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 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-3 and 11 are cancelled.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) to claims 1-11 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1 and cancellation of claims 2-3 and 11.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered.
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 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 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.
Clegg in view of Pan does not teach a third inlet pipe.
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 feeding 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.
Regarding claim 4, Clegg teaches wherein the second inlet pipe 12 extends into the first inlet pipe 12a (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Clegg teaches a main pipe 14B which is vertically installed and extends into the holding chamber 10A (Fig. 8). Clegg does not teach wherein the material lifting pipe comprises an auxiliary pipe.
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 tank 1 comprising a material lifting pipe 3 comprises a main pipe 32 and an auxiliary pipe 34, where one end of the auxiliary pipe 34 is connected to the main pipe 32 via buffer box 33, and the other end of the auxiliary pipe is inclined downwards (Fig. 3, [n0045-0046]). Pan teaches the auxiliary pipe is connected to the inlet of a next tank so that material flows to the next tank (Fig. 1, [n0017, n0052]).
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 an auxiliary pipe that is inclined downwards as taught by Pan in the discharging assembly of Clegg, as doing so would enable flow of material from the discharge device to further process equipment.
Regarding claim 9, Clegg teaches wherein the precipitation system further comprises a mixing assembly which comprises blades 22 (pg. 17 lines 7-10), a rotating shaft (pg. 7 lines 9-12, pg. 17 lines 7-10, Fig. 8), and motor (i.e., a driving device) (pg. 17 line 8). Clegg teaches the rotating shaft is rotatably installed within the holding chamber, the blades are mounted on the rotating shaft (Fig. 8), and the driving device is drivingly connected to the rotating shaft to rotate it (pg. 17 lines 8-12 ,Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Clegg teaches the driving component comprises an electric motor which is directly connected to the rotating shaft (pg. 17 lines 8-12 ,Fig. 8).
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).
Regarding claim 5, Clegg in view of Pan and Leslie does not teach wherein the angle between the flow direction of the material in the first inlet pipe and the flow direction of the material in the second inlet pipe is an acute angle.
Greenawalt teaches an apparatus for treating ore pulp with gas (Title, pg. 1 lines 9-22), where ores containing metals such as cobalt and nickel (pg. 5 line 16) are treated with gas (pg. 5 lines 10-13) in a reaction tank 1 (pg. 1 lines 84-94, Fig. 1). Therefore, Greenawalt and Clegg are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to ore processing apparatuses that feed gas into a liquid contained in a tank. Greenawalt teaches a first inlet pipe 13 and a second inlet pipe 12, wherein the angle between the flow direction of the material in the first inlet pipe 13 and the flow direction of the material in the second inlet 12 pipe is an acute angle (Fig. 1). Hydraulic Design Manual teaches acute angle junctions reduce head losses and also pass debris more easily (pg. 10-41, Junction Angles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the angle between the first and second inlet pipes of Clegg an acute angle as taught by Greenawalt as doing so would reduce head losses and pass any debris more easily as taught by Hydraulic Design Manual.
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).
Regarding claim 7, Clegg in view of Pan and Leslie does not teach a stopping valve installed on the auxiliary pipe.
Jacobson teaches a process for recovery of rare earth metals by precipitation from solution (Title, [0003, 0012]), with addition of gas (Fig. 1, [0061]), thus Clegg and Jacobson are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to apparatuses where precipitation occurs from liquid solution under gas flow. Jacobson teaches a reaction mixture valve 244 (i.e., a stopping valve) is installed on the reaction mixture pipe 242 (analogous to an auxiliary pipe) [0061], which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to control the opening and closing of the auxiliary pipe.
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 stopping valve as taught by Jacobson to the auxiliary pipe of Pan, as doing so would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to enable control over the flow of material through the auxiliary pipe.
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).
Regarding claim 8, Clegg in view of does not teach a regulating valve installed on the gas conduit to control the openness of the gas conduit.
Ramsey teaches an ore processing apparatus (Title), where ore is treated by wet process (pg. 1 left column lines 5-17), where gas is delivered into a liquid in the tank (pg. 4 lines 55-63, Fig. 2), thus Clegg and Ramsey are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to ore processing apparatuses that feed gas into the liquid contained in the tank. Ramsey teaches a regulating valve 134 is installed on the gas conduit 130 to control the openness of the gas conduit 130 (pg. 4 left column lines 61-75, 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 regulating valve as taught by Ramsey to the gas conduit of Clegg as doing so would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to enable control over the flow of gas through the gas conduit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Leslie teaches supplying compressed air to the lift pipe, while the claimed third inlet pipe is for introducing neutralizing agents (see pg. 6 of remarks), the Examiner notes that while the third pipe of the instant claims and the analogous pipe of Leslie may be used for transporting different compositions, the instant claims are directed to an apparatus. Introducing neutralizing agents results comprises a manner of operating the apparatus, rather than any structural feature of the apparatus itself, where a manner of operating an apparatus has long been held to not differentiate an apparatus from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II). As Leslie teaches all of the structural limitations of the instant claims, Clegg in view of Pan and Leslie teaches a precipitation system according to the instant claims which would be capable of introducing neutralizing agents.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the inlet air pipe 31 of Pan is configured to supply compressed air to collecting port 35, thus there is no need to add another air supply pipe and that doing so may negatively affect the inlet air pipe of Pan (see pg. 6 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted by Applicant, Pan teaches an inlet air pipe 31 which feeds air to a bottom of the charcoal lifter (analogous to a material lift pipe). However, Leslie teaches a compressed air pipe 40 which feeds air to a bottom of a lift pipe 3 (also analogous to a material lift pipe). As both Pan and Leslie use pipes to feed the same composition (compressed air), to the same location to lift material in the material lift pipe, the two devices are used for the very same purpose and do not conflict with each other. Instead, using both the inlet air pipe of Pan and the compressed air pipe of Leslie would simply further lift material in the material lift pipe by supplying more compressed air than could be achieved using only the inlet air pipe of Pan, improving the operation of the material lift pipe.
Further, it has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to combine elements each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (I). As in Pan an inlet air pipe 31 is used to introduce air, and in Leslie a compressed air pipe 40 is used for the same purpose, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have combined the air pipes to deliver air.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Clegg’s duct 25 is configured to remove excess gas from the inside of the autoclave 10, and therefore one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to add additional gas to the material lift pipe 14B (see pg. 6 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, Clegg teaches an excess gas duct 25 for removing excess gas from the autoclave, Clegg teaches the excess gas port and excess gas duct create a pressure drop that pushes slurry through the excess gas port or duct from the vessel to the outlet slurry pipe (i.e., the material lift pipe) (Clegg: pg. 6 lines 13-16). In other words, Clegg teaches using gas to push slurry through the material lift pipe, which is the same purpose as air is fed to the material lift pipe in each of Pan and Leslie. Therefore, as noted above, the use of the excess gas duct of Clegg, and the air inlet/supply pipes of Pan and Leslie are in accord with each other as they are used for the same purpose, and would therefore be obvious to combine to compound the material lifting effect.
Conclusion
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