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 .
Prioritized Examination
The present application is being given prioritized examination under the Track I program; see the Decision Granting Request dated October 21, 2025. 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.
Applicant amended Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Claim 3 is cancelled. Support for the amendments are found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025 and 04/23/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 06/12/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained under additional grounds necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 estimated remaining amount of the mineral recovery” in Line 9. There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for this term. Previous mention in Claim 1 is to “an estimated remaining amount of mineral.” While the claim later states the estimated remaining amount of mineral is targeted at a location in a second of a stockpile to implement the leaching over the period of time to achieve an estimated amount of the mineral recovery, a clearer nexus must be established to properly introduce any “remaining” amount of mineral and clearly recite after what method step any mineral remains. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 4-20 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, the claims recite data gathering steps which fall into the “Mental Processes” category of abstract ideas without sufficiently conveying a practical application. While the “adjusting” step attempts to integrate the abstract calculation steps into a practical application, there is insufficient nexus between the mental data gathering steps and the “deep injection of raffinate” process. Regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 1, the claim recites adjusting an intended depth. The claims newly recite “casing a drilling machine to drill” and “causing a pumping machine to pump.” All that is required in the four corners of the claim is the implementation of a computer program, contrasted with the positive tangible active method steps of drilling holes or pumping raffinate. Accordingly, it remains that the Claims constitute an abstract idea and lack a practical application.
Claim 1 is drawn to “estimating…an amount of mineral recovery.” Claim 1 merely recites generating data and activating a drilling machine. Simply because a processor is used to generate data does not negate the fact that the claimed steps regarding the generation of data amount to a mental process that may be completed by hand. Further, even the deep injection of raffinate could be completed by hand. Even with the presence of a ‘processor,’ there is insufficient specificity of the data generated by the processor. The claimed steps amount to activating a drilling machine based on generated data, which is a mental step and abstract idea ineligible for patent.
The claimed steps amount to abstract mathematical mental thought, which neither separately nor collectively serve to distinguish the claimed invention over process steps known and disclosed in the art. The requirement of using a “processor” to activate a drilling machine does not negate the independent claim being drawn to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the instant Specification at [00141] sets forth that all or part of the system implementing the claimed embodiments can be completed by hardware, and can also be completed by implementing “various algorithms.” This statement supports the concept that the subject matter instantly claimed is an abstract idea ineligible for patentability.
Claims 5-6 merely automate a manual activity via machine learning and Claims 2-4 and 7-20 merely set forth additional parameters to the data gathering steps. Claims 2, 3, and 4 collectively provide predictive modeling steps already patented in US 20250252363 A1. Individually, Claims 2, 3, and 4 merely add parameters to the sheer generation of data in Claim 1, which amounts to an unpatentable mental process that can be completed by hand as set forth above. This is further evidenced by the determination of data step in Claim 7 which derives from a predictive model. The column test of a column of ore is not claimed, but instead data generated from such physical and tangible method steps are vaguely referenced and used in the claims to generate additional data.
In sum, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claimed limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to calculate mathematical equations, acquire data based on generated or predicted data, and use machine learning. Mere instructions to obtain information and complete a mathematical calculation cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are therefore not patent eligible.
Claims Free of Prior Art
At this time, the pending claims are indicated herein as being 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 20250252363 A1. 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 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the data physically controls the deep injection which is a concrete process.” Nonetheless, as cited above, the claims are drawn to a computer program that causes drilling and pumping to occur, contrasted with the positive tangible active method steps of actually drilling holes or actually pumping raffinate. As presently drafted, the claims remain drawn to the implementation of a computer program and are unpatentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8828353 B2 teaches a controlled copper leach recovery circuit.
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
Prosecution Insights