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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-3, 5, 11, 25, 54 and 57-58 in the reply filed on 3/14/24 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are directed to a process and apparatus for producing stackable tailings that form a single general inventive concept. This is found persuasive and the previous restriction between groups I and II is withdrawn and claims 12, 13, 24 and 26-27 will be examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 62 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 62 is directed to the method according to claim 12. Claim 12 is directed to a system. For examination purposes claim 61 is assumed to be directed to the system according to claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the dewatered tailings residue has a solid content of 75-90 wt%. Claim 63 then recites the dewatered tailings residue has a solid content of greater than 85 wt%, which is a broader range than that of claim 1, from which claim 63 depends. For examination purposes the dewatered tailings residue is assumed to have a solid content of 85-90 wt%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 61 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite the dewatered tailings residue has a solid content of 75-90 wt%. While the specification does not provide a precise definition of what solid content would be considered as a “stackable” tailing, paragraph 53 of the printed publication seems to indicate that the stackable tailings of the invention can have a solid content of 75-90 wt%. Therefore, the recitation of the tailings being stackable tailings does not appear to add any further limitation as the dewatered tailings residue, as defined in claims 1 and 12, would appear to inherently be stackable based on what the specification appears to teach.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 24, 26-27, 62 and 68-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregoli et al. US 5,316,664 in view of Jons et al. US 9,186,604.
Claims 12, 24 and 62, Gregoli teaches a system for producing dewatered tailings residue comprising: a hydrocyclonic separation unit (316, 318, 320 for subjecting tailings to hydrocyclonic separation to produce one or more partially dewatered underflows (317, 360, 380) and a final water rich overflow (326), separating the final water rich overflow, by a separating unit (338) into a recovered water stream (304) and a low water residue (340) and a mixer, the “T” pipe connection, for mixing together the low water residue and at least part of the one or more partially dewatered underflows to produce a dewatered tailings residue (fig. 18). The recitation of the waste material being the end result of a consecutive processing system in a mining operation is a recitation of the material worked on by the system and does not provide any further structural limitations to the system. The recitation of the dewatered tailings residue having a solid content of 75wt%-90wt% is a process limitation of the material worked on by the system but does not provide any further structural limitations to the system. Gregoli teaches the system is used at a mining location (col. 1) and therefore, any material worked on by the system would be the result of a mining operation. Gregoli does not teach the inlet pressure of the hydrocyclonic separation unit or a centrifuge unit.
The recitation of the inlet pressure of the hydrocyclonic separation unit appears to be a process limitation. However, Jons teaches a hydrocyclone with a feed inlet pressure ranging from 4-120psi (0.03-0.83MPa) (col. 5, lines 40-45). Jons teaches the feed inlet pressure can be optimized to create and maintain a vortex fluid flow within the chamber (col. 3, lines 59-65) and the feed inlet pressure of Jons overlaps with the recited range. [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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Gregoli teaches the separating units are hydrocyclones in figure 18. However, in a separate embodiment shown in figure 2, Gregoli teaches the use of a centrifuge (130) for final separation of water and solids. Thus, the substitution of a centrifuge for the hydrocyclones (338) would have been an obvious choice as Gregoli teaches a centrifuge for use in other embodiments. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, centrifuging tailings to separate water and solids is very common in the art and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The recitation of at least 96% of the solids contained in the final water rich overflow are recovered in the low water residue is a process limitation that does not provide any further structural limitations to the system.
Gregoli teaches the hydrocyclones (316) and (318) are able to produce an underflow having 60-90 wt% solids (col. 31) and hydrocyclones (320) are able to produce an underflow having 55-85 wt% solids (col. 32). Therefore, Gregoli teaches the partially dewatered underflows have a solid content within the range of 75-90wt% solids. Gregoli does not teach what the solid wt% of line (340), which would correspond to the recited low water residue. However, Gregoli teaches the centrifuge (130) can produce solids of 95-99 wt% water (col. 21). The combined underflow from hydrocyclones (320) and the lower water residue of the centrifuge would be able to produce a tailings residue with a solids content within the recited range, namely 85-90 wt%. A tailings residue within the recited range would be considered stackable tailings as would be readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 26, Gregoli further teaches pumping the dewatered tailings, via a pump (342, 322) fluidly coupled to a disposal site and configured for pumping the dewatered tailings residue to the disposal site (fig. 18); injecting air (at 314) into the tailings before the tailings are fed to the hydrocyclone (316) (fig. 18). Injecting the air at a pressure higher than the feed inlet pressure would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a pressure lower than the feed inlet pressure would not allow air to enter the feed stream. Gregoli further teaches injecting air within the recited range (col. 25, lines 23-42).
Claim 27, Gregoli teaches a pump but does not teach what kind of pump it is. Col. 30, lines 10-15 state that the coarser solids in line (380), absent essentially all fines and residual bitumen and water are pumped by pump (322) to disposal. Gregoli also states,
“While the foregoing general description of the preferred embodiment shown in FIG. 18 has been explained in detail, it is to be understood that ancillary elements and machinery such as pumps, intermediate tankage, valves, etc. are required for proper operation, and these ancillary items would be obvious to those skilled in the art.” Col. 32, lines 19-25.
The use of a positive displacement pump would have been an obvious choice of pump to one of ordinary skill in the art as such pumps are well-known in the art to pump very viscous liquids or large solids given that Gregoli states that the fluid being pumped has had essentially all of the water removed.
Claims 68-71 recite process limitations directed to the material worked on by the system that do not provide any further structural limitations to the system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregoli et al. US 5,316,664 in view of Jons et al. US 9,186,604 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. US 2015/0158032.
Gregoli in view of Jons teaches the system of claim 12 and further teaches the tailings are subjected to a plurality of stages but does not teach the overflow from one stage being input to a next stage.
Nelson teaches a system comprising: a hydrocyclone (220) capable of producing a partially dewatered underflow and a final water rich overflow, wherein the tailings are subjected to a plurality of hydrocyclonic stages including a first (220) and final stage (226), each stage in configured to separate an input into a dewatered underflow and a water rich overflow, in the input of the first stage comprising the tailings, the water rich overflow of each stage preceding the final stage being an input to a next adjacent stage and the final water rich overflow is the water rich overflow of the final stage (fig. 2a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the additional stages as claimed because the additional stages can increase volume by weight of suspended particulates within the overflow (paragraph 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gregoli does not teach the system utilizes a consecutive processing system in a mining operation. Where the waste comes from does not provide any further structural limitations to the recited system. Additionally, Gregoli teaches the system is used at a mining location to work on material that has been mined (col. 1), therefore, any material worked on by the system of Gregoli can be considered to be the end result of a processing system in a mining operation.
Applicant’s argument regarding the solid content recovered from the final water rich overflow is addressed in the body of the rejection above.
Applicant maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to reduce the feed inlet pressure to the preferred levels taught by Jons. The disclosure of Jons clearly states the inlet pressure may be optimized, regardless of what other structures may also be adjusted for optimization. Additionally, as stated above, Jons gives a preferred range of inlet pressures that overlaps with the recited range. For at least these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an inlet pressure within the recited range in view of the teachings of Jons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 25, 54, 57-58, 61 and 63-67 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art to Gregoli and Jons teaches as obvious the method of claim 1, as detailed in the previous office action but does not teach at least 96% of the solids contained in the final water rich overflow are recovered in the low water residue. While Gregoli teaches as obvious the use of a centrifuge which could possibly remove at least 96% of the solids contained in the final water rich overflow, Gregoli does not expressly state how much of the solids are removed and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed method.
The additional claims are allowed as depending from claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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 on 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778