DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 12/29/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18-22 and 24-26 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 26
Due to the Applicant’s amendments, the previous 35 USC § 112 rejection has been removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 16
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (pg. 8-9), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first concentration of dissolved monovalent salts of Hassan and the process of Cruz because some copper mining companies have installed desalination plants to ensure supplies of water of adequate quality to mining operations and enhance the performance of the froth flotation (Cruz, pg. 8916, right column, Pr2-3). Dissolved salts may have a major effect on flotation performance (Veki, pg. 40, last Pr-pg. 41, Pr1) and the concentrations of ions may build up even higher if an efficient water recirculation is designed at the mill site (Veki, pg. 41, Pr2 and pg. 38, Pr3). Furthermore, desalination may have initially higher investment costs, but seawater has a corrosive effect, due to chloride content (Veki, pg. 34. Note that Cruz focuses on removing divalent ions, Cruz, Fig. 5), leading to the ruining of equipment (Veki, pg. 32, Pr2-3).
The Applicant argues that neither Cruz nor Hassan discloses or suggests that nanofiltered water could be used in mining operations (pg. 9-10) as Cruz allegedly states that desalinated water, not nanofiltered water, is used in mining sites (pg. 10). This argument is unpersuasive because Veki teaches that desalinated water for beneficiation plants can be produced using membrane technologies (Veki, pg. 32).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (pg. 10), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Veki teaches that desalinated water for beneficiation plants can be produced using membrane technologies (Veki, pg. 32).
In response to applicant's argument that modifying Cruz to include the teachings of Hassan is unnecessary (pg. 9), 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).
The Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “performing a reverse osmosis process on a portion of the recovered water to form desalinated water, and mixing the desalinated water, the transported treated saline water and a second portion of the ore to extract the mineral from the second portion of the ore” (pg. 10). This is persuasive.
Response to Amendment
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Using Partial Desalination Treatment To Improve the Recovery of Copper and Molybdenum Minerals in the Chilean Mining Industry (‘Cruz’, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 8915−8922) in view of U.S. Patent US6508936B1 (‘Hassan’) and in further view of Publication The use of seawater as process water in concentration plant and the effects on the flotation performance of Cu-Mo ore (‘Veki’, Master’s thesis Degree Programme of Process Engineering, December 2013) and in further view of Publication Copper Tailing Flocculation in Seawater: Relating the Yield Stress with Fractal Aggregates at Varied Mixing Conditions (‘Jeldres’, Metals 2019, 9, 1295; doi:10.3390/met9121295) and in further view of Publication Zeta potential and viscosity of colloidal silica suspensions: Effect of seawater salts, pH, flocculant, and shear rate (‘Romero’, Colloids and Surfaces A 538 (2018) 210–218) and in further view of Publication A review of the effect of water quality on flotation (‘Liu’, Minerals Engineering 53 (2013) 91–100).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method (process).
Regarding Claims 1-10 and 12-15, Cruz teaches a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), the process comprising:
treating a saline source to reduce a concentration of one or more multivalent ions dissolved in the saline source by a treatment process to produce a treated saline water having (ii) a concentration of the one or more multivalent ions dissolved in the treated saline water that is reduced as compared to that of the saline source (pg. 8916, right column, Pr3);
transporting the treated saline water to an ore processing site (pg. 8916, Pr2-3);
performing a mineral recovery process that includes using a first volume of the transported treated saline water as a process water in a concentration operation to extract the mineral from a first portion of the ore (Figs. 6-7, section 3.2.2. Method) and to form a tailings stream (Figs. 6-7 and pg. 8917, left column, Pr1), wherein the concentration operation includes a flotation operation to extract the mineral (Figs. 6-7, section 3.2.2. Method); and
performing a liquid-solid separation operation to form a recovered water and a recovered solid (Figs. 6-7 and pg. 8917, left column, Pr1, dewatering).
Cruz does not teach nanofiltration, (i) a first concentration of dissolved monovalent salts of 0.5 to 3.5 wt%, having a second concentration of dissolved monovalent salts concentration of 0.5 to 2.9 wt%, and dosing the tailings stream with a polymer flocculant to form a treated tailings stream, wherein the treated tailings stream has a third concentration of the dissolved monovalent salts of 0.5 wt% or more, and wherein a dose of the polymer flocculant is not less than 0.005 wt%, and the polymer flocculant is an anionic polymer flocculant or a non-ionic polymer flocculant, performing a reverse osmosis process on a portion of the recovered water to form desalinated water; and mixing the desalinated water, the transported treated saline water, and a second portion of the ore to extract the mineral from the second portion of the ore.
Hassan teaches a treatment process including nanofiltration to produce a treated saline water having (i) a first concentration of dissolved monovalent salts of at least 0.5 to 3.5 wt% (C9, L46-55, NF treated seawater had an average of 27,782 ppm of TDS, or 2.78 wt% when converted).
Veki also relates to a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), comprising a tailings stream having a second concentration of dissolved monovalent salts concentration of 0.5 to 2.9 wt% (pg. 37, water is lost in different parts of the process plant).
Jeldres also relates to a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), comprising dosing the tailings stream with a polymer flocculant to form a treated tailings stream (pg. 4 of 12, section 2.2. Flocculation Test), wherein the treated tailings stream has a third concentration of the dissolved monovalent salts of 0.5 wt% or more (pg. 3 of 12, section 2.1. Materials), and wherein the polymer flocculant is an anionic polymer flocculant or a non-ionic polymer flocculant (pg. 2 of 12).
Romero also relates to a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), wherein a dose of the polymer flocculant is not less than 0.005 wt% (pg. 211, section 2.1. Materials).
Liu also relates to a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), including performing (Fig. 1, treatment) a reverse osmosis process on a portion of the recovered water (Fig. 1, section 2.1.2.2. Water external reuse, water recovered from tailings storage facilities) to form desalinated water (section 2.3.1. Internal solutions, treatment can include metal ion removal using membrane technologies); and mixing the desalinated water (Fig. 1), the transported treated saline water (Fig. 1, raw water stores. Note that raw water refers to water that has not been previously used for any purpose within the site, section 2 Existing research on water quality variation in flotation), and a second portion of the ore to extract the mineral from the second portion of the ore (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the nanofiltration of Hassan and the process of Cruz because some copper mining companies have installed desalination plants to ensure supplies of water of adequate quality to mining operations and enhance the performance of the froth flotation (Cruz, pg. 8916, right column, Pr2-3). Furthermore, seawater has a corrosive effect, due to chloride content (Veki, pg. 34. Note that Cruz focuses on removing divalent ions, Cruz, Fig. 5), leading to the ruining of equipment (Veki, pg. 32, Pr2-3). It would have been obvious that the tailings stream of Cruz and Hassan can have a second concentration of dissolved monovalent salts concentration of 0.5 to 2.9 wt% because water is lost during processing (Veki, pg. 37, Pr4). It would have been obvious to dose the tailings stream of Cruz, Hassan and Veki with a polymer flocculant, as demonstrated by Jeldres, to stimulate the decantation of solid particles and improve dewaterability (Jeldres, pg. 2 of 12, Pr1). It would have been obvious to choose a polymer flocculant dosage, such as the polymer flocculant dosages of Romero, in the process of Cruz, Hassan, Veki and Jeldres because viscosity of tailings increases with the dosage of flocculant (Romero, pg. 213, left column). It would have been obvious to perform reverse osmosis on a portion of the recovered water of Cruz, Hassan, Veki, Jeldres and Romero to remove metal ions (Liu, section 2.3.1. Internal solutions), which have negative effects on flotation (Liu, pg. 94-95, section 2.2.1.1. Negative effects), and because reverse osmosis, which can eliminate salts/ions (Veki, pg. 32 and 84), is the most widely used method in modern mineral beneficiation plants (Veki, pg. 32). It would have been obvious to mix the desalinated water of Liu and the transported treated saline water and second portion of the ore of Cruz, Hassan, Veki, Jeldres, Romero and Liu, as demonstrated by Liu, because using water recovered from tailings and other site water tasks in the concentrator is a common external reuse strategy (Liu, section 2.1.2.2. Water external reuse) to improve water efficiency (Liu, pg. 91) and to save freshwater (Liu, abstract). Furthermore, residue reagents brought to flotation circuits through water external reuse allows retention of some reagents and therefore lowers reagent consumption (Liu, pg. 2.2.2.2. Positive effects).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: wherein the one or more multivalent ions include one or more selected from the group consisting of a calcium ion, a magnesium ion, and a sulfate ion, and wherein treating the saline source reduces the concentration of the one or more multivalent ions to no more than about 200 ppm in the treated saline water (Hassan, C9, L1-39).
Claim 3: wherein the polymer flocculant includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a polyacrylamide (Jeldres, pg. 2 of 12, Pr2), a copolymer thereof (Jeldres, pg. 6 of 12, last Pr), a polyamine, polyethyleneimine, a polydicyandiamide, a copolymer thereof, a polyamide-coamine, a polyethylene oxide, and a copolymer.
Claim 4: polymer flocculant is a non-ionic polymer flocculant (Jeldres, pg. 2 of 12, Pr2, polyacrylamide).
Claim 5: the third concentration of dissolved monovalent salts is 0.5 to 2.5 wt% (Hassan, C9, L1-29, see row TDS (ppm). Veki, pg. 37, water is lost in different parts of the process plant).
Claim 6: separating the recovered water from the recovered solid and cycling at least a portion of the separated recovered water to the concentration operation (Cruz, Figs. 6-7 and pg. 8917, left column, Pr1, dewatering).
Claims 7-9: separating the recovered water from the recovered solid (Veki, pg. 36, last Pr-pg.37, Pr1) and purifying at least a portion of the separated recovered water (Liu, Fig. 1, treatment. Liu, pg. 92, section 2.1. Causes of water quality variation, water recovered from concentrate thickening also leads to the Worked water stores, and subsequentially Treatment),
treating at least a portion of the separated recovered water by nanofiltration to reduce a fourth concentration of one or more multivalent ions (Liu, section 2.3.1. Internal solutions, treatment can include metal ion removal using membrane technologies),
to reduce a fourth concentration of the one or more multivalent ions to no more than 200 ppm in the treated recovered water (Hassan, C9/L1-39) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat at least a portion of the separated recovered water by nanofiltration to separate fine solids and remove ions (Veki, pg. 32, Pr4-5) as these can be propagated to the concentrator through water external reuse and may cause initial processing issues, eventually becoming water quality issues (Liu, section 2.1.2.2. Water external reuse)).
Claim 10: the recovered solid has a solids content of 50% by weight to 80% by weight (Veki, pg. 36, last Pr-pg. 37, Pr1).
Claim 12: wherein the mineral includes a copper-based mineral, and wherein the concentration operation extracts the copper-based mineral from the ore by the flotation operation (Cruz, abstract).
Claim 13: the saline source comprises seawater (Cruz, abstract).
Claim 14: the treatment process treats from 30 m3/hr to 500 m3/hr of the saline source to remove the one or more multivalent ions dissolved in the saline source to produce the treated saline water (A single nanofiltration module, a nanofiltration filter containing five nanofiltration modules (Hassan, C9, L1-29, Table 3, columns NF Filtrate (1 module) and NF Filter (5 modules)), and nanofiltration plants possessing 1480 modules (Hassan, C12, L23-54), where each module receives a sea water feed of approximately 30-35 liters/minute (Hassan, Fig. 3, or 1.8-2.1 m3/hr, when converted). This results in feed water treatment rates of 1.8-2.1 m3/hr and 9-10.5 m3/hr for a single nanofiltration module and a nanofiltration filter containing five nanofiltration modules, respectively, and the nanofiltration plants possessing 1480 modules receive 6760 m3/hr sea water feed (Hassan, C11, L42-54)).
Claim 15: the first concentration of dissolved monovalent salts is l wt% to 2.9 wt% (Hassan, C9, L46-55).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Using Partial Desalination Treatment To Improve the Recovery of Copper and Molybdenum Minerals in the Chilean Mining Industry (‘Cruz’, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 8915−8922) in view of U.S. Patent US6508936B1 (‘Hassan’) and in further view of Publication The use of seawater as process water in concentration plant and the effects on the flotation performance of Cu-Mo ore (‘Veki’, Master’s thesis Degree Programme of Process Engineering, December 2013) and in further view of Publication A review of the effect of water quality on flotation (‘Liu’, Minerals Engineering 53 (2013) 91–100).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method (process).
Regarding Claims 16 and 20, Cruz teaches a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), the process comprising:
treating a saline source to reduce a concentration of one or more multivalent ions dissolved in the saline source by a treatment process to produce a treated saline water having (ii) a concentration of the one or more multivalent ions dissolved in the treated saline water that is reduced as compared to that of the saline source (pg. 8916, right column, Pr3);
transporting the treated saline water to an ore processing site (pg. 8916, Pr2-3); and
performing a mineral recovery process that includes using a first volume of the transported treated saline water as a process water in a flotation operation to extract the mineral from the ore (Figs. 6-7, section 3.2.2. Method) and to form a tailings stream (Figs. 6-7 and pg. 8917, left column, Pr1),
performing a liquid-solid separation operation to form a recovered water and a recovered solid (Figs. 6-7 and pg. 8917, left column, Pr1, dewatering).
Cruz does not teach nanofiltration, (i) a first concentration of dissolved monovalent salts of 0.5 to 3.5 wt%, a second concentration of dissolved monovalent salts concentration of 0.5 to 2.9 wt%, performing a reverse osmosis process on a portion of the recovered water to form desalinated water; and mixing the desalinated water, the transported treated saline water, and a second portion of the ore to extract the mineral from the second portion of the ore.
Hassan teaches a treatment process including nanofiltration to produce a treated saline water having (i) a first concentration of dissolved monovalent salts of at least 0.5 to 3.5 wt% (C9, L46-55, NF treated seawater had an average of 27,782 ppm of TDS, or 2.78 wt% when converted).
Veki also relates to a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), comprising a tailings stream having a second concentration of dissolved monovalent salts concentration of 0.5 to 2.9 wt% (pg. 37, water is lost in different parts of the process plant).
Liu also relates to a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), including performing (Fig. 1, treatment) a reverse osmosis process on a portion of the recovered water (Fig. 1, section 2.1.2.2. Water external reuse, water recovered from tailings storage facilities) to form desalinated water (section 2.3.1. Internal solutions, treatment can include metal ion removal using membrane technologies); and
mixing the desalinated water (Fig. 1), the transported treated saline water (Fig. 1, raw water stores. Note that raw water refers to water that has not been previously used for any purpose within the site, section 2 Existing research on water quality variation in flotation), and a second portion of the ore to extract the mineral from the second portion of the ore (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the nanofiltration of Hassan and the process of Cruz because some copper mining companies have installed desalination plants to ensure supplies of water of adequate quality to mining operations and enhance the performance of the froth flotation (Cruz, pg. 8916, right column, Pr2-3). Furthermore, seawater has a corrosive effect, due to chloride content (Veki, pg. 34. Note that Cruz focuses on removing divalent ions, Cruz, Fig. 5), leading to the ruining of equipment (Veki, pg. 32, Pr2-3). It would have been obvious that the tailings stream of Cruz and Hassan can have a second concentration of dissolved monovalent salts concentration of 0.5 to 2.9 wt% because water is lost during processing (Veki, pg. 37, Pr4). It would have been obvious to perform reverse osmosis on a portion of the recovered water of Cruz, Hassan and Veki to remove metal ions (Liu, section 2.3.1. Internal solutions), which have negative effects on flotation (Liu, pg. 94-95, section 2.2.1.1. Negative effects), and because reverse osmosis, which can eliminate salts/ions (Veki, pg. 32 and 84), is the most widely used method in modern mineral beneficiation plants (Veki, pg. 32). It would have been obvious to mix the desalinated water of Liu and the transported treated saline water and second portion of the ore of Cruz, Hassan, Veki and Liu, as demonstrated by Liu, because using water recovered from tailings and other site water tasks in the concentrator is a common external reuse strategy (Liu, section 2.1.2.2. Water external reuse) to improve water efficiency (Liu, pg. 91) and to save freshwater (Liu, abstract). Furthermore, residue reagents brought to flotation circuits through water external reuse allows retention of some reagents and therefore lowers reagent consumption (Liu, pg. 2.2.2.2. Positive effects).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 20: treating the saline source to reduce a concentration of one or more multivalent ions selected from among calcium, magnesium and sulfate ions and reducing the concentration of the one or more multivalent ions to no more than 500 ppm in the treated saline water (Hassan, C9, L1-39).
Claims 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Using Partial Desalination Treatment To Improve the Recovery of Copper and Molybdenum Minerals in the Chilean Mining Industry (‘Cruz’, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 8915−8922), U.S. Patent US6508936B1 (‘Hassan’), Publication The use of seawater as process water in concentration plant and the effects on the flotation performance of Cu-Mo ore (‘Veki’, Master’s thesis Degree Programme of Process Engineering, December 2013) and Publication A review of the effect of water quality on flotation (‘Liu’, Minerals Engineering 53 (2013) 91–100) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Publication Copper Tailing Flocculation in Seawater: Relating the Yield Stress with Fractal Aggregates at Varied Mixing Conditions (‘Jeldres’, Metals 2019, 9, 1295; doi:10.3390/met9121295).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method (process).
Regarding Claims 18, the combination of Cruz, Hassan, Veki and Liu teaches the process of Claim 16, except dosing the tailings stream with a polymer flocculant to form a treated tailings stream.
Jeldres also relates to a process of extracting a mineral from an ore (abstract), comprising dosing the tailings stream with a polymer flocculant to form a treated tailings stream (pg. 4 of 12, section 2.2. Flocculation Test), wherein the treated tailings stream has a third concentration of the dissolved monovalent salts of 0.5 wt% or more (pg. 3 of 12, section 2.1. Materials), and wherein the polymer flocculant is an anionic polymer flocculant or a non-ionic polymer flocculant (pg. 2 of 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dose the tailings stream of the combination of Cruz, Hassan, Veki and Liu with a polymer flocculant, as demonstrated by Jeldres, to stimulate the decantation of solid particles and improve dewaterability (Jeldres, pg. 2 of 12, Pr1).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 19: separating the recovered water from the recovered solid and cycling at least a portion of the separated recovered water to the flotation operation (Cruz, Figs. 6-7 and pg. 8917, left column, Pr1, dewatering).
Claim 21: wherein the polymer flocculant includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a polyacrylamide (Jeldres, pg. 2 of 12, Pr2), a copolymer thereof (Jeldres, pg. 6 of 12, last Pr), a polyamine, a quaternized form thereof, polyethyleneimine, polydiallyldimethyl ammonium chloride, a copolymer thereof, a polydicyandiamide, a copolymer thereof, a polyamide-coamine, a sulfonated polystyrene, a polyethylene oxide, and a copolymer.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Using Partial Desalination Treatment To Improve the Recovery of Copper and Molybdenum Minerals in the Chilean Mining Industry (‘Cruz’, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 8915−8922), U.S. Patent US6508936B1 (‘Hassan’), Publication The use of seawater as process water in concentration plant and the effects on the flotation performance of Cu-Mo ore (‘Veki’, Master’s thesis Degree Programme of Process Engineering, December 2013), Publication A review of the effect of water quality on flotation (‘Liu’, Minerals Engineering 53 (2013) 91–100) and Publication Copper Tailing Flocculation in Seawater: Relating the Yield Stress with Fractal Aggregates at Varied Mixing Conditions (‘Jeldres’, Metals 2019, 9, 1295; doi:10.3390/met9121295) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Publication Zeta potential and viscosity of colloidal silica suspensions: Effect of seawater salts, pH, flocculant, and shear rate (‘Romero’, Colloids and Surfaces A 538 (2018) 210–218).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method (process).
Regarding Claims 22 and 24, the combination of Cruz, Hassan, Veki, Liu and Jeldres teaches the process of Claim 18, including that the dissolved monovalent salts include sodium chloride and potassium chloride (Hassan, C9, L1-50) and first concentration of dissolved monovalent salts is 0.5 wt% to 2.9 wt% (Hassan, C9, L1-39), except that a weight of the polymer flocculant to a weight of solids in the tailings stream is not less than 0.005 wt%.
Romero teaches a weight of the polymer flocculant to a weight of solids in the tailings stream is not less than 0.005 wt% (pg. 211, section 2.1. Materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a polymer flocculant dosage, such as the polymer flocculant dosages of Romero, in the process of the combination of Cruz, Hassan, Veki, Liu and Jeldres because viscosity of tailings increases with the dosage of flocculant (Romero, pg. 213, left column).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication Using Partial Desalination Treatment To Improve the Recovery of Copper and Molybdenum Minerals in the Chilean Mining Industry (‘Cruz’, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 8915−8922), U.S. Patent US6508936B1 (‘Hassan’), Publication The use of seawater as process water in concentration plant and the effects on the flotation performance of Cu-Mo ore (‘Veki’, Master’s thesis Degree Programme of Process Engineering, December 2013), Publication Copper Tailing Flocculation in Seawater: Relating the Yield Stress with Fractal Aggregates at Varied Mixing Conditions (‘Jeldres’, Metals 2019, 9, 1295; doi:10.3390/met9121295), Publication Zeta potential and viscosity of colloidal silica suspensions: Effect of seawater salts, pH, flocculant, and shear rate (‘Romero’, Colloids and Surfaces A 538 (2018) 210–218) and Publication A review of the effect of water quality on flotation (‘Liu’, Minerals Engineering 53 (2013) 91–100) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Publication Ground Water in Freshwater-Saltwater Environments of the Atlantic Coast (‘Barlow’, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1262).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method (process).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Cruz, Hassan, Veki, Jeldres, Romero and Liu teaches the process of Claim 1, including that the saline source is a natural body of water (Cruz, abstract) having dissolved monovalent salts and dissolved multivalent ion salts (Cruz, pg. 8917, right column, Table 1), wherein the one or more multivalent ions include calcium ions and magnesium ions, wherein the monovalent salts include sodium ions and chloride ions (Cruz, pg. 8917, right column, Table 1), wherein the liquid-solid separation operation includes one or more selected from decanting (Veki, pg. 36, water is clarified in a tailings dram by settling then water is recycled back to the industrial water pond), plate-and-frame pressing, separating by hydrocyclones, and gravity draining in flumes, wherein the first concentration of dissolved monovalent salts is 0.5 wt% to 2.9 wt% (Hassan, C9, L1-55), except a total dissolved salt content of 0.5-3 wt%.
Barlow teaches a natural body of water having dissolved monovalent salts and dissolved multivalent ion salts with a total dissolved salt content of 0.5-3 wt% (pg. 10, left column, Pr1, total dissolved solids ranging from about 1,000 to 35,000 mg/L).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the saline source of the combination of Cruz, Hassan, Veki, Jeldres, Romero and Liu can have a total dissolved salt content of 0.5-3 wt%, as demonstrated by Barlow, due to mixing of freshwater and saltwater (Barlow, pg. 10. Note that Veki teaches that sources for plant water include seawater, surface water and ground water (Veki, pg. 35, last Pr)).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 26: the polymer flocculant includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a polyacrylamide (Jeldres, pg. 2 of 12, Pr2) and a copolymer thereof (Jeldres, pg. 6 of 12, last Pr), and
wherein the saline source comprises seawater (Cruz, abstract).
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 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