DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 09/15/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claim 13 is canceled. Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-35 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1
The Applicant argues that Mankosa and Jameson do not disclose the diameter of an outlet nozzle or the distance between the nozzle to an impinger (pg. 8). This argument is unpersuasive because Jameson displays an outlet nozzle and a distance between the outlet nozzle and an impingement plate (Jameson, Fig. 8) and description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words (see MPEP 2121.04). Furthermore, Mankosa teaches changing the location of the distributor plate 44 in order to adjust the velocity of slurry discharge (Mankosa, Fig. 3, [0068]) and Jameson teaches that an impingement plate is positioned below the throttling duct, spaced therefrom so as to provide said flow manipulator inducing said high energy dissipation rate within the mixture passing therethrough (Jameson, [0032]).
In response to applicant's argument that the flotation unit of Mankosa cannot be operated if the velocity of the slurry infeed is so high that a supersonic shockwave is produced (pg. 8), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Mankosa also teaches that the sparger unit will function well over a broad range of slurry flow rates and pressures (Mankosa, [0064])
The Applicant argues that Jameson does not define the distance between the throttling duct and the impingement plate in the specifications or claims (pg. 9). This argument is unpersuasive because description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words (see MPEP 2121.04) and drawings can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed (see MPEP 2125).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the impinger alone directs the flow of slurry (pg. 10)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the shroud of Jameson is optional (Jameson, [0023]).
In response to applicant's argument that by positioning the outlet nozzle and the impinger, it may be possible to optimize flotation, minimize wear to impinger parts in the instant application and create mixing zones (pg. 10), whereas doing so adjusts velocity of slurry discharge in Mankosa (pg. 8), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In response to applicant's argument that by positioning the outlet nozzle and the impinger, it may be possible to optimize flotation, minimize wear to impinger parts in the instant application and create mixing zones (pg. 10), whereas doing so adjusts velocity of slurry discharge in Mankosa (pg. 8), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, 23-25, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20080251427A1 (‘Mankosa’) in view of U.S. Publication US20130341252A1 (‘Jameson’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, 23-25, and 29-31, Mankosa teaches a flotation cell for treating particles suspended in slurry (abstract) and for separating the slurry into underflow and overflow ([0045]), the flotation cell comprising:
a flotation tank (Fig. 1, [0044], flotation separation cells 10) comprising a center (Figs. 17A and 18A-C, [0095] and [0097], center well 90), a perimeter (Fig. 1), a bottom (Fig. 1), and a sidewall (Fig. 1); and
a launder (Fig. 2, [0045], overflow launder 16) and a launder lip (Figs. 16A and 18A-C, edge of overflow launder 16) surrounding the perimeter of the flotation tank (Fig. 16A);
the flotation tank having a height, measured as the distance from the bottom to the launder lip, at the perimeter of the flotation tank at most 20 % lower than at the center of the flotation tank (Figs. 18A-18C);
and underflow arranged to be removed from the lower part of the flotation tank ([0046]), and at or near the side wall via a tailings outlet (Figs. 18A-18C, [0045], underflow removal port 18) arranged at the side wall of the flotation tank (Figs. 18A-18C),
wherein the flotation tank further comprises blast tubes (Fig. 1, [0044], sparger unit 12) for introducing slurry infeed into the flotation tank ([0045]), the blast tubes each comprising:
an inlet nozzle (Figs. 2 and 18A-18C, [0063], slurry inlet 38) for feeding slurry infeed into the blast tube ([0063-0064]),
an inlet for pressurized gas (Figs. 3-4, [0065], gas inlets 40), the slurry infeed subjected to the pressurized gas as it is discharged from the inlet nozzle ([0065-0066]),
an elongated chamber (Fig. 1, [0062], sparger assembly 30) arranged to receive under pressure the slurry infeed ([0062]),
an outlet nozzle (Figs. 3-4, [0068], slurry outlet 51) configured to restrict flow of slurry infeed from the outlet nozzle (velocity of slurry discharge is adjusted, [0068]), and to maintain slurry infeed in the elongated chamber under pressure (velocity of slurry discharge, [0068]),
an impinger (Figs. 3-4, [0068], distributor plate 44) configured to contact a flow of slurry infeed from the outlet nozzle (Figs. 3-4, slurry outlet 51) and to direct the flow of slurry infeed radially outwards and upwards of the impinger (Figs. 3-4, distributor plate 44).
Mankosa does not teach that the outlet nozzle is configured to produce a supersonic shockwave into the slurry infeed as it exits the blast tube, the supersonic shockwave inducing formation of flotation gas bubble - particle agglomerates, wherein a distance from a bottom of the impinger to the outlet nozzle is 2 to 20 times a diameter of the outlet nozzle.
Jameson also relates to a flotation cell (abstract), wherein the outlet nozzle (Fig. 1, [0071], throttling duct 18) is configured to produce a supersonic shockwave into the slurry infeed as it exits the blast tube ([0071]), the supersonic shockwave inducing formation of flotation gas bubble - particle agglomerates ([0071]),
wherein a distance from a bottom of the impinger to the outlet nozzle is 2 to 20 times a diameter of the outlet nozzle (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the outlet nozzle of Mankosa to produce a supersonic shockwave into the slurry infeed as it exits the blast tube, as demonstrated by Jameson, so that the chaotic motions that occur within the shock wave have the effect not only of breaking up the bubbles, but also of freshly creating a very large interfacial gas-liquid area in a high-energy, intensively-mixed zone within the shock wave and downstream of it as the combination of very small bubbles and high-energy mixing has the effect of bringing about instant contact between the bubbles and the hydrophobic particles (Jameson, [0075]). Recovery is affected by contact between bubbles and hydrophobic particles (Jameson, [0016]). It would have been obvious to choose the distance from a bottom of the impinger to the outlet nozzle in Mankosa in order to adjust the velocity of slurry discharge (Mankosa, [0068]) and to provide said flow manipulator inducing said high energy dissipation rate within the mixture passing therethrough (Jameson, [0032]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 3: the flotation tank comprises 2 to 40 blast tubes (multiple sparger units 12, Mankosa, [0061], Figs. 2 and 19).
Claim 4: the blast tubes are arranged concentric to the perimeter of the flotation tank at a distance from the center of the flotation tank (Mankosa, Figs. 2 and 19).
Claim 5: a distance of an outlet nozzle from the center of the flotation tank is 10 to 40 % of the diameter of the flotation tank, measured at a distance of the outlet nozzle from the bottom of the flotation tank (compare Figs. 19 and 21 for relative arrangements of the sparger units 12, a feed manifold distributor 26, and an underflow removal port 18q).
Claim 6: the blast tubes are arranged parallel to the side wall of the flotation tank, at a distance from the side wall (Fig. 19, Mankosa).
Claim 7: a distance of an outlet nozzle from the side wall of the flotation tank is 10 to 40 % of the diameter of the flotation tank, measured at a distance of the outlet nozzle from the bottom of the flotation tank (Fig. 19, Mankosa, compare the relative arrangements of the sparger units 12 with the feed manifold distributor 26).
Claim 8: the blast tubes are arranged at equal distance from each other so that a distance between any two adjacent outlet nozzle is the same (Figs. 19 and 21, Mankosa).
Claim 9: the height of the flotation tank to diameter of the flotation tank, measured at a distance of the outlet nozzle from the bottom of the flotation tank, ratio is 0.5 to 1.5 (Mankosa, Fig. 1).
Claim 10: the volume of the flotation tank is at least 20 m3 (the overall height of a column cell is in the range 7 to 13 m (Jameson, [0007]), where the height-to-diameter ratio of the cells and columns is between 2:1 and 10:1 (Jameson, [0005]), giving diameters of 0.7 m to 6.5 m. Using the equation for the volume of a cylinder, this gives flotation tank volumes of from 0.026 m3 to 531 m3).
Claim 11: the diameter of an outlet nozzle is 10 % to 30 % of the diameter of an elongated chamber of a blast tube (Mankosa, Fig. 6A).
Claim 12: the diameter of the outlet nozzle is 40 to 100 mm (Mankosa, [0084], the sparger unit has a diameter of about 4 inches, or 101 mm).
Claim 14: a ratio of the distance from the bottom of the impinger to the outlet nozzle to a distance from the outlet nozzle to the bottom of the flotation tank is lower than 1.0 (the distance from the bottom of the impingement plate 54 to the outlet to a distance of the outlet from the bottom of the flotation tank is lower than 1.0 (Jameson, Fig. 8)).
Claim 15: a slurry fraction, taken out from the flotation tank via an outlet arranged at the side wall of the flotation tank (underflow removal port 18, Mankosa, Figs. 18A-18C), is recirculated into blast tubes as infeed slurry (divert a portion of slurry discharge from the underflow removal port 18 back to the initial sparger unit 12, Mankosa, [0090]).
Claim 16: the slurry infeed comprises 40 % or less slurry fraction (Mankosa, [0053], the sparger assembly operates at a very high air fraction of at least 40%, which encompasses the limitations of the instant claim).
Claim 23: the slurry infeed comprises 100 % fresh slurry (flotation separation cell 10 receives slurry, Mankosa, [0044]).
Claim 24: A flotation line comprising a number of fluidly connected flotation cells (a flotation separation system comprising a number of flotation separation cells in series (Mankosa, [0038] and [0093], Figs. 13-14 and 18C)), wherein at least one of the flotation cells is a flotation cell according to claim 1 (see analysis of Claim 1).
Claim 25: the flotation cell is preceded by a flotation cell (Mankosa, [0038] and [0093], Figs. 13-14 and 18C).
Claim 29: Use of a flotation line according to claim 24 (see analysis of Claim 24) in recovering particles comprising a valuable material suspended in slurry (Mankosa, [0044-0049], target species for recovery from slurry).
Claim 30: recovering particles comprising nonpolar minerals such as graphite, sulphur, molybdenite, coal (Mankosa, [0092]), and talc.
Claim 31: recovering particles comprising polar minerals (slurry includes hydrophobic and hydrophilic species, Mankosa, [0046] and [0048]).
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20080251427A1 (‘Mankosa’) and U.S. Publication US20130341252A1 (‘Jameson’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Publication CN101507946A (‘Fan’, the machine translation used in the writing of this prior art rejection has been provided with a previous office action).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 17-22, the combination of Mankosa and Jameson teaches the flotation cell of Claim 1, except a conditioning circuit.
Fan also relates to a flotation cell ([0002]), including a conditioning circuit (materials 75 that are not firmly captured by bubbles fall down to the bottom of the flotation column, and this slurry is separated into two parts: one part of the slurry carrying coarse particles is pumped out of the bottom of the flotation column by circulation pump 85 (Fan, [0035], Fig. 1, the slurry is treated by hydrocyclone)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a conditioning circuit, as demonstrated by Fan, in the flotation cell of the combination of Mankosa and Jameson so that particles that were not firmly captured by bubbles (Fan, [0035]) can have an additional opportunity to become attached to bubbles and be carried by them into the froth layer (Jameson, [0072] and [0086], and Fan, [0035]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 18: the conditioning circuit comprises a pump tank in fluid communication with the flotation tank, in which pump tank infeed of fresh slurry and a slurry fraction taken from the flotation tank via an outlet are arranged to be combined into slurry infeed (Fig. 1, Fan, tailings are treated via hydrocyclone then returned to the ejector 11, acting as slurry infeed along with fresh ore pulp 71).
Claims 19-20: the outlet is arranged at the side wall of the flotation tank, at a distance from the bottom of the flotation tank (tailings pipes 44 and 51, Fan, [0035], Fig. 1), where the is 0 to 50 % of the height of the flotation tank (Fan, Fig. 1).
Claim 21: the conditioning circuit further comprises a pump arranged to intake the slurry fraction from the flotation tank and to forward slurry infeed from the pump tank (circulation pump 85 pumps out a slurry fraction from the bottom of the flotation column and recirculates this slurry fraction back to the ejector 11, Fan, [0035], Fig. 1)).
Claim 22: the conditioning circuit further comprises a distribution unit arranged to distribute slurry infeed into blast tubes (bend pipe 86 connects feeding tubes 84 to an overflow pipe 82, Fan, [0014], Fig. 1).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20080251427A1 (‘Mankosa’) and U.S. Publication US20130341252A1 (‘Jameson’) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20130284642A1 (‘Teague’) and U.S. Publication US20120061298A1 (‘Jameson 2’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a device.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Mankosa and Jameson teaches the flotation line of Claim 24, except that the flotation cell is preceded by a mechanical flotation cell.
Teague also relates to a flotation line (stages, [0038] and [0049]), where a flotation cell is preceded by a mechanical flotation cell (the types of flotation apparatus used induce aeration by the action of the impeller in the slurry, [0030], which characterizes mechanical flotation machines, [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flotation line of the combination of Mankosa and Jameson to have a mechanical flotation cell precede a flotation cell, as demonstrated by Teague, so that the impeller creates a turbulent circulating flow within the cell that serves to suspend the particles in the pulp and prevent them from settling in the vessel; to disperse a flow of gas that is introduced into the cell into small bubbles; and to cause the bubbles and particles to come into intimate contact, thereby allowing the hydrophobic particles in the pulp to adhere to the bubbles (Jameson 2, [0003]). It is also of note that mechanical flotation machines offer much higher energy dissipation rates than do flotation columns (Jameson, [0080]) and high energy dissipation rates improves flotation of fine particles (Jameson, [0015]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20080251427A1 (‘Mankosa’) and U.S. Publication US20130341252A1 (‘Jameson’) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20130284642A1 (‘Teague’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a device.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Mankosa and Jameson teaches the flotation line of Claim 25, including a rougher part with a flotation cell (first flotation separation cell 10, Mankosa, Figs. 13-14), a scavenger part (second flotation separation cell 10, Mankosa, Figs. 13-14) with a flotation cell arranged to receive underflow from the rougher part, where the last flotation cell is a flotation cell according to Claim 1 (see analysis of Claim 1 and Mankosa, Figs. 13-14), except that the flotation line comprises a scavenger cleaner part with a flotation cell arranged to receive overflow from the scavenger part.
Teague teaches a scavenger cleaner part (cleaner flotation cell 240, [0049], Fig. 3) with a flotation cell arranged to receive overflow (concentrate 210, [0049], Fig. 3) from the scavenger part (scavenger 200, [0049], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a scavenger cleaner part with a flotation cell arranged to receive overflow from the scavenger part of the combination of Mankosa and Jameson, as demonstrated by Teague, in order to upgrade the concentrate grade and produce the final concentrate product (Teague, [0039] and [0049]) while recycling chemical additives that promote frothing and reducing materials cost of operation (Mankosa, [0090]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US2008025142A1 (‘Mankosa’), U.S. Publication US20130341252A1 (‘Jameson’) and U.S. Publication US20130284642A1 (‘Teague’) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20120061298A1 (‘Jameson 2’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a device.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Mankosa, Jameson and Teague teaches the flotation line of Claim 27.
However, the combination of Mankosa, Jameson and Teague as described in the analysis of Claim 27 does not include teaching that the flotation cell is preceded by a mechanical flotation cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flotation line of the combination of Mankosa, Jameson and Teague to have a mechanical flotation cell precede a flotation cell, as demonstrated by Teague, so that the impeller creates a turbulent circulating flow within the cell that serves to suspend the particles in the pulp and prevent them from settling in the vessel; to disperse a flow of gas that is introduced into the cell into small bubbles; and to cause the bubbles and particles to come into intimate contact, thereby allowing the hydrophobic particles in the pulp to adhere to the bubbles (Jameson 2, [0003]). It is also of note that mechanical flotation machines offer much higher energy dissipation rates than do flotation columns (Jameson, [0080]) and high energy dissipation rates improves flotation of fine particles (Jameson, [0015]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20080251427A1 (‘Mankosa’) and U.S. Publication US20130341252A1 (‘Jameson’) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20120061298A1 (‘Jameson 2’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a use.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Mankosa and Jameson teaches the use of Claim 31, except that particles are recovered from minerals having a Mohs hardness of 2 to 3, such as galena, sulfide minerals, PGMs and/or REO minerals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the flotation line of the combination of Mankosa and Jameson can be used to recover particles from minerals, such as galena (Jameson 2, [0078]) and sulfide (Jameson 2, [0005]), as demonstrated by Jameson 2, in order to recover floatable material (Jameson 2, [0078] and Mankosa, [0081]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20080251427A1 (‘Mankosa’), U.S. Publication US20130341252A1 (‘Jameson’) and U.S. Publication US20120061298A1 (‘Jameson 2’) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20030146135A1 (‘Gathje’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a use.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Mankosa, Jameson and Jameson 2 teaches the use of Claim 32, except recovering particles comprising Pt.
Gathje also relates to flotation (abstract), including recovering particles comprising Pt (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the flotation line of the combination of Mankosa, Jameson and Jameson 2 can be used to recover particles comprising Pt, as demonstrated by Gathje, as both involve a flotation line (see Mankosa, Figs. 13-14 and Gathje, Fig. 1) and use the same collectors (xanthate, Gathje, abstract and Mankosa, [0048]).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20080251427A1 (‘Mankosa’) and U.S. Publication US20130341252A1 (‘Jameson’) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20030146135A1 (‘Gathje’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a use.
Regarding Claims 34-35, the combination of Mankosa and Jameson teaches the use of Claim 31, except recovering particles comprising Cu from minerals having a Mohs hardness from 3 to 4.
Gathje also relates to flotation (abstract), including recovering particles comprising Cu (Gathje, [0036]) from minerals having a Mohs hardness from 3 to 4 (copper-containing sulfides, such as chalcopyrite (Gathje, [0036]) has a Mohs hardness of less than about 5 (Jamison, [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the flotation of the combination of Mankosa and Jameson can recover particles comprising Cu from minerals having a Mohs hardness from 3 to 4, as demonstrated by Gathje and Jamison, as the combination of Mankosa and Jameson and Gathje both involve a flotation line (see Mankosa, Figs. 13-14 and Gathje, Fig. 1) and use the same collectors (xanthate, Gathje, abstract and Mankosa, [0048]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 35: recovering particles comprising Cu (Gathje, [0004]) from low grade ore (Gathje, [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779