two microorganisms of sulfur-oxidizing and iron-oxidizing microorganisms the simultaneously to maximize the copper recovery from the copper ore when the process is also financially feasible within the same reference document.
Regarding claim 27-30, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 27-30, wherein Cerda already discloses in first stages reactions(2)-(5) occurs to oxidize the sulfide to elemental S, catalyzed by leaching bacteria, and then the bacteria oxidize the resulting ferrous sulfate to ferric sulfate according to the reaction (6), (see Cerda’s [0017]), and therefore, Cerda’s microorganism in the first stages of the reactions (2)-(5) could be considered as first microorganism, while microorganism in the iron-oxidizing activity of reactions (6) could be considered as second microorganism.
Cerda also discloses during the first stages of the process, by the consumption of ferric iron by the bioleaching reactions of the sulfides (reactions 1 to 4), the speed of the process increases significantly, (see Cerda’s [0048]) and iron-oxidizing activity occurs, wherein generation of ferric ions from ferrous ions by the metabolic action of the microorganisms (reactions 6) and the iron-oxidizing self-sustainability is achieved, as a result of the iron-oxidizing activity of the bacteria in the bioleaching processes being higher than the demand of ferric ions due to the bioleaching reactions (see Cerda’s [0040]-[0041]).
Cerda’s strategies for obtaining the maximum speed of copper recovery from sulfide ore, the first stages involve bioleaching of secondary sulfide ore, in addition to the continuous inoculation of sulfur-oxidizing and iron-oxidizing microorganisms, that ensures the highest possible initial contents of ferric ions in the bioleaching solutions for controlling their precipitation as jarosite that could inhibit the recovery of copper. Once the bioleaching stage is in progress, the Fe(III) contents in the solution may be decreased, the progress of the secondary sulfide ore leaching increases, as when the consumption of ferric ions is decreased and a high oxidizing activity is established by the bacteria inside the bioleaching operations, the level may become lower as the process becomes self-sustaining due to the generation of iron and oxidizing action of the bacteria (see Cerda’s [0074]).
Cerda further teaches until the process is self-sustaining, this bioleaching flow comprises a mixture of Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans and Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans type microorganisms, and ferric ions (see Cerda’s [0049]). Cerda’s examples of Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans Wenelen DSM 16786 is an iron-oxidizing microorganism, and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans Licanantay DSM 17318 is a sulfur-oxidizing microorganism (see Cerda’s [0001] and [0049], [0056]-[0057]).
With all these above teachings of Cerda’s microorganisms causing in the first step of bioleaching utilizing both iron oxidizing microorganism and sulfur oxidizing microorganism, for controlling their precipitation as jarosite that could inhibit the recovery of copper, would be treated as first microorganisms and therefore, meets the limitations of the claim 27, 29 and 30, and the iron oxidizing activity in the later stage controlled by Cerda’s iron oxidizing microorganisms, would meet the limitation of second microorganism of claim 28.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Cerda’s teaching of using both sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and an iron-oxidizing bacteria, to control each steps of the leaching reaction, wherein first microorganism oxidizes elemental sulfur and ferric ion, while second stage microorganisms are capable of adjusting oxidation of iron and thus enhances the speed of the process increases significantly.
Regarding claim 32 and 35, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 32 and 35, wherein Cerda already discloses assessing the rate of pyrite oxidation (for obtaining the maximum speed of copper recovery from sulfide ore, the first stages involves bioleaching of secondary sulfide ore, in presence of sulfur-oxidizing and iron-oxidizing microorganisms, that ensures the highest possible initial contents of ferric ions in the bioleaching solutions for controlling their precipitation as jarosite could inhibit the recovery of copper. Once the bioleaching stage is in progress, the Fe(III) contents in the solution may be decreased, the progress of the secondary sulfide ore leaching increases, as when the consumption of ferric ions is decreased and a high oxidizing activity is established by the bacteria inside the bioleaching operations, the level may become lower as the process becomes self-sustaining due to the generation of iron and oxidizing action of the bacteria (see Cerda’s [0074]).
Cerda further teaches second microorganism adjusts the rate of pyrite oxidation (Cerda teaches adjusting increase concentration of ferric ions, significantly increase the speed of copper extraction naturally, because the copper extraction speed is directly related to the amount of microorganism and the concentration of oxidizing ions (ferric iron) (see Cerda’s [0044]). However, in Cerda’s reaction (6), the bacteria oxidize the resulting ferrous sulfate and due to the oxidizing activity of the bacteria, there is forming bio-films over the ore on the iron and sulfur that results from the process and the bioleaching speed depends on the concentration of ferric ion, and therefore, in practice is limited by the reoxidation speed of the ferrous ions in reaction (6) (see Cerda’s [0017]), therefore, Cerda’s iron oxidizing activity of reaction (6), controls the rate of the oxidation of pyrite, and the Cerda’s microorganism, that controls the second stage can meet the limitation of second microorganism.
Cerda further teaches iron-oxidizing self-sustainability is achieved in a moment in a leaching process when the iron content, with an oxidizing potential of more than 800 mV, the iron-oxidizing activity of the bacteria in the bioleaching processes being higher than the demand of ferric ions due to the bioleaching reactions (see Cerda’s [0040]-[0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Cerda’s teaching of using both sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, and an iron-oxidizing bacteria, to control each steps of the leaching reaction, and adjusting pyrite oxidation reactions based on the oxidizing potential, to maintain an iron-oxidizing activity of the bacteria to meet the demand of ferric ions due to the bioleaching reactions, and inhibits the passivation and enhances the speed of the process increases significantly.
Regarding claim 33 and 34, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 33 and 34, wherein Cerda already discloses assessing the rate of pyrite oxidation comprises measuring an oxidation reduction potential (iron-oxidizing self-sustainability is achieved in a moment in a leaching process with an oxidizing potential of more than 800 mV, the iron-oxidizing activity of the bacteria in the bioleaching processes being higher than the demand of ferric ions due to the bioleaching reactions (see Cerda’s [0040]-[0041])).
With respect to claim 34, Cerda further teaches increase concentration of ferric ions, significantly increase the speed of copper extraction naturally, because the copper extraction speed is directly related to the amount of microorganism and the concentration of oxidizing ions (ferric iron) (see Cerda’s [0044]). However, as shown, in Cerda’s reaction (6), in Cerda’s reaction (6), the bacteria oxidize the resulting ferrous sulfate and due to the oxidizing activity of the bacteria, there is forming bio-films over the ore on the iron and sulfur that results from the process and the bioleaching speed depends on the concentration of ferric ion, and therefore, in practice is limited by the reoxidation speed of the ferrous ions in reaction (6) (see Cerda’s [0017]).
Although Cerda is silent about the lowering the oxidation reduction potential, Cerda teaches when ferric ion is maximum at an oxidizing potential of more than 800 mV, (see Cerda’s [0040]-[0041]) and then the leaching is limited by the reoxidation speed of the ferrous ions in reaction (6) (see Cerda’s [0017]), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when the re-oxidation to ferrous ion occurs, oxidation reduction potential would be lower compared to that of the oxidation ferric ion and reduces from 800 mV. As Cerda’s iron oxidizing activity of reaction (6) in later sage, controls the rate of the oxidation and re-oxidation of ferrous and ferric ion, and the Cerda’s microorganism, that controls the later stage can be considered as second microorganism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Cerda’s teaching of maintaining a self-sustaining iron-oxidizing activity of the bacteria to provide ferric ions due in the bioleaching reactions, as well as to control and inhibits the passivation and enhances the speed of the process increases significantly.
Regarding claim 44, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 43, in addition, Cerda discloses the bioreactor comprises a means for contacting a microorganism with the material comprising the target metal (bacteria are grown in continuous chemostats (bio-reactor) using a growth media and when the biomass concentrations obtained at the chemostat exit points, the solutions are filtered to avoid carrying solids and afterwards diluted if needed (see Cerda’s [0057]-[0058]). Cerda discloses a bioleaching in a stirred tanks or reactors comprises a mechanically stirred tank where the finely divided ore is mixed with the leaching solution, forming a slurry with a solid content and microorganisms, for extracting the copper (see Cerda’s [0057]-[0058])). Cerda teaches using of stirred tanks for leaching, the conditions particularly the high quantity of resulting bacteria is obtained, while are not possible to achieve commercially in ore beneficiation processes carried out in troughs, heaps, dumps, tailing dams and other "in-situ"(onsite) processes (see Cerda’s [0010]). Cerda further teaches by continuously adding aqueous suspensions to stirred tanks or reactors containing populations of bacteria leaching is carried out with preserving the necessary physical and chemical conditions, such as temperature, percentage of solids, etc. (see Cerda’s [0015]).
It is to be noted, as shown in the claim interpretation section, claim does not recite any specific apparatus or structure for contacting a microorganism, or for performing the claimed function, however, the paragraph [0018] of the instant specification of the disclosure describes “the step of contacting the metal ore with the microbial lixiviant may be conducted by supplying the microbial lixiviant into the tank”, therefore, tank is being considered as a structure to perform the function of contacting as similar as Cerda’s stirred Tank.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have Cerda’s teaching of stirred tanks or reactors for containing higher populations of bacteria with the ore and for maintain the necessary physical and chemical leaching conditions to have better efficiency.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedro Antonio Morales Cerda, et.al. [US020080127779A1] (Provided in the IDS) (Cerda hereafter) as applied to claim 26 and further in view of Douglas E Rawlings [“Characteristics and adaptability of iron- and sulfur-oxidizing microorganisms used for the recovery of metals from minerals and their concentrates”, Microbial Cell Factories 2005, 4:13 doi:10.1186/1475-2859-4-13] (Rawlings hereafter).
Regarding claim 31, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 31, but Cerda is silent about the sulfur oxidizing microorganism comprises Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans.
However, Rawlings teaches a polysulfide solubilization mechanism for acid soluble metal sulfides (such as chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), through a combined attack by ferric iron and protons, with elemental sulfur as the intermediate. This elemental sulfur is oxidized to sulfate by sulfur-oxidizing microbes such as Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans and the ferrous iron produced in reactions (1) to (4) may be reoxidized to ferric iron by iron-oxidizing microorganisms such as Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. The role of the microorganisms in the solubilization of metal sulfides is, therefore, to provide sulfuric acid (reaction 5) for a proton attack and to keep the iron in the oxidized ferric state (reaction 6) for an oxidative attack on the mineral (see Rawlings’s page2, 2. Mechanisms of bioleaching). Rawlings teaches a process comprises a finely milled mineral suspension is placed in a stirred tank, and is vigorously aerated. Rawlings also teaches mineral solubilization processes are exothermic, and when tanks are used, cooling is required to keep the processes that function at 40°C at their optimum temperature. At higher temperatures mineral solubilization is much faster, specially, in case of minerals such as chalcopyrite, temperatures of 75–80°C are required for copper extraction to take place at an economically viable rate (see Rawlings’s page 3, 3. Effect of temperature).
Rawlings teaches some examples of the Gram-negative bacteria, like the iron- and sulfur-oxidizing Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, the sulfur-oxidizing Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans etc. (see Rawlings’s page3, Types of Microorganisms) and Gram -positive iron and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria related to Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans can be used (see Rawlings’s page 4, Types of Microorganisms). Rawlings then teaches the solubilization of metals due to the action of ferric iron and protons depending on the mineral being treated and the rate of reaction is affected by temperature and some difficult-to-degrade minerals need to be leached at higher leaching temperatures than others. Rawlings further teaches the processes at temperatures from ambient to 40°C are dominated by Gram-negative bacteria being present, while Gram-positive bacteria belonging to the genus Sulfobacillus play a significant role at the higher temperatures, at 75–80°C (see Rawlings’s page 12 and 13, Conclusion).
Rawlings is analogous to the both claimed invention and Cerda, as Rawlings is directed to recover copper (a target metal) from a material (copper ore) comprising a target metal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Rawlings’s teaching of selection of different sulfur-oxidizing bacteria based on the process temperature, specially use of Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans for high temperature leaching of difficult-to-degrade minerals with the metal recovery process of Cerda, as Rawlings teaches the solubilization of metals due to the action of ferric iron and protons depending on the mineral being treated and the rate of reaction is affected by temperature.
Claims 36-37, 39-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedro Antonio Morales Cerda, et.al. [US020080127779A1] (Provided in the IDS) (Cerda hereafter) as applied to claim 26 and further in view of Denis W. Shiers et.al. [“Organic Carbon Utilization by Iron(II)-Oxidizing Bacteria Sulfobacillus Thermosulfidooxidans and Alicyclobacillus Strain FP1 that Inhabit Copper Sulfide Leaching Heaps”, Adv. Mat. Res 1662-8985, Vol. 1130, pp 218-221] (Shiers hereafter).
Regarding claim 36 and 37, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 36 and 37, but Cerda is silent about the measuring a concentration of a toxin and a toxin comprises organic carbon.
However, Shiers teaches of a toxin and a toxin comprises organic carbon (the microorganisms can catalyze the dissolution of minerals through regeneration of ferric ions and oxidation of reduced inorganic sulfur compounds in bioleaching and there are different physicochemical parameters and their variations have an effect on both the growth and oxidation activity of individual microorganisms. Microorganisms also required to degrade organic carbon to utilize the buildup organic compounds in a heap leaching (see Shiers’s Introduction). Shiers teaches the measuring of the growth behavior of microorganisms (S. thermosulfidooxidans) with variable solution pH (see Shiers’s Results and discussion). Shiers then teaches the utilization of organic carbon (sugars, such as D-glucose), provides a mechanism to restore an acidic (micro)environment where soluble ferrous ion is more prevalent and can be utilized by iron-oxidizing microorganisms (see Shiers’s Conclusion).
Shiers is analogous to the both claimed invention and Cerda, as Shiers is directed to a recover a target metal from an ore and/or material comprising a target metal using microorganism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine Shiers’s teaching of a toxin comprises organic carbon with the teachings of Wang’s process to modify the metal recovery process of Cerda for to utilization of organic carbon for restoring an acidic (micro) environment for having more prevalent soluble ferrous ion that can be utilized by iron-oxidizing micro-organisms during leaching.
Regarding claim 39 and 40, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 39 and 40, wherein Cerda teaches the second microorganism comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria (simultaneous presence of iron and sulfur-oxidizing microorganisms (DSM 17318) and iron-oxidizing microorganisms (DSM 16786) in the tank and promotes the bioleaching of copper recovery from sulfide ore, see Cerda’s [0064], [0074]).
But Cerda is silent about the second microorganism comprises a microorganism capable of degrading organic carbon and the microorganism capable of degrading organic carbon comprises Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans.
However, Shiers teaches a microorganism comprises sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans is capable of degrading organic carbon, and sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans is both iron-oxidizing bacteria and sulfur oxidizing bacteria, that oxidizes both iron and reduced inorganic sulfur compounds (RISC) (see Shiers’s Title, Abstract). Shiers teaches an analysis of total reduced carbon content (degrading the carbon) (see Shiers’s Results and Discussions) and the utilization of organic carbon (sugars, such as D-glucose), provides a mechanism to restore an acidic (micro)environment where soluble ferrous ion is more prevalent and can be utilized by iron-oxidizing micro-organisms (see Shiers’s Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have Shiers’s teaching of Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans, as an iron-oxidizing bacteria to modify Cerda’s second microorganism comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria so that the microorganism is capable of degrading organic carbon, in presence of build-up organic carbon, for restoring an acidic microenvironment by utilizing the organic carbon and promoting leaching efficiency.
Regarding claim 42, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 42, Cerda already discloses the bacteria oxidize the resulting ferrous sulfate to ferric sulfate according to the reaction (6), (see Cerda’s [0017]), and therefore, Cerda’s microorganism in the iron-oxidizing activity of reactions (6) could be considered as second microorganism. Cerda also teaches maintaining a pH value in the leaching solution (see Cerda’s [0056], [0079]).
But Cerda is silent about that the second microorganism is capable of adjusting a pH of a solution.
However, Shiers teaches a microorganism comprises sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans is capable of degrading organic carbon, and sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans is both iron-oxidizing bacteria and sulfur oxidizing bacteria, that oxidizes both iron and reduced inorganic sulfur compounds (RISC) (see Shiers’s Title, Abstract). Shiers teaches acid consumption or generation and solution pH in leaching depends on the extents of acid consuming and acid-generating reactions and creating a large array of pH-micro-environments within which the microorganisms live. Shiers teaches the solution pH is controlled by maintaining the conversion of iron(III) compounds, and microbial iron(II)-oxidizing activity for restoring acidic conditions (see Shiers’s Results and Discussions). Shiers teaches utilization of organic carbon (sugars, such as D-glucose), provides a mechanism to restore an acidic (micro)environment where soluble ferrous ion is more prevalent and can be utilized by iron-oxidizing micro-organisms (see Shiers’s Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have Shiers’s teaching of Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans, as an iron-oxidizing bacteria to modify Cerda’s second microorganism comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria to control the pH by maintaining the conversion of iron(III) compounds, and microbial iron(II)-oxidizing activity for restoring acidic conditions for promoting leaching efficiency.
Claim 36, 38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedro Antonio Morales Cerda, et.al. [US020080127779A1] (Provided in the IDS) (Cerda hereafter) as applied to claim 26 and further in view of Qian Li, et.al. [“Community dynamics and function variation of a defined mixed bioleaching acidophilic bacterial consortium in the presence of fluoride”, Ann Microbiol (2015) 65:121–128] (Li hereafter).
Regarding claim 36 and 38, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 36 and 38, but Cerda is silent about measuring a concentration of a toxin and a toxin comprises fluoride.
However, Li teaches in bioleaching systems, fluoride is a toxin (can release some deleterious fluorinions, and largely inhibit the growth and activity of the microbes, or even kill the microbes, see Li’s Introduction), i.e. fluoride is a toxin). Li also teaches fluoride is a challenge to the bioleaching microorganisms, and the optimization of highly-tolerant microbial consortia is required for maintaining bioleaching performance in fluoride conditions (see Li’s Page, 121, Introduction, 1st paragraph). Li teaches fluoride stress treatment and physiological characteristics analysis, wherein the fluoride concentration of the culture is adjusted and the cell concentration, pH variation, and iron oxidation rate were regularly measured to determine the fluoride resistant bacteria (see Li’s Abstract Page 121, Materials and Methods). Li further teaches fluoride stress has different effects on the metabolic pathways of different strains. The dominant species played a very pivotal role in resisting the fluoride stress and maintaining activities in the system, while the inferior species has a valuable function in assisting the survival of the dominant species (see Li’s page 125, 127, Results and Discussion Fig. 5).
Li is directed to a process of bioleaching to recover a metal from a material comprising a target metal using microorganism and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Cerda.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Li’s teaching of measuring a parameter comprising DNA to measure the toxin fluoride to modify Cerda’s process for optimization of highly-tolerant microbial consortia for maintaining bioleaching performance efficiently so that the leaching process is performed efficiently in presence of fluoride.
Regarding claim 41, all the above discussions regarding claim 26 are applicable to claim 41, wherein Cerda teaches the second microorganism comprises iron-oxidizing bacteria (in a mechanically stirred tank, simultaneous presence of iron and sulfur-oxidizing microorganisms (DSM 17318) and iron-oxidizing microorganisms (DSM 16786) in the tank and promotes the bioleaching of copper recovery from sulfide ore, see Cerda’s [0064], [0074]).
But Cerda is silent about the second microorganism comprises a fluoride resistant microorganism.
Li teaches in bioleaching systems, fluoride is a toxin (can release some deleterious fluorinions, and largely inhibit the growth and activity of the microbes, or even kill the microbes, see Li’s Introduction), i.e. fluoride is a toxin) and Li also teaches fluoride is challenging to the microorganisms, and the optimization of highly-tolerant microbial consortia is required for maintaining bioleaching performance in fluoride conditions (see Li’s Page, 121, Introduction, 1st paragraph).
Li teaches a defined mixed bioleaching consortium, constructed by Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, Leptospirillum ferriphilum, Sulfobacillus thermosulfidooxidans to investigate the fluoride stress response. The results showed that iron oxidation rate are obviously inhibited, while the sulfur oxidation is barely restrained and from an assayed community dynamics and gene expression, the most obviously inhibited strains is S. thermosulfidooxidans, while L. ferriphilum still maintained stable growth and is not affected by fluoride stress (see Li’s Abstract, Table 1 and Fig. 4.), According to this teaching, Leptospirillum ferriphilum is a fluoride resistant microorganism. Li further teaches as shown in Fig. 5, significant differential expression genes are involved in detoxification and resistance, cell membrane and electron transport, iron and sulfur metabolism, carbon fixation, and so on. (see Li’s Page, 125 and Fig. 5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Li’s teachings of Leptospirillum ferriphilum is a fluoride resistant microorganism to modify Cerda’s iron oxidizing microorganism with a fluoride resistant microorganism (iron oxidizing, Leptospirillum ferriphilum) to modify for optimization of highly-tolerant microorganism for maintaining bioleaching performance in fluoride conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang Jun et.al. [CN112391527A] (machine translation) (Wang hereafter) teaches a method of extracting a target metal from a material comprising the target metal to improve the leaching efficiency of copper and to enhance the leaching of copper by utilizing the synergistic effect between exogenous iron and leaching bacteria, that significantly promote and effectively utilize of a secondary copper sulfide mineral, in chalcopyrite leaching (see Wang’s [0008]). Wang’s disclosed method comprises, ferric sulfate and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria are added to leach copper (see Wang’s [0011] claim 1), and the pH of the liquid phase leaching system is adjusted using sulfuric acid and iron sulfate is fully dissolved (see Wang’s [0026], claim 6) and in step (1), the elemental sulfur is produced (oxidation of sulfur) during the conversion of ferric ions to ferrous ions serves as an energy source for the sulfur-oxidizing bacteria (see Wang’s [0032]). Wang teaches after all the ferric ions in step (1) are converted into ferrous ions, iron-oxidizing bacteria are added, (see Wang’s [0014]). After adding the iron-oxidizing bacteria to the leaching system of Wang’s step (1) for leaching, then Wang’s step (2) is completed when the concentration of copper ions in the leaching liquid fluctuates within the range of less than 5%. i.e. the second microorganism is capable of adjusting the rate of iron oxidation (see Wang’s [0012], [0015], and claim 2). Wang teaches the simultaneous addition of sulfur-oxidizing bacteria in Wang’s step (1) and ferric ions can significantly promote the dissolution of copper sulfide. Ferrous ions can serve as an energy source for the growth of iron-oxidizing bacteria, allowing them to grow better and thus exert a more significant leaching effect (see Wang’s [0032]). Wang teaches Fe3 ion effectively transforming copper minerals to smaller particle size, thereby increasing the reaction surface area and promoting the leaching process and the abundant Fe2 ion in this system effectively regenerate (re-oxidize) Fe3 through the surface of copper with excellent conductivity, thereby maintaining the oxidation leaching rate (see Wang’s [0033]). Wang further teaches addition of iron-oxidizing bacteria in a later stage of the leaching process eliminates formation of the passivation layer on the mineral surface, providing a way to achieve efficient utilization of copper resources in copper mineral (see Wang’s [0067]).
Kim Dong Jin et.al. [KR101519420B1] (Machine translation), (Kim hereafter) teaches a method for removing pyrite and sulfur from iron and sulfur-containing material (coal), crushing the material and culturing and growing microorganisms that oxidize iron and sulfur in a growth medium, then the crushed iron and sulfur-containing material is introduced into a bioreactor, and inoculating the grown microorganisms (see Kim’s claim 1) that oxidizes the iron and sulfur, like Sulfobacillus sulfosulfidooxydan thermosulfidooxidan), Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans etc. (see Kim’s claim 3). Kim’s process is costs and energy efficiency, and is carried out in various bioreactor systems, air lift reactors, and stirred tank reactors etc. (see Kim’s [0002]). Kim teaches Fe2+ ions are formed due to the presence of Fe3+ ions in early pyrite (see Kim’s 0067]), and then Fe2+ ions are oxidized to Fe3+ ion by iron-oxidizing microorganisms, (see Kim’s [0070]), i.e. in Kim’s process an iron oxidizing microorganisms dominates in later stage to oxidize Fe2+ ions are oxidized to Fe3+ ion. Kim then teaches change in redox potential and the change in Fe2+ ion concentration over time in the pyrite and sulfur removal reaction (where A1, A2, and in (Figure 4 is a graph). The redox potential at the beginning of the reaction is 650 mV, but as the oxidation reaction proceeded, a decrease in redox potential was observed. [0085] This is because the Fe3+ ions present during microbial inoculation are consumed in the oxidation of FeS2. Fe2+ ions are released into the solution, and as a result, the Fe3+/Fe2+ ratio decreases, causing the redox potential to drop. To prevent iron precipitation, the concentration of Fe2+ ions decreased and the redox potential is maintained at a constant level (see Kim’s [0089]).
Michael L.M. Rodrigues, et.al. [“Bioleaching of fluoride-bearing secondary copper sulphides: Column experiments with Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans”, Chemical Engineering Journal 284 (2016) 1279–1286] (Rodrigues hereafter) teaches bioleaching is widely employed commercially for low-grade secondary copper sulfide ores and the bioleaching potential of a low-grade (marginal) ore with a significant content of fluoride. Rodrigues teaches a strain of At. ferrooxidans, resulted in copper extractions above 89% wherein the dissolution of fluorite from the gangue minerals affected bioleaching shortly after column inoculation. However, the released of ferric iron production by the bacteria reduced fluoride toxicity. A fluoride-toxicity parameter (g) is proposed to represent the mass ratio between total fluoride, and total ferric iron concentrations in the system. Thus, the presence of fluoride-bearing minerals in the ore may be an important issue, but the content of both cations should be also considered [Abstract].
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