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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/17/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2021-204786 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two (2) information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 06/10/2024 and 10/01/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is only a single figure and it is labelled “FIG. 1”. Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(u)(1).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
there is only a single figure and it is referred to as “Fig. 1” in the instant specification ([0014]), and
the abstract is 187 words, which exceeds the limit of 150 words.
Regarding informality a), where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(u)(1). Instead, the single view should be referred to as “the figure.”
Regarding informality b), Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length (emphasis added). The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites the limitation “pts.wt.” in the last two lines of claim 1. For clarity, the full term should be introduced before relying on abbreviations such as “pts. wt.”. Abbreviations are typically included in parentheses after introducing the full term.
The term is interpreted as “parts by weight”. If this interpretation is incorrect, Applicant should specify the correct interpretation of this term in response to this Office action, and indicate where such interpretation finds support in the specification as originally filed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020/104095 A of Hirashima (as cited in IDS mailed 06/10/2024 and with reference to its English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-4, Hirashima teaches an ore dressing method that can obtain a concentrate with a low arsenic grade from raw materials with a high arsenic grade (Abstract, reads on claimed mineral processing method since an ore is a mineral).
Regarding the repulping step of claim 1, Hirashima teaches a mineral slurry is manufactured by adding water to a raw material consisting of mineral particles ([0023], reads on claimed repulping step of adding water to a raw material to obtain a mineral slurry).
Hirashima teaches using raw materials comprising an arsenic-free sulfide mineral, which is a sulfide mineral that does not contain arsenic, and an arsenic-containing sulfide mineral, which is a copper sulfide mineral that contains arsenic ([0012], arsenic-free sulfide mineral reads on claimed non-arsenic-containing sulfide mineral as a sulfide mineral not containing arsenic; arsenic-containing sulfide mineral reads on claimed arsenic-containing sulfide mineral as a copper sulfide mineral containing arsenic). Hirashima teaches the raw materials contain multiple types of minerals including chalcopyrite, bornite, chalcocite, pyrite, enargite, and tennantite ([0016]) and teaches examples of arsenic-free and arsenic-containing minerals ([0018]-[0020]).
Hirashima therefore reads on the limitation a mineral processing method comprising: a repulping step of adding water to a raw material containing a non-arsenic-containing sulfide mineral as a sulfide mineral not containing arsenic and an arsenic-containing sulfide mineral as a copper sulfide mineral containing arsenic to obtain a mineral slurry of claim 1.
Regarding the pH adjusting step of claim 1, Hirashima teaches pH adjustment is performed by adding a pH adjusting agent to the mineral slurry and the pH of the liquid phase of the mineral slurry is preferably 8 or higher, and more preferably 8 to 11 ([0042]-[0043], more preferable pH of 8-11 overlaps with the claimed pH of 10 or more). In the case where the 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Hirashima therefore reads on the limitation a pH adjusting step of adjusting a pH of a liquid phase of the mineral slurry to 10 or more of claim 1.
Regarding the conditioning step of claim 1-3, Hirashima teaches adding an alkali metal xanthogenic acid salt to the mineral slurry and teaches adding potassium amyl xanthate also known as PAX or potassium amylxanthogenic acid ([0025]-[0026], [0033]-[0034], alkali metal xanthogenic acid salt reads on claimed xanthate alkali metal salt; potassium amylxanthogenic acid reads on claimed amylxanthic acid potassium).
Hirashima teaches adding hydrogen peroxide to the mineral slurry as an oxidizing agent in the flotation process ([0044], oxidizing agent reads on claimed oxidant; hydrogen peroxide reads on claimed oxidant is hydrogen peroxide).
Hirashima further teaches adding both hydrogen peroxide and PAX to the mineral slurry ([0071], Examples 6-8).
Hirashima therefore reads on the limitation a conditioning step of adding an oxidant and xanthate alkali metal salt to the mineral slurry of claim 1, wherein the oxidant is hydrogen peroxide of claim 2, and wherein the xanthate alkali metal salt is amylxanthic acid potassium of claim 3.
Regarding the flotation step of claim 1, Hirashima teaches a flotation process ([0024]-[0034]). Hirashima teaches flotation is performed using the mineral slurry containing the raw materials ([0024], reads on claimed flotation step). Hirashima teaches the flotation method allows the raw material to be be separated into precipitated ore, which has a higher grade of arsenic-free sulfide minerals than the raw material, and floating ore, which has a higher grade of arsenic-containing sulfide minerals than the raw material ([0029], reads on claimed to separate the raw material into a floating ore having a grade of the non-arsenic-containing sulfide mineral higher than a grade of the non-arsenic-containing sulfide mineral of the raw material and a precipitating ore having a grade of the arsenic-containing sulfide mineral higher than a grade of the arsenic-containing sulfide mineral of the raw material).
Hirashima therefore reads on the limitation a flotation step of performing flotation using the mineral slurry to separate the raw material into a floating ore having a grade of the non-arsenic-containing sulfide mineral higher than a grade of the non-arsenic-containing sulfide mineral of the raw material and a precipitating ore having a grade of the arsenic-containing sulfide mineral higher than a grade of the arsenic-containing sulfide mineral of the raw material of claim 1.
Regarding the raw material of claim 1, Hirashima teaches the raw material contains 6.1 parts by weight or more of arsenic per 100 parts by weight of copper ([0039]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, Hirashima teaches a 6.1 parts by weight of arsenic per 100 parts by weight of copper, which is only 0.3 parts away from the claimed upper limit of 5.8 parts by weight arsenic. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the method of Hirashima to work with a raw material with 6.1 parts by weight arsenic since both 5.8 and 6.1 are mathematically close and therefore comparable, absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As the Patent Office does not possess the laboratory facilities to test any differences in the claimed invention versus that of the reference, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Hirashima therefore reads on the limitation wherein the raw material contains the arsenic by 4.4 to 5.8 pts.wt. per 100 pts.wt. of copper of claim 1.
Regarding the pretreatment step of claim 4, Hirashima teaches a pretreatment step performing shear agitation on the raw material before the flotation step (claim 13, pretreatment step reads on claimed pretreatment step). One of ordinary skill in the art understands shear agitation uses water thereby “washing” the raw material and further understands that the agitation “polishes” the raw material. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Hirashima therefore reads on the limitation comprising a pretreatment step of washing the raw material with water and/or performing ore polishing on the raw material of claim 4.
Hirashima therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 1-4.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0158768 A1 of Gerhard is considered relevant to claims 1-2. Gerhard teaches recovering a copper sulfide concentrate from a sulfide ore by forming a mineral pulp, conditioning the pulp, performing flotation, and adding hydrogen peroxide (claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights