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 .
Applicant amended Claims 1, 3-6, and 10. Support for the amendments are found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “and based on” twice in Lines 5-6. The first instance of the word “and” in Line 5 is grammatically repetitive. Applicant is encouraged to review the claim for grammar and appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 02/25/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejections made in the office action mailed 11/28/2025. Indication that claims are free of prior art is presented below. Double Patenting rejections remain in effect.
Prioritized Examination
The present application is being given prioritized examination under the Track I program; see the Decision Granting Request dated September 30, 2024. Applicant is reminded that filing of any of the following will cause the application to be removed from the Track I program and returned to the regular examination process:
a petition for extension of time to extend the time period for filing a reply;
amendment to amend the application to contain more than four independent claims, more than thirty total claims, or a multiple dependent claim;
a request for continued examination;
a notice of appeal; or
a request for suspension of action.
Allowable Subject Matter
At this time, the pending claims are indicated herein as free of prior art. The closest prior art to the amended claims is Lizama et al. US 20200340077 A1 which teaches processing mineralogy data with machine learning but does not render obvious targeting estimated remaining material in a stockpile section and activating raffinate injection to the stockpile based on a mineral recovery curve.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 and 20 of US 12373743 B2. Though the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they read on the method of the instant claims, overlapping and encompassing the claimed process of obtaining minerology data from a processor and activating targeted raffinate injection in a section of a stockpile. Collectively, the claims further teach the incorporation of predictive models and estimates, rendering them not patentably distinct from the instantly claimed method.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of US 11948103 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they read on the method of the instant claims, overlapping and encompassing the claimed process of obtaining minerology data from a processor and activating targeted raffinate injection in a section of a stockpile. Collectively, the claims further teach the incorporation of predictive models and estimates, rendering them not patentably distinct from the instantly claimed method.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 12169796 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they read on the method of the instant claims, overlapping and encompassing the claimed process of obtaining minerology data from a processor and activating targeted raffinate injection in a section of a stockpile. Collectively, the claims further teach the incorporation of predictive models and estimates, rendering them not patentably distinct from the instantly claimed method.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 and 19-20 US 12346845 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they read on the method of the instant claims, overlapping and encompassing the claimed process of obtaining minerology data from a processor and activating targeted raffinate injection in a section of a stockpile. Collectively, the claims further teach the incorporation of predictive models and estimates, rendering them not patentably distinct from the instantly claimed method.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 US 12475412 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they read on the method of the instant claims, overlapping and encompassing the claimed process of obtaining minerology data from a processor and activating targeted raffinate injection in a section of a stockpile. Collectively, the claims further teach the incorporation of predictive models and estimates, rendering them not patentably distinct from the instantly claimed method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to the Double Patenting rejections presented above.
The instantly claimed method remains rejected over the methods recited in the claims of the pending and issued patents cited. Though the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they read on the method of the instant claims, overlapping and encompassing the claimed process of obtaining minerology data from a processor and activating targeted raffinate injection in a section of a stockpile based on a mineral recovery curve. The claims as a whole of the above cited patents render obvious the instantly claimed method to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention, e.g. claim 17 of US 12373743 B2 incorporates estimating the remaining recoverable minerals in a stockpile in order to activate deep raffinate injection in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8986423 B2 teaches adjusting heap leach operation based on predictive models.
US 20140291499 A1 teaches generating a mineral recovery curve.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733