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 .
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1, 3, and 5-15
Withdrawn Claims: 16 and 19-21
Cancelled Claims: 2, 4, and 17-18
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 28 APRIL 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 5-6 and 19 and the cancellation of claims 4 and 18 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the previous claim interpretation has been rendered moot.
In view of the amendment to claim 17, the previous claim objection has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have had their basis for rejection modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 APRIL 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Poirier does not teach the limitations of cancelled claim 4 with regards to controlling the pre-treatment for the electrocoagulation based upon a solid matter content of the incoming flow and therefore instant claim 1 is now allowable because all of the limitations of cancelled instant claim 4 have been amended into instant claim 1 (Arguments filed 28 APRIL 2026, Page 9 to Page 11, Paragraph 1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim 1 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. In light of the amendment to claim 1, the Examiner has found more appropriate prior art than Poirier to read on the newly amended limitations.
Applicant argues that Landis does not teach the use of cleaning flotation and/or sand filter as pretreatment and so instant claim 1 is now allowable (Arguments filed 28 APRIL 2026, Page 11, Paragraph 2).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim 1 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.
Applicant argues that instant claims 3 and 5-15 are allowable because they depend upon instant claim 1 and instant claim 1 is now allowable (Arguments filed 28 APRIL 2026, Page 11, Paragraph 4).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claim 1 is not allowable and so the dependent instant claim 3 and 5-15 are also not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, the parenthetical designation sates “(Currently Amended)” and should state “(Previously Presented)” as there are no new amendments in the current version of instant claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al Chinese Patent No. CN 102079600 A (hereinafter Feng), in view of Enslow US Patent Application No. US 20160318785 A1 (hereinafter Enslow), in view of Eckelberry US Patent Application No. 20170113957 A1 (hereinafter Eckelberry), in view of S. Calgaroto, A. A, J. R, "Separation of amine-insoluble species by flotation with nano and microbubbles". 01/14/2016. Minerals Engineering, 89, 24-29. (Year: 2016) (hereinafter Calgaroto), in view of Lord et al International Patent Application No. WO 2015174964 A2 (hereinafter Lord).
Regarding Claim 1, Feng and Enslow are used to teach a device that would perform the method of the instant claim, while Eckelberry, Calgaroto, and Lord are used to teach that electrocoagulation is known to be used to remove amines and to demonstrate the obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply electrocoagulation to an amine rich waste stream from a froth flotation mining process.
Feng teaches a method for treating coalbed methane produced water (i.e., A method for removing contaminants; Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation) where the produced water is the byproduct of coalbed methane mining (i.e., of a mineral processing plant; Paragraph 0004, Machine Translation) with the method starting by using sedimentation tanks (Fig. 1, #1) to remove coarse particles and suspended matter from coalbed methane produced water (i.e., from a thickener overflow; Paragraph 0009, Machine Translation),
followed by discharging the coalbed methane produced water into the electro-flocculation reactor (i.e., supplying the thickener overflow to an electrocoagulation unit and subjecting the thickener overflow to electrocoagulation; Fig. 1, #2)
and a scraper removes the slag produced from the flocs, bubbles, and suspended matter in the electro-flocculation reactor where the slag is then discharged (i.e., removing the electrocoagulation overflow; separate at least some of the contaminants as an electrocoagulation overflow; in order to form a residual process water as an electrocoagulation underflow; Paragraph 0010).
Feng further teaches that the method does not require the addition of any chemical agents to the water due to salts generated by electro-flocculation (i.e., wherein the method is free of the addition of all of the following during the method: a coagulant, a flocculant, an adsorbent and an additional flotation chemical; Paragraph 0014).
Feng further teaches the treatment of mining effluent water after the suspended material is removed by a sedimentation tank (i.e., thickener overflow; wherein the overflow of the mineral flotation circuit is dewatered in the thickener in order to produce the thickener overflow and a thickener underflow) by electro-flocculation (Paragraphs 0009-0010, Machine Translation).
Feng does not teach wherein the method further comprises prior to supplying the thickener overflow to the electrocoagulation unit, determining a solid matter content of the thickener overflow, if the solid matter content of the thickener overflow is determined to be over a pre-determined threshold value for electrocoagulation, pre-treating the thickener overflow in at least one pre-treatment unit wherein the pre-treatment unit is a cleaning flotation unit and/or a sand filter unit and the thickener overflow to be treated in the electrocoagulation unit being a pre-treated thickener overflow.
However, Enslow teaches a scalable automated modular system (Fig. 1, #10) that comprises pre-treatment components (Fig. 1, #40, 50, 60) and a primary treatment component (Fig. 1, #70; Paragraph 0015), wherein the primary treatment is electrocoagulation (i.e., wherein the method further comprises prior to supplying the thickener overflow to the electrocoagulation unit, Paragraph 0023),
wherein the pre-treatment and measuring component (Fig. 1, #60) measures turbidity with sensors and conveys the information to a PLC to control chemical additives, including the most common dissolved air flotation coagulants of poly aluminum chloride, ferric chloride, and ammonium sulfate (Fig. 1, #61; Paragraph 0020), mixing, and aeration (i.e., wherein the pre-treatment unit is a cleaning flotation unit and the thickener overflow to be treated in the electrocoagulation unit being a pre-treated thickener overflow; Fig. 1, #63) to the pre-treatment and measuring component to ensure that the measurements are in the appropriate range (i.e., determining a solid matter content of the thickener overflow, if the solid matter content of the thickener overflow is determined to be over a pre-determined threshold value for electrocoagulation, pre-treating the thickener overflow in at least one pre-treatment unit; Paragraphs 0018-0022) for the purpose of customizing the treatment based upon the target pollutants to be treated and/or for the expected water quality to be delivered (Paragraph 0014).
Enslow is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to electrocoagulation treatment of organic substances for industrial or environmental usage (Abstract; 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 process taught by Feng to incorporate the solids controlled pretreatment as taught by Enslow because the solids controlled pretreatment would allow for the customization of the treatment based upon the amount of target pollutants and/or the desired water quality.
Feng in view of Enslow does not teach a method for removing amine(s), wherein the thickener overflow comprises process water and amine(s), and in order to separate at least some of the amine(s) as an electrocoagulation overflow.
However, Eckelberry teaches that natural organic matter includes amines (Paragraph 0006) and that the system for purifying wastewater includes electrocoagulation and flotation to remove the total organic compounds (Abstract) where the influent matter is pretreated with a settling tank (i.e., a thickener; Paragraph 0011) for the purpose of reducing the energy requirements compared to conventional dewatering systems (Paragraph 0101).
Eckelberry is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a system for purifying wastewater by electrocoagulation (Abstract), including the removal of amines (Paragraph 0006). 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 method made obvious by Feng in view of Enslow to remove amines as taught by Eckelberry because removing amines with electrocoagulation would reduce the energy requirements compared to conventional dewatering systems.
Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry does not teach wherein the thickener overflow originates from a flotation arrangement comprising a mineral flotation circuit arranged to treat ore particles suspended in a slurry by flotation for separation of the slurry into an underflow of a mineral flotation circuit and an overflow of a mineral flotation circuit.
However, Calgaroto teaches that iron ores are separated from quartz and silicates by amines in a reverse flotation process and that amines attach to the tailings and need to be separated so that the amines do not contaminate surface water and groundwater supplies (i.e., wherein the thickener overflow originates from a flotation arrangement comprising a mineral flotation circuit arranged to treat ore particles suspended in a slurry by flotation for separation of the slurry into an underflow of a mineral flotation circuit and an overflow of a mineral flotation circuit; Abstract). The process of reverse flotation means that the waste materials of the stream (i.e., quartz and silicates) are attached to the collector (i.e., amine) and float to the surface of the flotation cell to be collected and the valuable materials sink to the bottom. Therefore, the tailings would contain the overflow of the mineral flotation circuit, which would be treated by the sedimentation tank as taught by Feng.
Calgaroto is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to amine separation techniques for iron ores and the cleaning of the wastewater from such a process (Abstract). 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 method made obvious by Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry to apply to a reverse flotation iron ore process as taught by Calgaroto because the technique would prevent surface water and groundwater supplies from being contaminated by amines.
Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto does not explicitly teach the combination of amine waste treatment and electro-flocculation.
However, Lord teaches the use of electrocoagulation to reduce the concentration of hydrate inhibitors in produced water (Abstract), the hydrate inhibitors including amines (Paragraph 0026), and that the removal of such hydrate inhibitors will increase production rates and reduce downtime (Paragraph 0007).
Lord is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the separation of hydrate inhibitors from produced water by electrocoagulation (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to combine Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry with Calgaroto because of the support provided by Lord that electrocoagulation would remove amines and increase production rates and decrease downtime.
Regarding Claim 3, Calgaroto further teaches that the reverse flotation process uses amines to separate iron ores (i.e., wherein the mineral flotation circuit is arranged to recover Fe; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, Calgaroto further teaches the removal of precipitates with a dissolved air flotation process utilizing microbubbles with the size of 30-100 µm in size and nanobubbles in the size range of 300 to 800 nm (2. Experimental, 2.2.3. Flotation studies), which corresponds to an overall range of 0.3 to 100 µm, for the purpose of utilizing the nanobubbles to aid in flocculation while the microbubbles aided in flotation (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to vary the bubble size in the dissolved air flotation made obvious by Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord with the bubble sizes as taught by Calgaroto because bubble size is a known optimization variable for dissolved air flotation operations. According to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), differences in variables such as concentration and temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding Claim 8, Feng further teaches that the after scum scraping (i.e., electrocoagulation overflow), the water overflows (i.e., supplying the electrocoagulation underflow) from the electro-flocculation reactor to the filter (Fig. 1, #3) to further remove pollutants in the water (i.e., filtering the electrocoagulation underflow by allowing it to flow through a filter; in order to produce a filtered electrocoagulation underflow; Paragraphs 0010-0011, Machine Translation) where the filter comprises a quartz sand filter layer (i.e., a (secondary) sand filter unit; a sand filter; Paragraph 0013, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 9, Enslow further teaches wherein the pre-treatment and measuring component (Fig. 1, #60) measures turbidity with sensors and conveys the information to a PLC to control chemical additives, including the most common dissolved air flotation coagulants of poly aluminum chloride, ferric chloride, and ammonium sulfate (Fig. 1, #61; Paragraph 0020), mixing, and aeration (Fig. 1, #63) to the pre-treatment and measuring component to ensure that the measurements are in the appropriate range (i.e., wherein the cleaning flotation unit utilizes dissolved air flotation; Paragraphs 0018-0022).
Regarding Claim 10, Feng further teaches discharging the water (i.e., the filtered electrocoagulation underflow) after going through the filter (Fig. 1, #3) which contains a sand filter layer (Paragraph 0021, Machine Translation).
Calgaroto further teaches that iron ores are separated from quartz and silicates by amines in a reverse flotation process and that amines attach to the tailings which go into tailing dams and need to be separated so that the amines do not contaminate surface water and groundwater supplies (i.e., wherein the method further comprises - leading the filtered electrocoagulation underflow via a tailings area into the environment; Abstract). The output of the process would still be discharged to a tailings dam, but the dam would no longer contaminate surface water or groundwater with amines.
Lord further teaches the use of electrocoagulation to reduce the concentration of hydrate inhibitors in produced water (Abstract), the hydrate inhibitors including amines (i.e., the combination of amine waste treatment and electro-flocculation; Paragraph 0026), and that the removal of such hydrate inhibitors will increase production rates and reduce downtime (Paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claim 12, Feng further teaches that the electrode plates (Fig. 1, #4) are made of iron plates (i.e., wherein the electrocoagulation unit comprises Fe electrodes; Paragraph 0020, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 13, Enslow further teaches that the electrocoagulation comprises metal electrodes which may be made of titanium (i.e., wherein the electrocoagulation unit comprises Ti electrodes) and electrode material is known to be chose based on electrochemical coagulant characteristics to remove certain target contaminants (Paragraph 0023).
Regarding Claim 14, Eckelberry further teaches in an example that the inflow water average temperature high was 42 °F, or 7.2 °C and the average low was 34 °F, or 1.1 °C (Paragraph 0113).
Regarding Claim 15, Feng further teaches that the salts generated by the electrode plates in the electro-flocculation reactor form flocs with suspended matter and are scraped into a scum tank by a scraper (Paragraph 0021, Machine Translation).
Calgaroto further teaches that iron ores are separated from quartz and silicates by amines in a reverse flotation process and that amines attach to the silicates which go into tailing dams and need to be separated so that the amines do not contaminate surface water and groundwater supplies (i.e., wherein the thickener overflow comprises amine(s) adsorbed onto silicate(s), and the method comprises removing at least some of the silicate(s) from the thickener overflow; Abstract). The output of the process would still be discharged to a tailings dam, but the dam would no longer contaminate surface water or groundwater with amines.
Lord further teaches the use of electrocoagulation to reduce the concentration of hydrate inhibitors in produced water (Abstract), the hydrate inhibitors including amines (Paragraph 0026), and that the removal of such hydrate inhibitors will increase production rates and reduce downtime (Paragraph 0007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park Korean Patent Application No. KR 20020004661 A (hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 6, Feng further teaches the filter (Fig. 1, #3) to further remove pollutants in the water (Paragraphs 0010-0011, Machine Translation) where the filter comprises a quartz sand filter layer (i.e., the sand filter unit; flow through a sand filter in the sand filter unit; Paragraph 0013, Machine Translation).
Enslow further teaches pre-filtration components (Fig. 1, #40) prior to electrocoagulation (Paragraph 0016).
Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord does not teach wherein the method comprises supplying the thickener overflow or a cleaning flotation underflow to the sand filter unit for pre-treatment and filtering the thickener overflow or a cleaning overflow by allowing the thickener overflow or the cleaning flotation overflow to flow through a sand filter in the sand filter unit in order to produce a filtered thickener overflow or a filtered cleaning flotation underflow as the pre-treated thickener overflow.
However, Park teaches a sand filter tank (Fig. 1, #18) located prior to the electrocoagulator (Fig. 1, #20) for the purpose of removing suspended solids and contaminants (i.e., wherein the method comprises supplying the thickener overflow to the sand filter unit for pre-treatment and filtering the thickener overflow by allowing the thickener overflow to flow through a sand filter in the sand filter unit in order to produce a filtered thickener overflow as the pre-treated thickener overflow; Paragraph 0030, Translation) and treats a large amount of wastewater at a low price (Paragraph 0012, Translation).
Park is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the treatment of wastewater with electrocoagulation (Paragraph 0012, Translation). 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 process made obvious by Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord with the sand filter as taught by Park because the sand filter would allow for large amounts of wastewater treatment at a low price.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erickson US Patent Application No. 20160176737 A1 (hereinafter Erickson).
Regarding Claim 7, Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord does not teach wherein the method further comprises - supplying the electrocoagulation underflow to a (secondary) cleaning flotation unit and subjecting the electrocoagulation underflow to cleaning flotation in order to separate a (secondary) cleaning flotation overflow and in order to form a (secondary) cleaning flotation underflow.
However, Erickson teaches the use of dissolved air flotation machine (Fig. 3, #26) after an electrocoagulation machine (Fig. 3, #22) for the purpose of eliminating the need of skimming for the middle 75% of the wastewater (i.e., supplying the electrocoagulation underflow to a (secondary) cleaning flotation unit and subjecting the electrocoagulation underflow to cleaning flotation in order to separate a (secondary) cleaning flotation overflow and in order to form a (secondary) cleaning flotation underflow; Paragraphs 0018-0019).
Erickson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the filtration of water that has been used in an industrial application (Paragraph 0002). 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 process made obvious by Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord to use dissolved air flotation after electrocoagulation as taught by Erickson because the bubbles from the dissolved air flotation would eliminate the need for skimming the middle 75% of the wastewater.
Regarding Claim 11, Feng further teaches that water that meets the discharge requirements (i.e., filtered electrocoagulation underflow) after being filtered is reused through the outlet pipe (Fig. 1, #12).
Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord does not explicitly teach recirculating the filtered electrocoagulation underflow back into the process for use as process water.
However, Erickson teaches that after treatment in the water treatment system (Fig. 3, #12) the treated waste water can be reused for further operations (i.e., the filtered electrocoagulation underflow back into the process for use as process water; Paragraph 0012) for the purpose of providing considerable savings due to a reduction in waste water transportation costs (Paragraph 0011).
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 method made obvious by Feng in view of Enslow in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord to reuse the treated waste water as taught by Erickson because the reused treated waste water would save money by reducing waste water transportation costs.
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 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights