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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains excess space between words/chemical groups. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase that the acidic solution is “replaced” by ferrous sulfate solution is indefinite. It is not clear what the phrase is intended to mean. It’s not clear if the phrase is introducing a separate step of the process or is requiring that a separate acidic solution which is not ferrous sulfate is converted to ferrous sulfate during contacting.
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 – 6, 8, 10, 13 – 16, 23 – 27, 32, 34 – 35, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited in 06/14/24)
Regarding claims 1 – 3, 10, 13, 16 and 23 – 27, 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]. 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], meeting the claimed limitation of contacting a material with a reagent, extracting a base metal ion, and forming a pregnant solution with the base metal ion (claim 3).
O’Connor teaches a particular leaching solution that forms an acidic sulfuric/sulfate solution, meeting claim 2, claim 10, and claim 13 and that also contains thiourea and ferrous sulfate [Example VIII], meeting the claimed limitation of a reagent having a thiocarbonyl group and claim 16.
O’Connor teaches that the example 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], which anticipates the range of claim 1 and the ranges of claims 23 – 27.
"[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 claim 5, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. O’Connor does not expressly state that the presence of thiourea results in an increased metal ion extraction rate relative to an acidic sulfate solution that does not contain the reagent. However, “[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. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999)” (MPEP 2112 I) and “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” MPEP (2112.01 II).
As such, given that thiourea is an exemplary thiocarbonyl functional group-containing reagent (and also claimed in claim 16) there is a reasonable expectation that O’Connor inherently possesses the claimed property.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 8 and 14, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. O’Connor teaches that bacteria is present and that the bacteria oxidizes ferrous iron [Col 2, line 60 – 67]. O’Connor also states that the metallic constituents of the ore are oxidized by bacterium activity [col 2, line 45 – 50], meeting the claimed limitation of the acidic solution comprising at least oxidizing agent (claim 4)
Wherein ferrous iron has an oxidation state of (+2) and ferric iron has a higher oxidation state of (+3), meeting the claimed limitation of the oxidizing agent comprising a source of ferric ions generated at least in part by bacteria (claim 6, claim 8, and claim 14)
Regarding claim 15, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. O’Connor does not expressly describe the limitations of claim 15.
However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP 2112.01 I).
In this case, O’Connor discloses contacting a base metal containing material with an acidic (specifically sulfuric) solution with thiourea (which is an exemplary thiocarbonyl functional group-containing reagent claimed in claim 16) in a Molarity that falls within the claimed range to perform leaching (i.e., extracting of the metal). Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that O’Connor inherently possesses the claimed property of claim 15.
Regarding claims 32 and 34, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor expressly recognizes that copper and nickel can be recovered [Col 2, line 57 – 58], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 35, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. The examples of O’Connor are disclosed as using air-lift percolator and do not describe that temperature or pressure are controlled [Col 3, line 14 – 15]. As such, the examples of O’Connor reasonably imply that STP (i.e., ~25°C 1 atm) is used in the leaching, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 39, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor does not expressly state that thiourea complexes with and precipitates the base metal ion.
However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP 2112.01 I).
In this case, O’Connor discloses contacting a base metal containing material with an acidic (specifically sulfuric) solution with thiourea (which is an exemplary thiocarbonyl functional group-containing reagent claimed in claim 16) in a Molarity that falls within the claimed range to perform leaching (i.e., extracting of the metal). Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that O’Connor inherently possesses the claimed property of claim 39.
Claims 7, 9, 11 – 12 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 applied to claim 2, as evidenced by Zimmerley (US 2,829,964)
Regarding claims 7, 9, 11 – 12, 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, meeting claims 9 and 11 – 12.
Additionally, the ferric sulfate would subsequently dissociate in solution to form ferric ions, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7.
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 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 28 – 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited in IDS of 06/14/24)
Regarding claims 28 – 31, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. 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), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 28 – 31.
“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 claim 33, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. 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.
Claims 17, 21 – 22, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited in IDS of 06/14/24) in view of Dixon (US2012/0067174, cited in IDS of 06/26/26)
Regarding claims 17, 21 – 22, and 39, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor teaches that the leaching solution can contain thiourea as part of the lixiviant, wherein thiourea contains a thiocarbonyl functional group, but does not teach or suggest using thioacetamide.
Dixon teaches a method of recovering metal (in particular nickel) [Title] from a source material [0010] which can be a sulfide ore [0067]. The ore can be subjected to leaching and treated with a sulfur-containing reductant which facilitates leaching of nickel by accelerating corrosion of the source material (i.e. sulfide ore) [0054]. Dixon expressly states that thiourea can be used [0056] and that as an alternative to this, thioacetamide can be selected [0056], meeting the claimed limitations of claims 17 and 21 – 22.
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 substituted thiourea with thioacetamide, as taught by Dixon to achieve predictable results. Both O’Connor and Dixon include teachings of recovering metal from sulfide ore and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered Dixon pertinent. Moreover, both O’Connor and Dixon teach that thiourea can be included in the leaching solution and Dixon acknowledges that thioacetamide can be used instead of thiourea. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting thiourea with thioacetamide.
Wherein O’Connor in view of Dixon does not expressly state that thioacetamide complexes with and precipitates the base metal ion however, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP 2112.01 I).
In this case, O’Connor in view of Dixon discloses contacting a base metal containing material with an acidic (specifically sulfuric) solution with thioacetamide (which is an exemplary thiocarbonyl functional group-containing reagent claimed in claim 17 and 22) in a Molarity that falls within the claimed range to perform leaching (i.e., extracting of the metal). Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that O’Connor in view of Dixon would naturally result in possessing the claimed property of claim 39.
Claims 20 – 22 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited in the IDS of 06/14/24) in view of Little (US 4,645,535, cited in IDS of 06/26/26)
Regarding claim 20 – 22 and 39, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor teaches that the leaching solution can contain thiourea as part of the lixiviant, wherein thiourea contains a thiocarbonyl functional group, but does not teach or suggest using thiosemicarbazide.
Little teaches a method of recovering metal (in particular precious metals) from ores [Title] which can be a sulfide ore [Col 3, line 15 – 19]. The ore can be subjected to leaching with a lixiviant solution including sulfuric acid [Col 3, line 29 – 32]. Little expressly states that thiourea can be used [Col 3, line 20 – 28] and that alternative to this, thiourea derivatives including thiosemicarbazide can be selected [Col 3, line 20 – 28], meeting the claimed limitations of claims 20 – 22.
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 substituted thiourea with thiosemicarbazide, as taught by Little to achieve predictable results. Both O’Connor and Little include teachings of recovering metal from sulfide ore and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered Little pertinent to the process of O’Connor. Moreover, both O’Connor and Little teach that thiourea can be included in the leaching solution and Little acknowledges that thiosemicarbazide can be used as an alternative to thiourea. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting thiourea with thiosemicarbazide.
Wherein O’Connor in view of Little does not expressly state that thiosemicarbazide complexes with and precipitates the base metal ion however, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP 2112.01 I).
In this case, O’Connor in view of Little discloses contacting a base metal containing material with an acidic (specifically sulfuric) solution with thiosemicarbazide (which is an exemplary thiocarbonyl functional group-containing reagent claimed in claim 20 and 22) in a Molarity that falls within the claimed range to perform leaching (i.e., extracting of the metal). Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that O’Connor in view of Little would naturally result in possessing the claimed property of claim 39.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited in IDS of 06/14/24), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Krebs (US 4,740,243)
Regarding claim 35, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. O’Connor does not expressly describe the temperature range used.
Krebs discloses a method for recovering metal from metal sulfide containing ores [Title]. The process is in the same field of endeavor of O’Connor of contacting the ore with an aqueous acidic solution and bacteria [Col 3, line 50 – Col 4, line 10]. Krebs teaches that when bacteria is included, the temperature should be controlled to prevent growth inhibition. Krebs teaches that a temperature range of ~5 – 75°C is preferable to maintain bacteria activity, which falls within the claimed range [Col 7, line 45 – 58].
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 controlled the temperature range to be 5 – 75°C, as disclosed by Krebs. Krebs is directed to recovering metal from metal sulfide ore via leaching using an acidic solution containing bacteria and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings pertinent to the method of O’Connor (which is directed to a similar process) and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to control the temperature to be in this range in order to ensure bacteria activity continued.
Claims 36 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (US 3,679,397, cited in IDS of 06/14/24), as applied to claim 3, Schlesinger (“Extractive Metallurgy of Copper”, 2011, cited in IDS of 06/26/26)
Regarding claims 36 – 37, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. 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 claims 36 – 37.
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 38 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 1, in further view of Hackl (US 4,987,081)
Regarding claim 38, O’Connor teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. 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 Rejections
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 – 15, 17, 21 – 34, and 36 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,865,460. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore (i.e. material) with metal using thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferric sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 15, 18, 21 – 34, and 36 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,870,903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore (i.e., material) with metal using sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (SDDC), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferric sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 15, 20 – 34, and 36 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,876,187. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore (i.e. material) with metal using thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferric sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 15, 19, 21 – 34, and 36 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,876,186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal from an ore (i.e. material) with metal using ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferric sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 15, 17 – 34, and 36 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 40 of U.S. Patent No. 10,954,583. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal ion from an ore (i.e., material) with metal using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), dimethyldithiocarbamate, and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferric sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 15, 17 – 34, and 36 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,604. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal ion from an ore (i.e., material) with metal using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), dimethyldithiocarbamate, and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 34 and 36 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 40 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,993. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal ion from an ore (i.e., material) with metal using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), dimethyldithiocarbamate, thiourea and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 67 of U.S. Patent No. 12,049,681. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal ion from an ore (i.e., material) with metal using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), dimethyldithiocarbamate, thiourea, and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 71 of U.S. Patent No. 11,859,263. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal ion from an ore (i.e., material) with metal using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (SDDC), thiourea and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The metals can be cadmium, nickel, or copper from various sulfidic ores and the molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
Claims 1 – 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,416,066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recovering base metal ion from an ore (i.e., material) with metal using a thiocarbonyl functional group reagent which can be ethylene trithiocarbonate (ETC), thiosemicarbazide (TSCA), sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (SDDC), thiourea and thioacetamide (TCA), which contains a thiocarbonyl functions group, with leaches metal into an acidic solution which can be ferrous sulfate. The molarity of the reagent can be controlled to overlapping amounts.
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
RU2418869 – Leaching of mineral raw material in sulfuric acid with ferric iron and thiourea present with the recovery of both silver and copper
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
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights