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 .
Priority
Applicant’s priority claims to US Provisional Application Nos. 63/757,656 filed February 12, 2025 and 63/873,221 filed August 29, 2025 are acknowledged.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II and Species II-M, claims 11-14, 18, and 19, in the reply filed on July 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that:
Group I and Group II are not independent inventions because the system of Group I is defined by its capability to carry out the leaching process of Group II (p. 7 paras. 3-4), where Group I imposes a functional limitation on the apparatus (p. 8 para. 2), such that Group I and Group II substantially overlap in subject matter and a search would necessarily encompass the claims of both Group I and Group II (para. spanning pp. 9-10).
A species-specific issue that would require separate examination of the dependent claims has not been identified as evidenced by the International Search Report and Written Opinion (p. 9 para. 2).
The applicant argues the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority did not treat Group I and Group II or the species with Group II as requiring separate examiner (p. 10 para. 2).
This is not found persuasive.
In the Group I system for leaching the metal-bearing material and leaching solution used in the system are materials used and/or worked upon, such that they are related to the purpose or intended use of the claimed apparatus and are not structural limitations of the claimed system.
With respect tot the distinct alkyl thiosulfonate compound species, the species are independent or distinct because they require different compounds and these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Finally, it is noted that the International Search Report and Written Opinion do not apply to US patent examination practice.
Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10, 15-17, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Election and Claims filed July 21, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
July 21, 2026
Pending
1-20
Withdrawn
1-10, 15-17, 20
Under Examination
11-14, 18, 19
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Lines 1 and 3 use legal phraseology “comprising”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims should be avoided.
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 12 and 14 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 12 lines 1-1 “the intermediary decomposition product” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 14 line 1 “the SMTS concentration” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 14 depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 11. None of claim 11 and claim 12 recite “SMTS concentration”. Claim 13 line 2 recites “(SMTS)”. For the purpose of examination claim 14 will be interpreted as depending from claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US 2020/0048736) in view of Gundorina (Gundorina and Sergeeva. Study of the reaction of copper(II) ions with alkyl thiosulfonate. Koordinatsionnaya Khimiya (1978), 4(4), 522-526. Publication and STN Abstract.) and Luomanpaa (Luomanpaa. Hydrocopper process. Helsinki University of Technology Publications in Materials Science and Engineering (2005), TKK-MT-172, 85-90. STN Abstract.).
Regarding claim 11, Dixon discloses a method for leaching a metal-bearing material ([0002]), comprising:
leaching the metal-bearing material with a leaching solution to produce a pregnant leaching solution ([0025], [0144]), wherein the leaching solution comprises a raffinate ([0046], [0102]).
Dixon discloses the copper in enargite is mainly Cu(II) ([0120]).
Dixon is silent to the leaching solution comprising an alkyl thiosulfonate compound, wherein the alkyl thiosulfonate compound undergoes decomposition in the leaching system, and wherein the decomposition of the alkyl thiosulfonate compound lowers oxidation reduction potential of the leaching system, improving recovery of a metal value from the metal-bearing material.
Gundorina discloses an alkyl thiosulfonate compound, wherein the alkyl thiosulfonate compound undergoes decomposition (reacts with Cu(II) to give Cu(I)) (STN Abstract).
Luomanpaa discloses lowering of the oxidation reduction potential (copper(I) ion enables production of copper with much lower energy consumption, where a reduced oxidation potential consumes less energy) (STN Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the leaching solution of Dixon for the enargite that is mainly Cu(II) to include an alkyl thiosulfonate to react with the Cu(II) to give Cu (I) (Gundorina STN Abstract) because the Cu(I) ion produces copper with much lower energy consumption (Luomanpaa STN Abstract). Less energy being required to produce copper improves recovery of a metal value from the metal-bearing material because for the same amount of energy recovery of a metal value is improved.
Furthermore, improving recovery of a metal value from the metal-bearing material has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic of the claimed method for leaching a metal-bearing material. The prior art discloses a method that is substantially similar to that claimed (leaching metal-bearing material comprising a raffinate, Dixon [0025], [0046], [0102], [0120], [0144]; and alkyl thiosulfonate, Gundorina STN Abstract), such that claimed functions, properties, and characteristics naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including improving recovery of a metal value from the metal-bearing material.
Regarding claim 18, Dixon in view of Gundorina and Luomanpaa discloses the method of claim 11 as cited above, further comprising agglomerating the metal- bearing material before the step of leaching (Dixon [0013], [0020], [0150]).
Regarding claim 19, Dixon in view of Gundorina and Luomanpaa discloses the method of claim 11 as cited above, further comprising recovering the metal value from the pregnant leaching solution (Dixon ([0025], [0041], [0144]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US 2020/0048736) in view of Gundorina (Gundorina and Sergeeva. Study of the reaction of copper(II) ions with alkyl thiosulfonate. Koordinatsionnaya Khimiya (1978), 4(4), 522-526. STN Abstract) and Luomanpaa (Luomanpaa. Hydrocopper process. Helsinki University of Technology Publications in Materials Science and Engineering (2005), TKK-MT-172, 85-90. STN Abstract.) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Moyes (US 2007/0014709).
Regarding claim 12, Dixon in view of Gundorina and Luomanpaa disclose the method of claim 11 as cited above.
Gundorina discloses an alkyl thiosulfonate compound reacts with Cu(II) to give Cu(I) (STN Abstract).
Dixon in view of Gundorina and Luomanpaa are silent to the intermediary decomposition product lowering cumulative net acid consumption of the leaching system.
Moyes discloses as Cu(II) is reduced to Cu(I) acid is consumed in leaching ([0195]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Dixon in view of Gundorina and Luomanpaa for the intermediary decomposition product to lower cumulative net acid consumption of the leaching system because the alkyl thiosulfonate reacts with Cu(II) to give Cu(I) (Gundorina STN Abstract), which is the same reaction that results in acid consumption (Moyes [0195]). Since the alkyl thiosulfonate performs the same Cu(II) to Cu(I) reaction as acid, the intermediary decomposition product lowering cumulative net acid consumption of the leaching system naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US 2020/0048736) in view of Gundorina (Gundorina and Sergeeva. Study of the reaction of copper(II) ions with alkyl thiosulfonate. Koordinatsionnaya Khimiya (1978), 4(4), 522-526. STN Abstract.) and Luomanpaa (Luomanpaa. Hydrocopper process. Helsinki University of Technology Publications in Materials Science and Engineering (2005), TKK-MT-172, 85-90. STN Abstract.) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ji (US 6,660,059) and Guerrero (WO 2016/099249 machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Dixon in view of Gundorina and Luomanpaa discloses the method of claim 11 as cited above, wherein the alkyl thiosulfonate compound is methanethiosulfonate (MTS) or a salt thereof (Gundorina STN Abstract).
Dixon in view of Gundorina and Luomanpaa is silent to sodium methanethiosulfonate.
Ji discloses leaching metal-bearing material (1:13-17) with a preferred lixiviant of sodium thiosulfate (3:16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instantly claimed invention for the alkyl thiosulfonate of methanethiosulfonate to include sodium because it is a preferred part of a lixiviant (Ji 3:16-19) and the presence of a sodium salt contributes to accelerating leaching and increasing the percentage of Cu recovery (Guerrero [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, Dixon in view of Gundorina, Luomanpaa, Ji, and Guerrero discloses the method of claim 13 as applied above.
The SMTS concentration in the leaching solution of about 0.05 g/L to about 1 g/L has been considered. Dixon in view of Gundorina, Luomanpaa, Ji, and Guerrero discloses the addition of sodium (Ji 3:1-19) methanethiosulfonate (Gundorina STN Abstract) to a leaching solution (Dixon [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to control the amount of added sodium methanethiosulfonate to control the reaction of Cu(II) to Cu(I) (Gundorina STN Abstract) and the subsequent impact this has on lowering energy consumption of the leaching process (Luomanpaa STN Abstract).
Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujicic (US 2016/0298206) in view of Burdinski (Burdinski and Blees. Thiosulfate- and Thiosulfonate-Based Etchants for the Patterning of Gold Using Microcontact Printing. Chem. Mater. 2007, 19, 3933-3944.).
Regarding claim 11, Mujicic discloses a method for leaching a metal-bearing material ([0001], [0003], [0021]), comprising:
leaching the metal-bearing material with a leaching solution to produce a pregnant leaching solution ([0034], [0067], [0084]), wherein the leaching solution comprises a raffinate ([0085]) and a thiosulfate compound (sodium thiosulfate) ([0055], [0059]).
Mujicic is silent to an alkyl thiosulfonate compound.
Burdinski discloses substituting a thiosulfate with a thiosulfonate (Abstract, Introduction para. 6, Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention in the process of Mujicic to substitute the sodium thiosulfate with sodium benzenethiosulfonate due to the improved stability of thiosulfonate, which is less sensitive to oxidative composition than the thiosulfate (Burdinski Abstract, Introduction para. 6), such that the thiosulfonate advantageously has prolonged activity relative to thiosulfate (Burdinski Results: Comparison of Thiosulfate- and Benzenethiosulfonate-Based Etchants, Conclusions). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Mujicic in view of Burdinski discloses the alkyl thiosulfate compound undergoes decomposition in the leaching system (leaching agent dissolves and/or chemically reacts with the metal Mujicic [0021]; etchant binds the oxidized metal ion, Burdinski Introduction para. 4) and wherein the decomposition of the alkyl thiosulfonate compound lowers oxidation reduction potential of the leaching system (decreases redox potential, Burdinski Introduction para. 4).
The limitation of improving recovery of a metal value from the metal-bearing material has been considered and determined to recite a property, function, or characteristic of the claimed invention. The prior art discloses a substantially similar process (Mujicic [0001], [0003], [0021], [0034], [0055], [0059], [0067], [0084]-[0085]; Burdinski Abstract, Introduction para. 6, Results: Comparison of Thiosulfate- and Benzenethiosulfonate-Based Etchants, Conclusions), such that the claimed function, property or characteristic naturally flows, including improving recovery of a metal value from the metal-bearing material.
Regarding claim 12, Mujicic in view of Burdinski discloses the method of claim 11 as cited above.
The intermediary decomposition product lowering cumulative net acid consumption of the leaching system has been considered and determined to a recite a function, property, or characteristic that results from the claimed method for leaching a metal-bearing material. The prior art discloses a substantially similar process (Mujicic [0001], [0003], [0021], [0034], [0055], [0059], [0067], [0084]-[0085]; Burdinski Abstract, Introduction para. 6, Results: Comparison of Thiosulfate- and Benzenethiosulfonate-Based Etchants, Conclusions), such that the claimed function, property or characteristic naturally flows, including the intermediary decomposition product lowering a cumulative net acid consumption of the leaching system.
Regarding claim 18, Mujicic in view of Burdinski discloses the method of claim 11 as cited above, further comprising agglomerating the metal- bearing material before the step of leaching (Mujicic [0025], [0073], [0078], [0083]).
Regarding claim 19, Mujicic in view of Burdinski discloses the method of claim 11 as cited above, further comprising recovering the metal value from the pregnant leaching solution (Mujicic [0034], [0067], [0071], [0084]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujicic (US 2016/0298206) in view of Burdinski (Burdinski and Blees. Thiosulfate- and Thiosulfonate-Based Etchants for the Patterning of Gold Using Microcontact Printing. Chem. Mater. 2007, 19, 3933-3944.) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gundorina (Gundorina and Sergeeva. Study of the reaction of copper(II) ions with alkyl thiosulfonate. Koordinatsionnaya Khimiya (1978), 4(4), 522-526. Publication and STN Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Mujicic in view of Burdinski discloses the method of claim 11 as cited above, wherein the alkyl thiosulfonate compound is sodium thiosulfonate (STS) or a salt thereof (in the sodium thiosulfate of Mujicic the thiosulfate is replaced with thiosulfonate, which yields sodium thiosulfonate) (Mujicic [0055], [0059]; Burdinski Abstract, Introduction para. 6, Conclusions).
Mujicic discloses a metal-bearing material comprises copper ([0005], [0034], [0063], [0067], [0088]).
Mujicic in view of Burdinski is silent to sodium methanethiosulfonate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the process of Mujicic in view of Burdinski for the sodium thiosulfonate to be sodium methanethiosulfonate to react with Cu(II) in the metal-bearing material to give Cu(I) (Gundorina STN Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Mujicic in view of Burdinski and Gundorina discloses the method of claim 13 as cited above.
the SMTS concentration in the leaching solution is about 0.05 g/L to about 1 g/L.
The SMTS concentration in the leaching solution of about 0.05 g/L to about 1 g/L has been considered. Mujicic in view of Burdinski and Gundorina discloses the addition of sodium methanethiosulfonate (Mujicic [0055], [0059]; Burdinski Abstract, Introduction para. 6, Conclusions; Gundorina STN Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to control the amount of added sodium methanethiosulfonate to control the reaction of Cu(II) to Cu(I) (Gundorina STN Abstract) based on stability and activity (Burdinski Abstract, Introduction para. 6, Results: Comparison of Thiosulfate- and Benzenethiosulfonate-Based Etchants, Conclusions).
Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights