DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/13/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 8-18 is/are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended. Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7, and 19-20 is/are cancelled.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) to claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 8-18 is/are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2,5 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining an amount of metal that is removed in the first level of the stockpile based on… the stability of the first level of the stockpile” in lines 18-20. The instant specification discloses “After the material is compacted in a stockpile, the compaction may determine the stability of the pile and how the irrigation may flow through that level of the stockpile” (instant specification: [00155]) and “…determining… a production of the metal in at least one of the first lift or the second lift…” (instant specification: [0051]), however the instant specification does not disclose determining an amount of metal that is removed in the first level of the stockpile to have any relation to a stability of the first level of the stockpile, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the stability of the first level of the stockpile maintains structural integrity of the first level during the leaching operations" in lines 21-22. The instant specification discloses “after the material is compacted in a stockpile, the compaction may determine the stability of the pile and how the irrigation may flow through that level of the stockpile.” (instant specification: [00155]), and “leaching operations over at least… the first lift” (instant specification: [0048]), however the instant specification does not disclose wherein the stability of the first level of the stockpile maintains a structural integrity of the first level during the leaching operations.
Claim 1 recites "adjusting the leaching operations in the second level such that more metal is removed in the second level, based on… determining that the second level has a faster path to pregnant leach solution" in lines 23-26. The instant specification discloses a faster path in the second level (instant specification: [00155]), and that the leaching operations may be adjusted (instant specification: [0019, 0046-0049]), however the instant specification does not disclose adjusting the leaching operations in the second level such that more metal is removed in the second level to have any relation to a faster path to pregnant leach solution, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-2, 5, and 8-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "determining an amount of metal that is removed in the first level of the stockpile based on… the stability of the first level of the stockpile" in lines 18-20. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how the stability of the first level of the stockpile is actually used to determine the amount of metal removed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " adjusting the leaching operations in the second level such that more metal is removed in the second level, based on… determining that the second level has a faster path to pregnant leach solution" in lines 23-26. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how the faster path to pregnant leach solution is used in or influences the adjustment of leaching operations in the second level.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-2, 5, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 20120297928 A1, cited in IDS filed 10/15/2024) in view of Slupsky (WO 2017096489 A1, original document supplied with Office Action dated 12/09/2024) and Van Staden et al. (“Towards fundamentally based heap leaching scale-up”, supplied with Office Action dated 12/09/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Lang teaches a method (Title, Abstract) with a leach heap with an upper lift (analogous to a second level) and a lower lift (analogous to a first level) [0075], comprising determining which parts of material in a leaching model are compacted [0084], where as the leach model is based on data from an actual leaching [0066], determining compaction in the model is analogous to determining an amount of compacted material in a first level of a stockpile. Lang teaches constructing an irrigation leach model (e.g., [0075]), thus the material in the heap that is irrigated is known (i.e., first and second amounts of material that is irrigated), thus Lang teaches obtaining data equivalent to determining a percentage of compacted material in a first level of a stockpile according to claim 1.
Lang does not teach determining a stability of the first level of the stockpile.
Slupsky teaches a method of monitoring a body of granular material (Abstract), such as in heap leaching [0002, 0004], thus Slupsky and Lang are analogous to the instant application as both are related to heap leaching processes. Slupsky teaches compaction of ore within the heap can be used to determine a stability of a level of the stockpile to avoid structural failure of the heap [0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a stability of the first level of the stockpile as taught by Slupsky using the compaction data of Lang, as doing so would avoid structural failure of the heap (i.e., wherein the stability of the first level of the stockpile maintains structural integrity of the first level during the leaching operations). As Lang teaches the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile is determined and used to adjust the leaching [0010, 0084-0085], determining a stability of the first level of the stockpile in the process of Lang in view of Slupsky is based on the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile.
Lang teaches determining how irrigation flows through the first level of the stockpile during the leaching operations [0067]; where as the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile is determined and used to adjust the leaching [0010, 0084-0085], thus Lang teaches determining the irrigation flows during leaching operations is based on the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile (i.e., are impacted by the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile).
Lang teaches first and second layers in the heap (where the second level is above the first) (e.g., [0010, 0075]). Lang does not teach wherein the second level includes a faster path to pregnant leach solution during the leaching operations.
Van Staden is directed to testing to analyze heap leaching of ores (Abstract), thus Lang and Van Staden are analogous to the instant application as they are directed to leaching a stockpile. Van Staden teaches compaction of the ore particle bed results in an increase in spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels (Abstract, Fig. 6). Because ore compaction occurs under the pressure of its own weight (pg. 14 right column paragraph 5), compaction and in turn increased spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels would be more prevalent at lower levels of the heap.
Therefore, the heap of Lang would have been expected by one or ordinary skill to have more frequent flow channels and less tortuosity of such in an upper level of the heap compared to a lower level of the heap where leach solution would flow more freely. Lang therefore suggests the second level includes a faster path to pregnant leach solution during the leaching operations and wherein irrigation during the leaching operations is more restricted due to the percentage of compacted material than the irrigation in that second level, (i.e., wherein the faster path to the pregnant leach solution is based on the irrigation flows being reduced in the first level due to the percentage of the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile).
Lang teaches determining in-situ element concentrations (where a difference in concentration in level in the stockpile over a duration of time comprises an amount of metal removed in the first level) [0074], where as the amount of flow of irrigation solution intrinsically correlates with the amount of metal the irrigation solution removes from the heap, and stability of the heap (e.g., the heap not experiencing structural failure) is necessary to remove metal, Lang determines an amount of metal removed in the first level based on the irrigation flows being reduced and the stability of the first level of the stockpile.
Lang teaches adjusting irrigation rates [0030] of the leaching operations based on the percentage of compacted material [0084-0085], and adjusting the irrigation rates to optimize an output of metal production (i.e., remove more metal) [0084-0085], thus Lang teaches leaching such that more metal is removed in the heap by the additional leaching solution, including in the second level. Slupsky teaches compaction of the material occurs within heaps as pressure from the material generates compressive and sheer forces [0010], thus material in the first level would be more compacted than in the second level, and Van Staden teaches the compaction of the material in the first level would cause restrict flow in the first level, meaning the second level of the stockpile has a faster path to pregnant leach solution. Therefore, the adjustments based on compaction in the heap of Lang are intrinsically based on the lower percentage of the compacted material in the second level of the stockpile compared to the first level and a faster path to pregnant solution in the second level. Lang in view of Van Staden teaches a faster path in the second level of the stockpile as noted above, and that more tortuous flow paths reduce leaching kinetics (i.e., a slower path results in less metal being removed), thus the less tortuous faster path in the second level would result in more metal being removed in the second level.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, and 18 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 05/07/2026. Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, and 18 has/have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Claims 9-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of Slupsky and Van Staden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruan et al. (CN 1475585 A, original document and machine translation supplied with Office Action dated 12/09/2024).
Claim(s) 9-14 and 16-17 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 05/07/2026. Claim(s) 9-14 and 16-17 has/have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of Slupsky, Van Staden, and Ruan as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Young et al. (“Technical Report Summary of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”, supplied with Office Action dated 12/09/2024).
Claim(s) 15 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 05/07/2026. Claim(s) 15 has/have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 now clarifies the relationship between each limitation and its specification support (see pg. 6-8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding stability, while claim 1 has been amended to describe that structural integrity of the first level is maintained, the inclusion of such a limitation does not support that determining of an amount of metal that is removed in the first level is in any way related to the stability of the first level of the stockpile. Further, there is no support for maintaining structural integrity of the first level, as there is no discussion of structural integrity in any capacity in the instant specification. The limitation remains indefinite as it remains unclear how the amount of metal that is removed is actually based on the stability or further on structural integrity of the first level being maintained.
Regarding the faster path, while claim 1 has been amended to further describe that the faster path is based on the irrigation flows being reduced in the first level, the inclusion of such a limitation does not support that the leaching operations are adjusted in any way based on the faster path. The limitation remains indefinite as it remains unclear how the leaching operations are actually adjusted in response to the faster path.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Van Staden does not teach the claimed faster path determination (see pg. 9 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted by Applicant, the instant claims require “determining that the material in a second level of the stockpile has a faster path to pregnant leach solution during the leaching operations… and wherein the faster path to the pregnant leach solution is based on the irrigation flows being reduced in the first level due to the percentage of the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile”. Lang is taken in view of Van Staden, where Lang teaches the stockpile to have a second level above the first level of the stockpile (Lang: [0010, 0075]), while Van Staden as noted by Applicant teaches compaction of the ore particle bed results in an increase in spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels (Abstract, Fig. 6), where ore compaction occurs under the pressure of its own weight (pg. 14 right column paragraph 5). Therefore, as compaction and in turn increased spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels would be more prevalent at lower levels of the heap, Van Staden suggests that the second level which is above the first layer would be determined to have a faster flow path as faster flow paths in upper levels is intrinsic to ore heaps. As Lang teaches determining how irrigation flows through the stockpile during leaching operations (Lang: [0067]), the intrinsic faster path present in the material in the second level would be determined by Lang.
While as noted by Applicant, Van Staden does not teach measuring a percentage of compacted material, determining reduced irrigation flows, or making a determination about a second level’s flow characteristics, these features are all taught by Lang alone or in view of additional references.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that a specific, data-driven determination methodology occurs during actual leaching operations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Lang does not teach the claimed adjustment based on the faster path determination (see pg. 9-10 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted by Applicant, Lang teaches adjusting the leaching operations based on bulk density (which would include compaction in the various levels of the stockpile, including in the second level). As noted above, Lang teaches determining how irrigation flows through the stockpile during leaching operations (Lang: [0067]), thus the intrinsic faster path present in the material in the second level would be determined by Lang. Further, Lang in view of Van Staden teaches a faster path in the second level of the stockpile as noted above, and that more tortuous flow paths reduce leaching kinetics (i.e., a slower path results in less metal being removed), thus the less tortuous faster path in the second level would result in more metal being removed in the second level. Therefore, as Lang both determines the second level to have a faster path, and the faster path results in more metal being removed in the second level, Lang in view of Van Staden teaches “adjusting the leaching operations in the second level such that more metal is recovered… based on determining that the second level has the faster path to pregnant leach solution” as best can be examined in view of the rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(a) and (b).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the stability limitation is not met by Lang or Slupsky (see pg. 10 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lang does not discuss heap stability. Lang is taken in view of Slupsky to suggest monitoring the stability of the heap (including the first level of the stockpile) to avoid structural failure (i.e., maintaining structural integrity of the first level during the leaching operations), where avoiding structural failure of the heap would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to be advantageous. As e.g., structural failure of the heap (i.e., a state of the stability of the heap), would as admitted by Applicant affect the leaching operations (and the amount of metal removed, and in turn the determined amount of metal), the amount of metal determined to be removed from the first level is intrinsically based on the stability of the of the first level of the stockpile. Further, as Applicant notes, Slupsky discloses monitoring a stockpile to avoid structural failure. Such monitoring would intrinsically comprise continually or periodically determining the stability of the stockpile (and the first level of the stockpile).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine Lang, Slupsky, and Van Staden as the references address different problems (see pg. 10-11 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to combine Lang and Slupsky, as Lang and Slupsky are both directed to heap leaching, where it would have been advantageous to incorporate monitoring of the stability of the heap to avoid structural collapse as suggested by Slupsky into the heap leach stockpile of Lang, and it would have been obvious to combine Lang and Van Staden as both Lang and Van Staden are directed to leaching of ore stockpiles, where as Van Staden teaches compaction to occur in ore stockpiles which increases spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels lower in the heap, Lang would have been expected by one or ordinary skill to have more frequent flow channels and less tortuosity of such in an upper level of the heap compared to a lower level of the heap where leach solution would flow more freely.
While as Applicant notes, parts of the rejection rely on inherency, the rejection relies on inherency in the manner set forth in MPEP 2141 noted by Applicant. For example, regarding faster flow paths in the second level, the rejections have set forth that the prior art discloses compaction at lower levels of a heap to result in tortuosity and less channels that would intrinsically result in slower flows of leaching solution through the level during a heap leach, which is the type of operation used by Lang, thus the Examiner has provided a basis in fact and technical reasoning to support the determination that the inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is objective evidence of nonobviousness (see pg. 11 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein a compaction variable is present and helps reduce certain errors) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ruan does not teach or suggest determining that the second level has a faster path to PLS based on the irrigation flows being reduced in the first level, determining an amount of metal removed in the first level while the stability maintains structural integrity during leaching operations, or adjusting leaching operations (see pg. 12 of remarks), the Examiner notes these features are taught by Lang alone or in view of additional art as noted above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claims 9-14 and 16-17 require specific acid gap features that are allegedly not taught or suggested by the cited references (see pg. 12 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., integrating acid gap data with compaction percentage data in a unified control methodology, or acid gap analysis with compaction-based level-specific flow determinations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Young does not teach a specific formula for determining soluble metal remaining as claimed, and therefore cannot teach claim 15, (see pg. 13 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, Lang in view of Young or others does not disclose the recited formula of “a percentage of leachable minerals in the compacted material * (1- a percentage of the acid gap)”, it has long been held that mathematical concepts comprise abstract ideas, where the discovery of a mathematical formula cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, as Lang in view of Young teaches all of the necessary steps and variables necessary to calculate the amount of soluble metal remaining, Lang in view of Young is capable of calculating the amount of soluble metal remaining in the manner claimed, where as the formula is not incorporated into a tangible claim element, Lang in view of Young teaches all of the features of claim 15, even if the formula claimed is not explicitly disclosed by Lang in view of Young.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights