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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06 MARCH 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1-4, the cancellation of claims 12-20, and the addition of new claims 21-29 have been acknowledged.
Pending Claims: 1-11 and 21-29
Cancelled Claims: 12-20
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 MARCH 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 1 and thus all dependent claims, that Rothman does not teach a combination of a blend of an organic solvent and a surfactant to remove mineral particles from a functionalized coating of a surface of loaded engineering media. Therefore, instant claim 1 and all dependent claims are now allowable (Arguments filed 06 MARCH 2026, Pages 9-13).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim 1 and all dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a releasing mechanism arranged to provide a force to disrupt the chemical bond between the mineral particles and the surface” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification, listed as a stirrer, a sonic source, a heat source, and/or a light beam (Page 5, Lines 6-7) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “loaded engineering media” in line 5 of the claim should read “the loaded engineering media” due to the reference that was added in the preamble of the claim.
In Claim 1, “mineral particles” twice in lines 5-6 and in line 16 of the claim should read “the mineral particles”.
In Claim 25, “loaded engineering media” in line 4 of the claim should read “the loaded engineering media”.
In Claim 25, “mineral particles” in lines 4-5 of the claim should read “the mineral particles”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 22-23 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “the releasing agent has a dynamic surface tension that is less than 45 dynes”, and the claim also recites “including less than 35 dynes” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “the releasing agent has a dynamic surface tension that is less than 35 dynes”, and the claim also recites “including less than 35 dynes at 10 milliseconds (ms)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 21, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman et al, US Patent No. US 20170232451 A1 (hereinafter Rothman) in view of Rohde et al, US Patent Application No. US 20180369834 A1 (hereinafter Rohde).
Regarding Claim 1, Rothman teaches a bead recovery processor (i.e., an apparatus for removing and recovering mineral particles from loaded engineering media in a mining operation comprising a body; Fig. 1, #50) with a flotation cell or column (i.e., having a lower portion; Fig. 1, #54), a top part (i.e., and an upper portion; Fig. 1, #57; Paragraphs 0213-0214) with reclaimed water recirculating (Fig. 1, #64) within the processor (i.e., and configured to contain an aqueous solution; Paragraph 0215),
piping to receive enriched polymer bubbles or beads (i.e., a first input configured to receive the loaded engineering media; Fig. 1, #56) with valuable material attached thereon (Paragraph 0213), wherein the valuable material is minerals and the beads are synthetic and comprise a functional group for attracting and attaching the mineral particles to the molecules and beads (i.e., having the mineral particles attached thereto in the aqueous solution, the loaded engineered media comprising engineered media, each of the engineered media made of synthetic material having a surface with a functionalized coating to attract and attach the mineral particles to the surface; Paragraph 0045),
suitable piping for providing reclaimed water (Fig. 1, #64) back to the column where the column contains a release rich environment (Fig. 1, #54; Paragraph 0214) wherein the release rich environment contains a surfactant (i.e., a second input configured to receive a releasing agent in the aqueous solution, the releasing agent having a surfactant; Paragraphs 0041, 0168, 0172),
a reclaimed polymer bubble or bead outlet (i.e., a first output located on the upper portion configured to discharge recovered engineered media from the body; Fig. 1, #52),
and piping to provide concentrated minerals to a thickener (i.e., a second output located on the lower portion configured to discharge a concentrate having the mineral particles from the body; the concentrate comprises the mineral particles removed; Fig. 1, #58 Paragraphs 0213-0215),
wherein the surfactant is used in the release rich environment to detach the mineral particles from the engineered collection media in combination with sonic agitation by interfering with the adhesive bond between the particles and the surface (i.e., the releasing agent removing the mineral particles from the functionalized coating of the surface of the engineered media to provide the recovered engineering media discharged from the first output and provide the mineral particles in the concentrate discharged from the second output; Paragraphs 0038-0043; Paragraphs 0241-0242).
Rothman further teaches that the coating may comprises polysiloxanates/polysiloxane derivatives (Paragraphs 0011, 0183) and that a core of the material may be a magnetic material such as magnetite (Paragraph 0105) and the interrupting step can include magnetic stirring (Paragraph 0052) or the application of electromagnetic waves to interrupt the bonds between the engineered media and the mineral particles (Paragraph 0065).
Rothman does not teach wherein the releasing agent has a combination or blend of an organic solvent and a surfactant.
However, Rohde teaches the contacting of a hydrophobized material with a hydrophobized magnetic particle to create a magnetic agglomerate in a dispersion, subject this dispersion to flotation to separate the magnetic agglomerate, and then disaggregating the magnetic agglomerate and using a magnetic field to separate the hydrophobized magnetic particle from the hydrophobized material (Paragraphs 0021-0025),
wherein the hydrophobized magnetic particle includes magnetite (Paragraphs 0115-0116) and a coating on the surface (Paragraph 0172) that includes coatings of polysiloxanes (Paragraph 0134) which attracts and attaches to the hydrophobized material by a combination of hydrophobic interactions and magnetic forces (Paragraph 0066),
in which the disaggregation is carried out by contacting the magnetic agglomerate with a substance consisting of a mixture of organic solvents and surface-active compounds in a mixture of water (i.e., a releasing agent having a combination of an organic solvent and a surfactant; Paragraphs 0235-0242)
for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the separation process by improving the yield of the valuable matter (Paragraph 0014).
Rohde is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a flotation process for the recovery of valuable minerals (Abstract; Paragraphs 0001-0015, 0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the releasing agent as taught by Rothman to be a combination of an organic solvent and a surfactant as taught by Rohde because the combination would improve the yield of the valuable minerals.
Regarding Claim 3, Rothman further teaches that the initial mixture for the first column is made up of water, valuable material, and unwanted material (Paragraph 0207) which then receives synthetic bubbles or beads that attach to the valuable material and form enriched synthetic bubbles or beads (Paragraph 0207) which then feed the bead recovery processor and maintain the aforementioned water (i.e., wherein the loaded engineering media are mixed with the aqueous solution in the body; Paragraph 0213).
Regarding Claim 5, Rothman further teaches that the releasing apparatus may include a stirrer configured to provide mechanical agitation so as to interrupt the chemical bond of the functional group (i.e., a releasing mechanism arranged to provide a force to disrupt the chemical bond between the mineral particles and the surface; Paragraph 0035).
Regarding Claim 6, Rothman further teaches that the releasing apparatus may include a stirrer configured to provide mechanical agitation so as to interrupt the chemical bond of the functional group (i.e., wherein the releasing mechanism is selected from a stirrer, a sonic source, a heat source, and a light beam; Paragraph 0035).
Regarding Claim 7, Rothman further teaches that the engineered collection media may include a coating configured with a hydrophobic chemical selected from a group consisting of polysiloxanates, poly(dimethylsiloxane) and fluoroalkylsilane (i.e., wherein the surface has a coating for providing the molecules, and the coating is made of a hydrophobic material selected from poly(dimethylsiloxane), polysiloxanates and fluoroalkylsilane; Paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 8, Rothman further teaches that the engineered collection media comprises a solid phase body (Paragraph 0038) that may comprise plastic, ceramic, carbon fiber or metal (i.e., wherein the synthetic material comprises a polymer-based material, silica-based material or ceramic-based material; Paragraph 0163).
Regarding Claim 9, Rothman further teaches that the synthetic beads are made from a low-density material so as to be buoyant when submerged in the mixture (i.e., wherein the engineered media comprise synthetic beads having the surface, and wherein the synthetic beads are made of a material having a density smaller than density of water; Paragraph 0085).
Regarding Claim 10, Rothman further teaches that the engineered collection media comprises a solid phase body (Paragraph 0038) where the solid-phase body is configured with a three-dimensional open-cell structure to provide a plurality of collection surfaces (Paragraph 0157) that may comprise polyurethane, polyester urethane, polyether urethane, reinforced urethanes, PVC coated PV, silicone, polychloroprene, polyisocyanurate, polystyrene, polyolefin, polyvinylchloride, epoxy, latex, fluoropolymer, polypropylene, phenolic, EPDM, and nitrile (i.e., wherein the surface of the engineered media comprises a three-dimensional open-cell structure, and the engineered media is made of a material selected from the group consisting of polyester urethanes, polyether urethanes, reinforced urethanes, composites like PVC coated PU, carbon fiber foams and hard plastics; Paragraph 0159).
Regarding Claim 11, Rothman further teaches a functionalized coated conveyor belt (i.e., wherein the engineered media comprise one or more moving conveyor belts; Fig. 18, #420; Paragraph 0167) which is configured to attach the valuable material in a first processor (Fig. 18, #402) and release the valuable material in a second processor (i.e., having the surface; Fig. 18, #404) by mechanical agitation such as a brush or stirring (i.e., and the releasing mechanism comprises a brush arranged to contact the surface to provide the force to disrupt the chemical bond; Paragraphs 0167-170).
Regarding Claim 21, Rohde further teaches that the disaggregation step uses a substance consisting of organic solvents (i.e., wherein the organic solvent comprises a pure organic solvent or organic solvent blends; Paragraph 0238).
Regarding Claim 24, Rothman further teaches that electromagnetic waves may be used to weaken or interrupt the bonds between the valuable material and the surface of the engineered collection medium (i.e., wherein the releasing agent is configured to remove the particles from the functionalized coating of the surface to provide the recovered engineering media without the need for mechanical agitation; Paragraphs 0065-0066).
Regarding Claim 25, Rothman teaches a bead recovery processor (i.e., a flotation tank or cell for removing and recovering mineral particles from loaded engineering media in a mining operation comprising a cell body; Fig. 1, #50) with a flotation cell or column (Fig. 1, #54), a top part (Fig. 1, #57; Paragraphs 0213-0214) with reclaimed water recirculating (Fig. 1, #64) within the processor (i.e., configured to contain an aqueous solution; Paragraph 0215),
piping to receive enriched polymer bubbles or beads (i.e., a first input configured to receive the loaded engineering media; Fig. 1, #56) with valuable material attached thereon (Paragraph 0213), wherein the valuable material is minerals and the beads are synthetic and comprise a functional group for attracting and attaching the mineral particles to the molecules and beads (i.e., having the mineral particles attached thereto in the aqueous solution, the loaded engineered media comprising engineered media, each of the engineered media made of synthetic material having a surface with a functionalized coating to attract and attach the mineral particles to the surface; Paragraph 0045),
suitable piping for providing reclaimed water (Fig. 1, #64) back to the column where the column contains a release rich environment (Fig. 1, #54; Paragraph 0214) wherein the release rich environment contains a surfactant (i.e., a second input configured to receive a releasing agent in the aqueous solution, the releasing agent having a surfactant; Paragraphs 0041, 0168, 0172),
wherein the surfactant is used in the release rich environment to detach the mineral particles from the engineered collection media in combination with sonic agitation by interfering with the adhesive bond between the particles and the surface (i.e., the releasing agent configured to remove the mineral particles from the functionalized coating of the surface of the engineered media; Paragraphs 0038-0043; Paragraphs 0241-0242),
a reclaimed polymer bubble or bead outlet (i.e., to provide recovered engineered media for discharging from a first output of the cell body; Fig. 1, #52),
and piping to provide concentrated minerals to a thickener (i.e., and provide the mineral particles in a concentrate for discharging from a second output of the cell body; Fig. 1, #58 Paragraphs 0213-0215).
Rothman further teaches that the coating may comprises polysiloxanates/polysiloxane derivatives (Paragraphs 0011, 0183) and that a core of the material may be a magnetic material such as magnetite (Paragraph 0105) and the interrupting step can include magnetic stirring (Paragraph 0052) or the application of electromagnetic waves to interrupt the bonds between the engineered media and the mineral particles (Paragraph 0065).
Rothman does not teach wherein the releasing agent has a combination or blend of an organic solvent and a surfactant.
However, Rohde teaches the contacting of a hydrophobized material with a hydrophobized magnetic particle to create a magnetic agglomerate in a dispersion, subject this dispersion to flotation to separate the magnetic agglomerate, and then disaggregating the magnetic agglomerate and using a magnetic field to separate the hydrophobized magnetic particle from the hydrophobized material (Paragraphs 0021-0025),
wherein the hydrophobized magnetic particle includes magnetite (Paragraphs 0115-0116) and a coating on the surface (Paragraph 0172) that includes coatings of polysiloxanes (Paragraph 0134) which attracts and attaches to the hydrophobized material by a combination of hydrophobic interactions and magnetic forces (Paragraph 0066),
in which the disaggregation is carried out by contacting the magnetic agglomerate with a substance consisting of a mixture of organic solvents and surface-active compounds in a mixture of water (i.e., a releasing agent having a combination of an organic solvent and a surfactant; Paragraphs 0235-0242)
for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the separation process by improving the yield of the valuable matter (Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the releasing agent as taught by Rothman to be a combination of an organic solvent and a surfactant as taught by Rohde because the combination would improve the yield of the valuable minerals.
Regarding Claim 26, Rohde further teaches that the disaggregation step uses a substance consisting of organic solvents (i.e., wherein the organic solvent comprises a pure organic solvent or organic solvent blends; Paragraph 0238).
Regarding Claim 28, Rohde further teaches wherein nonionic surfactants are preferable (i.e., wherein the surfactant comprises a non-ionic surfactant; Paragraph 0241).
Claims 2, 4, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman in view of Rohde as applied to claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of Domke et al, US Patent No. US 8475662 B2 (hereinafter Domke).
Regarding Claim 2, Rothman in view of Rohde does not teach wherein the organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of hexane, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone, cyclohexane, tetrahydrofuran, i-nonyl alcohol, i-decyl alcohol, 2-butoxy ethanol and toluene, or a combination thereof.
However, Domke teaches the contacting of a material with a magnetic particle to create a magnetic aggregate in a dispersion medium, separation of the magnetic agglomerate form the dispersion, and then disaggregating the magnetic agglomerate with a second dispersion medium and using a magnetic field to separate the magnetic particle from the material (Col. 1, Lines 9-46),
wherein the hydrophobized magnetic particle includes magnetite (Col. 4, Lines 38-52) and a hydrophobized on the surface (Col. 4, Line 66 to Col. 5, Line 2) that includes polysiloxanes (Col. 5, Lines 33-40) which attracts and attaches to the hydrophobized material by a combination of hydrophobic interactions and magnetic forces (Col. 5, Lines 62-67),
in which organic solvents such as isopropanol and toluene (i.e., wherein the organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of isopropyl alcohol and toluene; Col. 10, Lines 43-51)
for the purpose of providing a sufficiently hydrophobic environment such that the bonding forces between the material and magnetic particle can no longer occur (Col. 10, Lines 38-42).
Domke is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the separation of minerals from ores (Col. 3, Line 37 to Col. 4, Line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the releasing agent made obvious by Rothman in view of Rohde with toluene as taught by Domke because toluene would provide a sufficiently hydrophobic environment to disrupt the bonds between the minerals and functionalized particles.
Regarding Claim 4, Rohde further teaches wherein nonionic surfactants are preferable (i.e., wherein the surfactant comprises a non-ionic surfactant in the aqueous solution; Paragraph 0241).
Rothman in view of Rohde does not teach wherein the nonionic surfactant is selected from alkoxylated alcohols, Guerbet alcohols and their alkoxylates, glycol ethers, copolymers of polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol and acetylenic diols and their alkoxylates, and polyether modified-silicones.
However, Domke teaches that the surfactant in aqueous solution is nonionic and selected from alkylethoxylates and alkylalkoxyethoxylates for the purpose of weakening or completely stopping the interaction between the material and magnetic particles (i.e., wherein the nonionic surfactant is selected from alkoxylated alcohols; Col. 10, Line 61 to Col. 12, Line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the releasing agent made obvious by Rothman in view of Rohde with alkylethoxylates as taught by Domke because alkylethoxylates would provide a weaken or completely stop the interaction between the material and functionalized particles.
Regarding Claim 27, Rothman in view of Rohde does not teach wherein the organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of hexane, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone, cyclohexane, tetrahydrofuran, i-nonyl alcohol, i-decyl alcohol, 2-butoxy ethanol and toluene, or a combination thereof.
However, Domke teaches the contacting of a material with a magnetic particle to create a magnetic aggregate in a dispersion medium, separation of the magnetic agglomerate form the dispersion, and then disaggregating the magnetic agglomerate with a second dispersion medium and using a magnetic field to separate the magnetic particle from the material (Col. 1, Lines 9-46),
wherein the hydrophobized magnetic particle includes magnetite (Col. 4, Lines 38-52) and a hydrophobized on the surface (Col. 4, Line 66 to Col. 5, Line 2) that includes polysiloxanes (Col. 5, Lines 33-40) which attracts and attaches to the hydrophobized material by a combination of hydrophobic interactions and magnetic forces (Col. 5, Lines 62-67),
in which organic solvents such as isopropanol and toluene (i.e., wherein the organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of isopropyl alcohol and toluene; Col. 10, Lines 43-51)
for the purpose of providing a sufficiently hydrophobic environment such that the bonding forces between the material and magnetic particle can no longer occur (Col. 10, Lines 38-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the releasing agent made obvious by Rothman in view of Rohde with toluene as taught by Domke because toluene would provide a sufficiently hydrophobic environment to disrupt the bonds between the minerals and functionalized particles.
Regarding Claim 29, Rohde further teaches wherein nonionic surfactants are preferable (i.e., wherein the surfactant comprises a non-ionic surfactant in the aqueous solution; Paragraph 0241).
Rothman in view of Rohde does not teach wherein the nonionic surfactant is selected from alkoxylated alcohols, Guerbet alcohols and their alkoxylates, glycol ethers, copolymers of polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol and acetylenic diols and their alkoxylates, and polyether modified-silicones.
However, Domke teaches that the surfactant in aqueous solution is nonionic and selected from alkylethoxylates and alkylalkoxyethoxylates for the purpose of weakening or completely stopping the interaction between the material and magnetic particles (i.e., wherein the nonionic surfactant is selected from alkoxylated alcohols; Col. 10, Line 61 to Col. 12, Line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the releasing agent made obvious by Rothman in view of Rohde with alkylethoxylates as taught by Domke because alkylethoxylates would provide a weaken or completely stop the interaction between the material and functionalized particles.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman in view of Rohde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryan, International Patent Application No. WO 2018183244 A1 (hereinafter Ryan).
Regarding Claim 22, Rothman in view of Rohde does not teach wherein the releasing agent has a dynamic surface tension that is less than 45 dynes, including less than 35 dynes.
However, Ryan teaches that using a mixture of a surfactant and organic solvent to remove mineral particles from a hydrophobic surface and for effective wetting of the surface (Page 14, Lines 20 to Page 15, Line 8) wherein low surface tension is useful for efficient removal of particles from hydrophobic surfaces with dynamic surface tension examples of near zero, 6, 8, and 22.5 dynes/cm being desirable (i.e., wherein the releasing agent has a dynamic surface tension that is less than 45 dynes, including less than 35 dynes; Page 16, Lines 11-20).
Ryan is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the stripping of mineral particles from hydrophobic collection surfaces (Abstract) such as in a flotation process (Page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the releasing agent made obvious by Rothman in view of Rohde with the dynamic surface tension as taught by Ryan because the dynamic surface tension would efficiently remove particles from hydrophobic surfaces while also effectively wetting the surface of the particles.
Regarding Claim 23, Rothman in view of Rohde does not teach wherein the releasing agent has a dynamic surface tension that is less than 35 dynes, including less than 35 dynes at 10 milliseconds (ms).
However, Ryan teaches that using a mixture of a surfactant and organic solvent to remove mineral particles from a hydrophobic surface and for effective wetting of the surface (Page 14, Lines 20 to Page 15, Line 8) wherein low surface tension is useful for efficient removal of particles from hydrophobic surfaces with dynamic surface tension examples of near zero, 6, 8, and 22.5 dynes/cm being desirable (i.e., wherein the releasing agent has a dynamic surface tension that is less than 35 dynes; Page 16, Lines 11-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the releasing agent made obvious by Rothman in view of Rohde with the dynamic surface tension as taught by Ryan because the dynamic surface tension would efficiently remove particles from hydrophobic surfaces while also effectively wetting the surface of the particles.
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights