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 05/08/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 10 is/are amended. Claim(s) 2-3 is/are cancelled.
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 and 4-10 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 “where the second inlet pipe passes through a lid of the reaction tank” in lines 5-6 and “the first inlet pipe passes through the lid of the reaction tank” in lines 6-7, however the instant specification does not disclose a lid of the reaction tank, as neither the instant claims nor instant figures disclose a “lid”, nor do the figures clearly disclose the presence of a lid as a distinct component, 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 “wherein… the plurality of second inlet pipes are connected to the first inlet pipe… inside the reaction tank” in lines 17-19. The instant specification shows a single second inlet pipe connected to the first inlet pipe (instant specification: Fig. 1), and that a plurality of second inlet pipes may be connected to the first inlet pipe (instant specification: [0028]), however the instant specification does not disclose a plurality of second inlet pipes connected to the first inlet pipe inside the reaction tank., 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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 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 "a lid of the reaction tank" in lines 6 and 7. The limitation is indefinite as the instant specification does not disclose the presence or use of a lid, and .
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a lid of the reaction tank" in lines 6 and 7. A “lid” is not disclosed by the instant specification, nor does the term have an established meaning in the art, thus the term is interpreted according to its plain meaning, however “a lid of the reaction tank” is ambiguous as it is unclear if “a lid of the reaction tank” must be removable (and if so by what means or construction and under which conditions it can be removed), or merely refers to a top portion or section of the reactor, as Fig. 1 of the instant specification appears to show a top section of the reaction tank that is shown to be slightly wider than the rest of the reaction tank, with no discussion or implication that it may be removed, is of a specific design, or is associated with any particular purpose or construction.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "where the second inlet pipe… is connected to the first inlet pipe inside the reaction tank" in lines 5-6. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether the connection of the first and second inlet pipe is inside the reaction tank; or the second inlet pipe is connected to the first pipe, where the first pipe is inside the reaction tank.
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, 4, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clegg (WO 2020113264 A1, supplied with Office Action dated 04/09/2025) in view of Pan et al. (CN 114045391 A, machine translation and original document supplied with Office Action dated 04/09/2025) and Leslie (US 1158513 A, cited in Office Action dated 04/09/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Clegg teaches a precipitation system (pg. 5 lines 26-27) for hydrometallurgical processing of laterite nickel ore (pg. 1 lines 6-7, pg. 14 lines 8-10). Clegg teaches the system comprises a reaction tank 10 (pg. 15 lines 21-23, Fig. 8), a feeding assembly 12 and 12a (pg. 15 lines 22-23, pg. 20 lines 4-6, Fig. 8), and a discharging assembly 14b and 25 (pg. 16 lines 12-15, Fig. 8). Clegg teaches wherein the reaction tank has a holding chamber 10A within it (pg. 20 line 4, Fig. 8), the feeding assembly comprises a first inlet pipe 12a and a second inlet pipe 12, where the second inlet pipe is connected to the first inlet pipe and the first inlet pipe is connected to the holding chamber (pg. 15 lines 22-23, pg. 20 lines 4-6, Fig. 8). Clegg teaches the first inlet pipe 12a is inside the reaction tank (Fig. 8). Clegg teaches the discharging assembly comprises a material lifting pipe 14b, where one end of the material lifting pipe 14b is communicated with the bottom of the holding chamber 10a (pg. 16 lines 12-15, Fig. 8).
Clegg teaches wherein the first and second inlet pipes 12a and 12 respectively pass through an upper portion of the reaction tank 10 (Fig. 8), thus Clegg teaches the first and second inlet pipes pass through the lid of the reaction tank as best can be examined in view of the rejections of claim 1 over 35 USC 112(a) and (b) above.
Clegg teaches an excess gas duct 25 which extends into the material lifting pipe 14b below the liquid level (pg. 16 lines 23-28) and supplies gas into the material lifting pipe 14b (pg. 16 lines 28-31), where head loss from the slurry flowing through the reaction tank 10 and the material lifting pipe 14B creates a pressure drop that will push excess gas and some slurry through an excess gas port 20 or duct 25 from the reaction tank 10, but Clegg does not teach the discharging assembly comprising a gas conduit.
Pan teaches equipment for leaching adsorption for gold extraction by carbon-in-slurry method [n0001, n0002], thus Pan and Clegg are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to metal extracting equipment that works upon liquid solution comprising solid particles. Pan teaches a discharging assembly 3 which comprises a material lifting pipe 32 and a gas conduit 31 (Fig. 3, [n0045]), where the gas conduit 31 is at least partially received in the material lifting pipe and extends into the material lifting pipe below the liquid level [n0045], where as the material lifting pipe extends below the liquid level, the material lifting pipe is within a reaction tank 1 (Fig. 2), the gas conduit intrinsically supplies gas outside the reaction tank into the material lifting pipe and the reaction tank. Pan teaches the supply of gas thereby raises the liquid level inside the material lifting pipe and enables the substances within the material lifting pipe 32 to be exported from a port of discharge pipe 34 of the material lifting pipe 32 (Fig. 3, [n0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a gas conduit within the material lifting pipe as taught by Pan to the material lifting pipe of Clegg as doing so would further drive the slurry of Clegg up the material lifting pipe and out of the reaction tank, which is a goal of the apparatus of Clegg.
Leslie teaches treatment of ores by cyanide process (Title), where gas is added to agitated and aerate the pulp, lifting the ore from the vessel (pg. 1 lines 58-65) and metal is precipitated from solution (pg. 1 lines 84-95), thus Leslie and Clegg are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to metal extracting equipment that works upon liquid solution comprising solid particles where material is lifted from the tank by aeration. Leslie teaches an agitator tank c with a solution inlet 29 (analogous to a first and a second pipe) (pg. 2 lines 36-38, 65-70, Fig. 2), which further comprises a third inlet pipe 40 which supplies compressed air (pg. 2 lines 45-56), which is connected to the material lifting pipe 3 (pg. 2 lines 47-53, Fig. 2). Leslie teaches the third inlet pipe 40 is connected to the end of the material lifting pipe 3 that is closer to the holding chamber (pg. 2 lines 45-56, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a third inlet as taught by Leslie to the discharging assembly of Clegg as doing so would help lift material into the material lifting pipe, which is a goal of the apparatus of Clegg, and further agitate the tank contents. Further, in adding the third inlet pipe of Leslie to the discharging assembly and material lift pipe of Clegg, the third inlet pipe would be located in or adjacent to (i.e., at) a side of a wall of the material lifting pipe as claimed.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 discloses “a first inlet pipe for transporting a metal ion solution”, “a second inlet pipe for transporting a neutralizing agent”, and “a third inlet pipe for transporting the neutralizing agent”. As claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, transporting metal ion solution or neutralizing agent through the first, and second and third, inlet pipes respectively comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Clegg teaches the first and second inlet pipes to be able to transport liquid process streams (Clegg: pg. 6 lines 3-9, pg. 15 lines 21-23), and Leslie teaches a third inlet which is capable of transporting a fluid (Leslie: pg. 2 lines 49-53), Clegg in view of Leslie reads upon a first, second, and third inlet pipe as claimed.
Clegg in view of others does not teach wherein a plurality of second inlet pipes are provided, or wherein the plurality of second inlet pipes are connected to the first inlet pipe in sequence along an axial direction of the first inlet pipe inside the reaction tank. However, it has long been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI) (B) and (C). As Clegg in view of others teaches a second inlet pipe connected to the first inlet pipe, adding another second inlet pipe for the same purpose would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as doing so would not produce a new or unexpected result. Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have rearranged the additional second inlet pipes such as to be in sequence along an axial direction of the first inlet pipe inside the reaction tank, as doing so would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 9-10 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 03/04/2026. Claim(s) 4, 6, and 9 has/have not been amended since that time, and the amendments to claim(s) 10 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clegg in view of Pan and Leslie as applied to claim 4 under 35 USC 103 above, further in view of Greenawalt (US 1528206 A, cited in Office Action dated 04/09/2025) and Hydraulic Design Manual (supplied with Office Action dated 04/09/2025).
Claim(s) 5 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 03/04/2026. The amendments to claim(s) 5 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action, 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clegg in view of Pan and Leslie as applied under 35 USC 103 to claim 6 above, further in view of Jacobson et al. (US 20180202025 A1, cited in Office Action dated 04/09/2025).
Claim(s) 7 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 03/04/2026. Claim(s) 7 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clegg in view of Pan and Leslie as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ramsey (US 2346787 A, cited in Office Action dated 04/09/2025).
Claim(s) 8 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 03/04/2026. Claim(s) 8 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 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that clegg alone or in view of others does not teach first and second inlet pipes for transporting metal ion solution and neutralizing agent respectively, as Clegg teaches using both inlet pipes for transporting mineral slurry (see pg. 5-7 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, therefore transporting metal ion solution or neutralizing agent through the first and second inlet pipes comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Clegg teaches the first and second inlet pipes to be able to transport liquid process streams (Clegg: pg. 6 lines 3-9, pg. 15 lines 21-23), Clegg reads upon a first and second inlet pipe as claimed as the pipes of Clegg would be able to transport metal ion solution and neutralizing agent respectively.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the inlet pipes 12a and 12 are connected outside the autoclave, instead of inside the autoclave as claimed (see pg. 7 of remarks), the Examiner notes that claim 1 requires that “the second inlet pipe… is connected to the first inlet pipe inside the reaction tank”, where as noted above, the limitation is indefinite as it can be interpreted to mean that the connection of the first and second inlet pipe is inside the reaction tank; or the second inlet pipe is connected to the first pipe, where the first pipe is inside the reaction tank. As Clegg teaches the inlet pipes to be connected, and that the first pipe is inside the tank, Clegg teaches the claim limitation as amended.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Clegg does not mention a plurality of second inlet pipes are provided or connected to the first inlet pipe in sequence along the axial direction of the first inlet pipe inside the reaction tank (see pg. 7 of remarks), the Examiner notes that while Clegg does not teach a plurality of second inlet pipes or in the claimed configuration, it has long been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI) (B) and (C). As Clegg in view of others teaches a second inlet pipe connected to the first inlet pipe, adding another second inlet pipe for the same purpose would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as doing so would not produce a new or unexpected result. Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have rearranged the additional second inlet pipes such as to be in sequence along an axial direction of the first inlet pipe inside the reaction tank, as doing so would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Clegg in view of Greenawalt and Leslie does not teach a third inlet pipe for transporting neutralizing agent (see pg. 8-12 of remarks), the Examiner notes that Greenawalt is not relied upon to teach adding a third inlet pipe, instead Leslie is relied upon for such a teaching. While as Applicant notes, Leslie does not teach the transport of neutralizing agent in the third inlet pipe, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, transporting neutralizing agent through the third inlet pipe comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Leslie teaches a third inlet pipe for transporting compressed air (a fluid) (Leslie: pg. 2 lines 49-53), the third inlet pipe of Leslie would be capable of transporting neutralizing agent through the third pipe, as both are fluids transported through pipes and neither of Leslie or the instant specification disclose special conditions or features that make the third inlet of Leslie to be incapable of transporting other fluids, or necessary to transport neutralizing agents, therefore Leslie teaches a third inlet pipe as claimed.
Further, in adding the third inlet pipe of Leslie to the discharging assembly and material lift pipe of Clegg, the third inlet pipe would be located in or adjacent to (i.e., at) a side of a wall of the material lifting pipe as claimed.
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