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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the method is free of the addition of all of the following during the method: a coagulant, a flocculant, and adsorbent and an additional flotation chemical” is recited which appears to contradict the method of claim 1 and of subsequent dependent claims. Claim 1 recites the limitations of an upstream “mineral flotation circuit” which typically utilizes amines as flotation agents, which is why the amines need to be removed from the recited thickener overflow (i.e., an additional flotation chemical). Furthermore, dependent claims include the following limitations: Claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 include “cleaning flotation and/or sand filtration” which would fall under the categories of additional flotation chemical and adsorbent, respectively, and claim 5 explicitly requires “gas bubbles” in the cleaning flotation (i.e., additional flotation chemical). Without the additional flotation chemicals, the invention is not even necessary as the amines would not have been added to separate out the iron ore by reverse flotation. The specification contains no further clarification, but the concept of the method being free from these elements follows statements regarding the electrocoagulation step in particular. In light of these issues and for the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation “wherein the method is free of the addition of all of the following during the method: a coagulant, a flocculant, and adsorbent and an additional flotation chemical” to mean that the electrocoagulation is free of added coagulants, flocculants, adsorbents and additional flotation chemicals, rather than the method as a whole. The Examiner recommends changing the limitation “wherein the method is free of the addition of all of the following during the method: a coagulant, a flocculant, and adsorbent and an additional flotation chemical” to read “wherein the electrocoagulation is free of the addition of all of the following during the method: a coagulant, a flocculant, and adsorbent and an additional flotation chemical” if Applicant intended to strictly exclude additives in the electrocoagulation process.
In Applicant’s Arguments filed on 07/28/2025, Page 8, “Claim Interpretation”, Applicant states the following:
“In the claims and the specification, a coagulant, a flocculant, an adsorbent and an additional flotation chemical refer to a chemical/adsorbent added during “the method” and “the method” refers to “a method for removing amine(s) from a thickener overflow of a mineral processing plant”. As such, even if coagulants are formed during the method, and even if flotation chemicals have been added upstream of such method, a chemical/adsorbent is not added during the method of the claims per se.”
Applicant is stating that “the method” should only pertain to those activities that are the electrocoagulation unit or downstream of the electrocoagulation unit. Steps upstream of the electrocoagulation unit are not considered as part of “the method”.
If that is the case, the following limitations and claims should be disregarded as not pertaining to the claimed method:
In Claim 1, the limitations “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 the mineral flotation circuit and an overflow of the mineral flotation circuit; and wherein the overflow of the mineral flotation circuit is dewatered in a thickener in order to produce the thickener overflow and a thickener underflow”.
All of Claim 3, “wherein the mineral flotation circuit is arranged to recover Fe”.
All of Claim 4, “wherein the method further comprises:- prior to supplying the thickener overflow to the electrocoagulation unit, determining a solid matter content of the thickener overflow, and - if the solid matter content of the thickener overflow is determined to be over a pre- determined threshold value for the 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”.
All of Claim 5, “wherein the method comprises:- supplying the thickener overflow to the cleaning flotation unit for pre-treatment and subjecting the thickener overflow to cleaning flotation in order to separate a cleaning flotation overflow and in order to form the pre-treated thickener overflow as a cleaning flotation underflow; wherein the cleaning flotation comprises gas bubbles, at least 90 % of the gas bubbles having a diameter of from 0.2 to 250 um”.
All of Claim 6, “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 flotation 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”.
All of Claim 9, “wherein the cleaning flotation unit utilizes dissolved air flotation”.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 will have the both rejections present, for the sake of compact prosecution, and the Examiner will note that the limitations pertaining to activities upstream can be ignored because they do not pertain to the claimed method. Applicant may correct the Examiner if this is not the intended interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 17, the parenthetical designation states “(Cancelled” and is missing a closing parenthesis.
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 1 and 3-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the method is free of the addition of all of the following during the method: a coagulant, a flocculant, and adsorbent and an additional flotation chemical” in lines 9-10 of the claim. The limitation is contradictory to the process of the mineral flotation circuit which utilizes additional flotation chemicals and is further contradictory in dependent claims which utilize adsorbents and additional flotation chemicals. Therefore it is unclear whether “a coagulant, a flocculant, and adsorbent and an additional flotation chemical” is necessary for the process or is not to be used in the process.
Claims 3-15 are rejected for their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
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, 8, 10, 12, and 14-15 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 Eckelberry (US Patent Application No. 20170113957 A1) hereinafter Eckelberry in view of S. Calgaroto et al (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 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 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 to modify the method as taught by Feng 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 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 to modify the method taught by Feng 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 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 to combine Feng 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.
Furthermore, the limitations “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 the mineral flotation circuit and an overflow of the mineral flotation circuit; and wherein the overflow of the mineral flotation circuit is dewatered in a thickener in order to produce the thickener overflow and a thickener underflow” do not pertain to the method for removing amine(s) from a thickener overflow of a mineral processing plant and have no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 3, Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is directed to the method for removing amine(s) from a thickener overflow of a mineral processing plant; Claim 3 is wholly directed to an upstream process and has no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 8, Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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 10, Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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 in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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 14, Feng in view of Eckelberry makes obvious the method of claim 1.
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 in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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).
Claims 4-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poirier et al (US Patent Application No. 20190300411 A1) hereinafter Poirier in view of Landis et al (US Patent No. 10189725 B2) hereinafter Landis.
Regarding Claim 4, Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord 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.
However, Poirier teaches that pre-treatments for electrocoagulation can be determined based upon the concentration of bulk solids in the wastewater to be treated (i.e., 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; Paragraph 0033) for the purpose of fully automating the wastewater treatment method with an on/off capability (Paragraph 0011).
Poirier is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the electrocoagulation treatment of wastewater (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method made obvious by Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord with the bulk solids determination as taught by Poirier because the bulk solids determination would allow the pre-treatment to be automatically turned on and off based upon the determination.
Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord in view of Poirier does not teach 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, Landis teaches that dissolved air flotation, microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and sieves can be performed before the electrocoagulation step (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; Col. 5, Lines 23-34) with the purpose of the invention being to provide better separation of metals and metal oxides from minerals or mineral ores (Col. 3, Lines 47-63).
Landis is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to methods of separating impurities from industrial minerals using electrocoagulation (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method made obvious by Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord in view of Poirier to have a dissolved air flotation step prior to electrocoagulation as taught by Landis because the dissolved air flotation step would improve the separation of metals and metal oxides from minerals or mineral ores.
Furthermore, the limitation “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” is considered an optional step and thus carries no patentable weight. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only the steps that must be performed (See MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is directed to the method for removing amine(s) from a thickener overflow of a mineral processing plant; Claim 4 is wholly directed to an upstream process and has no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 5, Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord in view of Poirier in view of Landis makes obvious the method of claim 4. Landis further teaches the dissolved air flotation as pretreatment for electrocoagulation (i.e., wherein the method comprises - supplying the thickener overflow to the cleaning flotation unit for pre-treatment and subjecting the thickener overflow to cleaning flotation in order to separate a cleaning flotation overflow and in order to form the pre-treated thickener overflow as a cleaning flotation underflow; Col. 5, Lines 23-34).
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 to vary the bubble size in the dissolved air flotation taught by Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord in view of Poirier in view of Landis with the 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)).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is directed to the method for removing amine(s) from a thickener overflow of a mineral processing plant; Claim 5 is wholly directed to an upstream process and has no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 6, Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord in view of Poirier in view of Landis makes obvious the method of claim 4. 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). Landis further teaches that the filtration step can occur before the electrocoagulation step (i.e., supplying the thickener overflow or the cleaning flotation underflow to the sand filter unit for pre-treatment and filtering the thickener overflow or the cleaning flotation overflow by allowing it 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; Col. 5, Lines 23-34).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is directed to the method for removing amine(s) from a thickener overflow of a mineral processing plant; Claim 6 is wholly directed to an upstream process and has no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 9, Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord in view of Poirier in view of Landis makes obvious the method of claim 4. Landis further teaches that the pre-treatment for the electrocoagulation is dissolved air flotation (i.e., wherein the cleaning flotation is a dissolved air flotation; Col. 5, Lines 23-34).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is directed to the method for removing amine(s) from a thickener overflow of a mineral processing plant; Claim 9 is wholly directed to an upstream process and has no patentable weight.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng 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 Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. Feng 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 to modify the method made obvious by Feng 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 in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. 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 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 to modify the method made obvious by Feng 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Landis et al (US Patent No. 10189725 B2) hereinafter Landis.
Regarding Claim 13, Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord makes obvious the method of claim 1. Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord does not teach wherein the electrocoagulation unit comprises Ti electrodes.
However, Landis teaches that the electrodes can include titanium (Col. 5, Lines 55-65) for the purpose of improving the industrial separation and purification of minerals and mineral ores (Col. 3, lines 46-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method made obvious by Feng in view of Eckelberry in view of Calgaroto in view of Lord with the titanium electrodes as taught by Landis because the titanium electrodes would improve the industrial separation and purification of minerals and mineral ores.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/28/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1 and 3-11 and the cancellation of claims 2 and 17 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claim 2, all rejections of claim 2 have been withdrawn, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 regarding claim 1 has been modified to include the previous rejection of claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/28/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Feng et al (Chinese Patent No. CN 102079600 A) hereinafter Feng is not analogous to the claimed invention and would thus not be consulted for providing the method of claim 1 (Arguments filed 07/28/2025, Page 10, Paragraph 5).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Eckelberry (US Patent Application No. 20170113957 A1) hereinafter Eckelberry pertains to treating wastewater and one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Eckelberry with Feng (Arguments filed 07/28/2025, Page 11, Paragraphs 1-3).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that S. Calgaroto et al (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 teaches a different method of amine removal from a thickener overflow than the instant application (Arguments filed 07/28/2025, Page 11, Paragraphs 4-5).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Lord et al (International Patent Application No. WO 2015174964 A2) hereinafter Lord teaches the use of electrocoagulation to reduce organic material from oil and gas production waters which is different from a mining thickener overflow stream (Arguments filed 07/28/2025, Page 11, Paragraph 6).
Applicant argues, regarding claims 3-15, that claim 1 is allowable and thus claims 3-15 are allowable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for claim 1, Feng is used to teach the basic process of using electrocoagulation without addition of coagulants, flocculants, adsorbents, or flotation chemicals, while Eckelberry teaches the use of a settling tank and electrocoagulation to remove organic materials, which may include amines, from wastewater, Calgaroto teaches that it is well known that mineral flotation of iron ore utilizes amines in a reverse flotation process to float gangue including silicates, and Lord teaches that it is known to specifically remove amines from a waste water stream via electrocoagulation that also does not use the addition of coagulants, flocculants, adsorbents, or flotation chemicals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the electrocoagulation device as made obvious by Feng in view of Eckelberry to remove amines as taught by Lord from a mineral flotation overflow as taught by Calgaroto because electrocoagulation is known to remove amines and mineral flotation overflow streams are known to also contain amines that need to be separated from gangue for environmental benefits.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for claims 3-15, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 3-15 are also not allowable.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772