Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 12, 17 – 20, 22 – 24, 26 – 27, 29 – 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited with IDS of 06/14/24) as evidenced by 911 Metallurgist (NPL, “Thiourea”)
Regarding claims 1 and 3, O’Connor teaches a method of leaching comprising bacteria [Title]. O’Connor teaches that the leaching process is performed on low-grade sulfide ore [Claim 7], meeting the claimed limitation of extracting at least one metal from a metal sulfide. O’Connor teaches that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.” [Col 2, line 56 – 60]. That is, O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper and nickel can be recovered [Col 2, line 57 – 58], meeting the claimed limitation of claims 1 and 3 of the metal being copper or nickel.
“when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named. See Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)” (MPEP 2131.02 II)
O’Connor teaches a particular leaching solution that forms an acidic sulfuric/sulfate solution and that contains thiourea and ferrous sulfate [Example VIII]. As evidenced by 911 Metallurgist, Thiourea oxidizes in acid into formamidine disulfide (FDS) [Page 1]. As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the process of O’Connor would involve the sulfide ore/material being contacted with FDS. While O’Connor does not expressly disclose the formation/interaction of formamidine disulfide in the leaching mixture. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. V. IRECOInc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999)" (MPEP 2112)
Regarding claims 4 – 5, O’Connor teaches a method of leaching comprising bacteria [Title]. O’Connor teaches that the leaching process is performed on low-grade sulfide ore [Claim 7], meeting the claimed limitation of extracting at least one metal from a metal sulfide of claim 4 and the limitation of claim 5 of forming a pregnant solution comprising a metal ion.
O’Connor teaches a particular leaching solution that forms an acidic sulfuric/sulfate solution and that contains thiourea and ferrous sulfate [Example VIII]. As evidenced by 911 Metallurgist, Thiourea oxidizes in acid into formamidine disulfide (FDS) [Page 1]. As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the process of O’Connor would involve the sulfide ore/material being contacted with FDS. While O’Connor does not expressly disclose the formation/interaction of formamidine disulfide in the leaching mixture. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. V. IRECOInc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999)" (MPEP 2112)
Regarding claims 6 – 12 and 17 – 20, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor teaches an example which has 0.5 g of thiourea added to 1000 mL of water [Example VIII]. The molar mass of thiourea is 76.12 g/mol and as such, the millimole content is ~6.57 ((0.5 g/76.12 g/mol)*1000). As such, the molarity is ~6.57 mM [Example VIII].
As evidenced by 911 Metallurgist, the conversion of two molecules of thiourea yields 1 molecule of FDS. As such, the mM concentration of FDS is interpreted to be ~2.19 mM, which meets the claimed ranges of 6 – 12 and 17 – 20.
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962))
Regarding claims 22 – 24, 26 – 27, and 29, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor teaches that the solution contains a ferrous sulfate [Claim 1], meeting the claimed limitation of claims 22, 27, and 29. The solution also contains bacteria which oxidizes ferrous iron [Col 2, line 60 – 67], meeting the claimed limitation of 23 and 26. O’Connor states that the metallic constituents of the ore are oxidized by bacterium activity [col 2, line 45 – 50]. Wherein ferrous iron has an oxidation state of (+2) and ferric iron has a higher oxidation state of (+3). As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the bacteria present in the solution would oxidize the ferrous iron and produce ferric iron, at least in part, thereby meeting the claimed limitation of claim 24 and 26.
Regarding claims 30 and 32, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper and nickel can be recovered [Col 2, line 57 – 58] from sulfide ores, meeting the claimed limitation. “when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named. See Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)” (MPEP 2131.02 II)
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited with IDS of 06/14/24) as evidenced by Zimmerley (US 2,829,964)
Regarding claims 25 and 28, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor teaches that the ferrous sulfate and sulfuric acid are present in the solution [abstract; Col 2, line 44] as well as bacteria of “Thiobacillus ferrooxidans” [Col 2, line 60 – 64] and that ferrous iron is oxidized in the solution [Col 2, line 65 – 67]. As evidenced by Zimmerley in Fig 1, the inclusion of “Thiobacillus ferrooxidans” in a solution including iron and sulfate/sulfuric acid produces ferric sulfate. Additionally, the ferric sulfate would subsequently dissociate in solution to form ferric ions.
Therefore, based on the disclosure of O’Connor and as evidenced by Zimmerley, there is reasonable expectation that both ferric ions and ferric sulfate would be present in the leaching solution due to the oxidizing behavior of the bacteria. Their presence would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the acidic solution comprising a ferric solution and ferric sulfate being a source of ferric ions.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited with IDS of 06/14/24) as evidenced by Lapidus (US2013/0140186)
Regarding claim 35, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor does not expressly describe the effect of formamidine disulfide’s presence as a result of thiourea oxidation, however, Lapidus describes in [0016] that FDS selectively oxidizes metals (e.g., gold and silver) but that it is the thiourea that complexes with the metals.
Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the FDS present as a result of thiourea oxidation would not complex/precipitate with the base metal ion.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited with IDS of 06/14/24) as evidenced by 911 Metallurgist (NPL, “Thiourea”)
Regarding claims 1 and 3, O’Connor teaches a method of leaching comprising bacteria [Title]. O’Connor teaches that the leaching process is performed on low-grade sulfide ore [Claim 7], meeting the claimed limitation of extracting at least one metal from a metal sulfide.
O’Connor teaches that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.” [Col 2, line 56 – 60]. That is, O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper and nickel can be recovered [Col 2, line 57 – 58] and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected copper and/or nickel as the metal to be extracted from a/its low sulfide ore with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve predictable results.
Additionally, O’Connor teaches a particular leaching solution that forms an acidic sulfuric/sulfate solution and that contains thiourea and ferrous sulfate [Example VIII]. As evidenced by 911 Metallurgist, Thiourea oxidizes in acid into formamidine disulfide (FDS) [Page 1]. As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the process of O’Connor would involve the sulfide ore/material being contacted with FDS. While O’Connor does not expressly disclose the formation/interaction of formamidine disulfide in the leaching mixture. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. V. IRECOInc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999)" (MPEP 2112)
Regarding claim 2, O’Connor teaches a method of leaching comprising bacteria [Title]. O’Connor teaches that the leaching process is performed on low-grade sulfide ore [Claim 7], meeting the claimed limitation of extracting at least one metal from a metal sulfide.
O’Connor teaches that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.” [Col 2, line 56 – 60]. However, while cadmium is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have extracted cadmium as one of the metals from a cadmium sulfide containing ore using the process of O’Connor with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results because cadmium is a recognized metal element and O’Connor states that the variety of metals can be captured/recovered using the process. Moreover, zinc (which is a metal element in the same Periodic Table Group as cadmium) is expressly recognized as being capable of recovery further indicating that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, O’Connor teaches a particular leaching solution that forms an acidic sulfuric/sulfate solution and that contains thiourea and ferrous sulfate [Example VIII]. As evidenced by 911 Metallurgist, Thiourea oxidizes in acid into formamidine disulfide (FDS) [Page 1]. As such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the process of O’Connor would involve the sulfide ore/material being contacted with FDS. While O’Connor does not expressly disclose the formation/interaction of formamidine disulfide in the leaching mixture "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. V. IRECOInc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999)" (MPEP 2112)
Claims 6 – 21 and 30 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited with IDS of 06/14/24), as applied to claim 4 above, as evidenced by 911 Metallurgist (NPL, “Thiourea”)
Regarding claims 6 – 21, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor teaches that thiourea can be provided in an amount of 0.001 – 10 g/liter of water [Claims 3 – 4]. The molar mass of thiourea is 76.12 g/mol. As such, the molarity content ranges from 0.013 ((0.001/76.12) *1000) to 131.37 mM ((10/76.12) *1000)).
As evidenced by 911 Metallurgist, the conversion of two molecules of thiourea yields 1 molecule of FDS. As such, the mM concentration of FDS is interpreted to be ~0.0065 – 65.685 mM, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 6 – 21.
“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)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Regarding claims 30 – 32, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper and nickel can be recovered [Col 2, line 57 – 58], meeting the claimed limitation the base metal sulfide containing copper sulfide or containing nickel sulfide.
Additionally, O’Connor expressly states that “[t]he process of the present invention may be used in the leaching for recovery of a wide variety of metals, including copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum as well as a wide variety of other 80 metals.” [Col 2, line 55 – 59] and “It will be appreciated that the process of the invention is applicable to leaching of other metals, including zinc, nickel, cobalt, uranium, vanadium, molybdenum, titanium, and chromium, as well as a wide variety of other metals, from their sulfide ores, as illustrated by the following examples” [Col 4, line 70 – 76].
While cadmium is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have extracted cadmium as one of the metals from a cadmium sulfide containing ore using the process of O’Connor with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results because cadmium is a recognized metal element and O’Connor states that the variety of metals can be captured/recovered using the process. Moreover, zinc (which is a metal element in the same Periodic Table Group as cadmium) is expressly recognized as being capable of recovery further indicating that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited with IDS of 06/14/24), as applied to claim 4, in further view of Schlesinger (“Extractive Metallurgy of Copper”, 2011)
Regarding claim 33, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor does not expressly teach that following leaching, solvent extraction and/or electrowinning is used to extract the metal.
Schlesinger teaches information related to the extraction of copper, in particular via hydrometallurgical routes [Title]. Schlesinger teaches that modern flowsheets for copper extraction have three essential steps which are leaching followed by solvent extraction and then electrowinning [Page 1], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 33.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of O’Connor and used solvent extraction and electrowinning to recover the copper in the pregnant leach solution, as disclosed by Schlesinger. Schlesinger is directed to recovering copper from a leach solution and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings pertinent to the method of O’Connor (which teaches recovering metals including copper via leaching). Moreover, given that Schlesinger teaches that solvent extraction and electrowinning are standard procedures in the recovery of copper and that O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper is a metal that can be recovered, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success and would have been motivated to combine/apply the method steps.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited with IDS of 06/14/24), as applied to claim 4, in further view of Hackl (US 4,987,081)
Regarding claim 34, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. O’Connor does not expressly disclose an ORP of the solution.
Hackl teaches a process for recovering metal from multi-metallic sulfide ores using sulfuric acid solution and a combination of oxidizing bacterium [Abstract]. Hackl discloses that the use of the combination of bacterium allows for operation at a lower pH which helps oxidizes the sulfide ore [Abstract]. Hackl teaches that the solution potential Eh is operated in a range of 600 – 750 mV (~403 – 553 mV Ag/AgCl), which overlaps with the claimed range [Col 4, line 44 – 47]. Hackl discloses that this modification to typical use of only T. ferrooxidans allows for more rapid and complete conversion of mineral sulfide into metal sulfate and sulfuric acid [Col 4, line 55 – 62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of O’Connor and modified it such that multiple bacteria strains were used (as described in Hackl) at an Eh potential of 600 – 750 mV and lower pH range, as disclosed by Hackl. O’Connor and Hackl are both directed to processes of recovering metal from sulfide ores using a sulfuric acid solution and bacteria. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Hackl to be pertinent to the disclosure of O’Connor and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Hackl to O’Connor. Moreover, Hackl teaches that the use of these parameters with multiple types of bacteria allows for more rapid and complete conversion of sulfides into oxides. [Col 4, line 45 – 60].
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, “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)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 11, 13, 22, 24, 30 – 31, and 37 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,781,502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contacting a material with FDS to recover a base metal from a metal sulfide wherein the solution includes iron sulfate, the molarity of FDS is claimed in an overlapping range, and the metal can be copper, nickel, and/or cadmium. The metal can be further recovered by solvent extraction/electrowinning and the operating potential is above 500 mV Ag/AgCl.
Claims 1 – 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 39 of U.S. Patent No. 12,049,680. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contacting a material with FDS to recover a base metal from a metal sulfide wherein the solution includes iron sulfate, the molarity of FDS is claimed in an overlapping range, and the metal can be copper, nickel, and/or cadmium. The metal can be further recovered by solvent extraction/electrowinning, the operating potential is above 500 mV Ag/AgCl, and FDS does not complex/precipitate.
Claims 4 – 21 and 35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 – 27 of copending Application No. US 18/562,228 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims contacting a material with FDS to recover a base metal from a metal sulfide wherein the solution includes iron sulfate, the molarity of FDS is claimed in an overlapping range, and the metal can be copper, nickel, and/or cadmium. The metal can be further recovered by solvent extraction/electrowinning, the operating potential is above 500 mV Ag/AgCl, and FDS does not complex/precipitate.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. “A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03.” (MPEP 804 I B 1)
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,089,412 – Leaching multi-metallic sulfide ore using bacteria combination
US 4,816,235 – Recovering silver/manganese using acidified thiourea
US 4,740,243 – recovering metal from sulfide ore using thiourea, acidic solution, ferric ions, and T. ferroxidans
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights