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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/20/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-11, and 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michailovski et al (International Patent No. WO 2018197476 A1) hereinafter Michailovski.
Regarding Claim 1, Michailovski teaches a collector composition for the use in flotation processes and a method for beneficiation of phosphates from phosphate containing ores using the collector composition (i.e., A method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore, wherein the ore contains a phosphate mineral and a non- phosphate mineral, by a flotation; Abstract). Michailovski further teaches that the collector composition comprises a component A that includes saturated or unsaturated fatty acids (i.e., (A), a fatty acid; Page 3, Lines 5-9), at least one component B that includes alkoxylated branched alcohols, and at least one component C that includes alkoxylated branched alcohols, where the component C is different to component B (Page 3, Lines 5-13) and in an example case demonstrates that the component B is ethoxylated isotridecanol with an ethoxylation degree of 3 (3 EO) (i.e., 3 equivalents of ethylene oxide) and component C is ethoxylated isotridecanol (10 EO) (i.e., a reaction product of a C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol having 10 to 20 equivalents of ethylene oxide and a second C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol; Page 22, Example 4, Table 4). Furthermore, Michailovski teaches that both components B and C are preferred to have a degree of branching 2.5 to 3.5 (i.e., (i) …having an average degree of branching of 1.9 to 3.5… (ii) …having an average degree of branching of 1.9 to 3.5; Page 12 Lines 42-44 to Page 13, Lines 1-3). Michailovski then teaches the steps of the flotation process as comminution of ores, followed by optional conditioning of ores with depressants and/or activators and pH adjustment, and then collector addition (i.e., adding a surfactant system… to a prepared aqueous pulp of the ore and optionally one or more flotation auxiliaries to obtain an aqueous mixture; Page 6, Lines 4-11).
Michailovski does not explicitly teach a combination including non-ethoxylated alcohols, nor wherein the amount of (i) is about 80 wt.% to about 95 wt.% and the amount of (ii) is about 5 wt.% to about 20 wt.% and wt.% is based on the overall weight of the mixture of ethoxylated and non-ethoxylated alcohols.
However, Michailovski teaches weight percent combinations of B : C that include 0% : 100%, 50% : 50%, 100% : 0% (Page 19, Example 1, Table 1), 75% : 25%, 40% : 60% (Page 20, Example 2, Table 2), and 60% : 40% (Page 22, Example 4, Table 4) with varying quantities of yield % and grade %, and that the weight percent of A, B, C can have the following ranges: A with a range from 50% to 99.9%, B with a range from 0.1% to 50%, and C with a range from 0.1% to 50% (Page 3, Lines 43-44 to Page 4, Lines 1-5). The B and C ranges include, for example, 2.1% of B and 30% of C by weight which would correspond to 7% of B and 83% of C for the overall weight of the mixture of ethoxylated and non-ethoxylated alcohols. The discrepancy comes from the instant claim listing 80% to 95% by weight of a reaction product of a first C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol having an average degree of branching of 1.9 to 3.5 and 10 to 20 equivalents of ethylene oxide and 5% to 20% by weight of a second C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol, which is a more specific range than the prior art suggests. The instant application describes an improvement of 0.9% of yield with a 0.2% reduction in grade (Specification, Page 22, Table C-2, Lines 12-14). 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 absent unexpected results or evidence indicating such optimum or workable ranges are critical (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) (See MPEP§2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight percent of the non-ionic surfactants comprising alkoxylated branched alcohols of the collector compositions because the change in composition would change the yield % and grade % of phosphate ore collected.
Additionally, the instant application teaches that ethoxylated compounds actually have a distribution of ethoxylation numbers (Figs 1-4), with all given samples including a significant intensity % of 0 ethoxylation, from 11.6 to 36.2 (Specification Page 20-21, Table B-1). The information here means that while Michailovski does not explicitly teach to include non-ethoxylated alcohols, the non-ethoxylated alcohols are inherently present as a property of the chemical and reaction. Additionally, the instant claim requires a blend of ethoxylated (i) and non-ethoxylated (ii) alcohols obtained by blending (i) and (ii) in a certain ratio, and thus if the prior art teaches (i) and (ii), then the resultant claim is necessarily present. However, Michailovski teaches a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) (Page 10, Lines 8-10) and that component B and C are preferably the same ethoxylated isotridecanol with different grades or degrees of ethoxylation and thus have different HLB values (Page 11, Lines 34-40) where the less ethoxylated isotridecanol (3 EO) has a lower HLB of around 9 compared to the more ethoxylated isotridecanol with an HLB of around 13.5 (Page 21, Example 3, Lines 26-31). Furthermore, Michailovski teaches that the HLB of the collector composition has a massive impact on both collector adsorption selectivity and on froth properties, which affects flotation kinetics (Page 13, Lines 22-29). Therefore, the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel (In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368, Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP §2112 I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the HLB of the collector composition with more and less ethoxylated branched alcohols because the variance of the combination would change the selectivity and froth properties of the collector.
Regarding Claim 2, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches the steps of the flotation process for direct flotation of phosphates as the comminution of ores (i.e., providing the ore wherein the ore contains the phosphate mineral and the non-phosphate mineral), followed by optional conditioning of ores with depressants and/or activators and pH adjustment (i.e., preparing from the provided ore by addition of water and optionally one or more flotation auxiliaries an aqueous pulp), collector addition, flotation (i.e., aerating the aqueous mixture in a flotation cell to generate a froth), and then collection of phosphate in the froth (i.e., wherein the froth contains the concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content.; Page 6, Lines 4-11). Michailovski teaches that the flotation term relates to separating minerals based on differences in hydrophobicity (i.e., aqueous mixture/pulp) and their differing ability to adhere or attach to air bubbles (i.e., aerating the aqueous mixture), and that the targeted minerals can either be collected in the froth or remain in the slurry as cell product (i.e., in a flotation cell; Page 9, Lines 24-40).
Regarding Claim 4, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski does not explicitly teach a wherein the amount of (i) is 83 to 93 wt.% and the amount of (ii) is about 7 to 17 wt.%.
However, Michailovski teaches weight percent combinations of B : C that include 0% : 100%, 50% : 50%, 100% : 0% (Page 19, Example 1, Table 1), 75% : 25%, 40% : 60% (Page 20, Example 2, Table 2), and 60% : 40% (Page 22, Example 4, Table 4) with varying quantities of yield % and grade %, and that the weight percent of A, B, C can have the following ranges: A with a range from 50% to 99.9%, B with a range from 0.1% to 50%, and C with a range from 0.1% to 50% (Page 3, Lines 43-44 to Page 4, Lines 1-5). The B and C ranges include, for example, 2.1% of B and 30% of C by weight which would correspond to 7% of B and 83% of C for the overall weight of the mixture of ethoxylated and non-ethoxylated alcohols. The discrepancy comes from the instant claim listing 80% to 95% by weight of a reaction product of a first C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol having an average degree of branching of 1.9 to 3.5 and 10 to 20 equivalents of ethylene oxide and 5% to 20% by weight of a second C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol, which is a more specific range than the prior art suggests. The instant application describes an improvement of 0.9% of yield with a 0.2% reduction in grade (Specification, Page 22, Table C-2, Lines 12-14). 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 absent unexpected results or evidence indicating such optimum or workable ranges are critical (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) (See MPEP§2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight percent of the non-ionic surfactants comprising alkoxylated branched alcohols of the collector compositions because the change in composition would change the yield % and grade % of phosphate ore collected.
Regarding Claim 5, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches that component C is ethoxylated isotridecanol (10 EO) (i.e., a reaction product of a C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol having 10 to 14 equivalents of ethylene oxide; Page 22, Example 4, Table 4). The element in the claim of the average degree of branching of 1.9 to 3.5 is the same as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches that it is preferred to have an average degree of branching of component C from the ranges of 2 to 4 and from 2.5 to 3.5 (Page 13, Lines 1-3). Michailovski does not teach the explicit average degree of branching of the first C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol is between 2.0 and 2.5 in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the average degree of branching that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range taught by Michailovski.
Regarding Claim 7, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches the use of the same C12-C16 aliphatic alcohols used for components B and C of the collector composition in an example case where the component B is ethoxylated isotridecanol (i.e., the first C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol) (3 EO) and component C is ethoxylated isotridecanol (i.e., the second C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol) (10 EO) (i.e., wherein the first C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol and the second C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol are the same C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol; Page 22, Example 4, Table 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches that ethoxylated isotridecanol grades are preferred components for both component B and C (i.e., wherein the first C12-C16 aliphatic alcohol is isotridecanol; Page 11, Lines 20-37).
Regarding Claim 10, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches a collector blend of 500g/ton of ore containing 70% primary collector of a soybean fatty acid (i.e., component (A); Page 22, Example 4, Table 4) which means that the soybean fatty acid was added in the amount of 350g/ton of ore (i.e., wherein component (A) is added in an amount between 10 g to 1000 g per ton of the ore).
Regarding Claim 11, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches a collector blend of 500g/ton of ore containing 30% secondary collector of ethoxylated isotridecanol (3EO)/ ethoxylated isotridecanol (10EO) (i.e., component (B); Page 22, Example 4, Table 4) which means that the secondary collector was added in the amount of 150g/ton of ore (i.e., wherein component (B) is added in an amount between 10 g to 500 g per ton of the ore).
Regarding Claim 13, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 2. Michailovski further teaches a step of optionally conditioning ores with depressants and/or activators that is prior to collector addition (i.e., wherein at step (b) one or more flotation auxiliaries are added and one of the flotation auxiliaries is a depressing agent, a froth regulator, a further anionic surfactant different to component (A), a further non- ionic co-collector different to components (i) or (ii) or an extender oil; Page 6, Lines 4-11).
Regarding Claim 14, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 13. Michailovski further teaches conditioning a sample with 300 g/t sodium silicate prior to collector addition in Example 4 (wherein one of the flotation auxiliaries is a depressing agent, which is sodium silicate; Page 22, Lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 16, see claim 1 for the rejection of the blend of ethoxylated and non-ethoxylated alcohols, as all of the elements of claim 16 are contained within claim 1.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michailovski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smolko-Schvarzmayr (International Patent No. WO 2016041916 A1) hereinafter Smolko-Schvarzmayr.
Regarding Claim 3, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches that amounts of component A can influence the hydrophobicity (Page 11, Lines 11-14), a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) (Page 10, Lines 8-10), and that the HLB of the collector composition has a massive impact on both collector adsorption selectivity and on froth properties, which affects flotation kinetics (Page 13, Lines 22-29).
Michailovski does not teach wherein the weight ratio between component (A) and component (B) is about 1 to about 3.
However, Smolko-Schvarzmayr teaches that the weight ratio between the primary collector (i.e., Component (A)) and the secondary collector (i.e., Component (B)) can be 25:75 (i.e., wherein the weight ratio between component (A) and component (B) is about 1 to about 3; Page 7, Paragraph 7).
Smolko-Schvarzmayr is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to branched alcohols and/or their alkoxylates as secondary collectors for froth flotation of especially phosphate ores in combination with a primary collector (Page 1, Field of Invention). Michailovski teaches that the HLB of the collector is vital to achieving the necessary adsorption and froth properties, which would motivate one of ordinary skill to optimize the composition of the collector with HLB in mind. Smolko-Schvarzmayr discloses such a collector ratio that falls within the claimed range of collector ratios; thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the primary to secondary collector composition taught by Michailovski to the primary to secondary collector composition taught by Smolko-Schvarzmayr because it would optimize the selectivity and froth properties of the collector.
Regarding Claim 12, Michailovski makes obvious the method for manufacturing a concentrate enriched in phosphate mineral content from an ore of claim 1. Michailovski further teaches both that main primary collectors based on partly unsaturated fatty acids employed at pH 4-5 are badly soluble in water at that pH (Page 1, Lines 29-35) and a pH adjustment step (Page 6, Lines 4-11).
Michailovski does not teach wherein the pH value at step (c) is between 8 and 11.
However, Smolko-Schvarzmayr teaches that the pH during the flotation process will normally be in the range of 8-11 (i.e., wherein the pH value at step (c) is between 8 and 11; Page 7, Paragraph 10).
Michailovski teaches that, while primary collectors are effective at flotation, the one based on partly unsaturated fatty acids are badly soluble at pH 4-5 and are thus rendered less effective, but also teaches a pH adjustment step which would motivate one of ordinary skill to change the pH of the mineral pulp solution. Smolko-Schvarzmayr then discloses a pH range of 8-11 for flotation, which is the claimed pH range; thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pH taught by Michailovski to the pH taught by Smolko-Schvarzmayr because the new pH range would change the solubility of the primary collectors.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/20/2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the prior art, Michailovski et al (International Patent No. WO 2018197476 A1) hereinafter Michailovski, does not teach the ratio of ethoxylated and non-ethoxylated alcohols, specifically that the minimum free alcohol content of 5% and the instant application displays unexpected results when using the composition of the instant claim 1 for the recovery of phosphate from phosphate containing ore (Arguments filed 06/20/2025, Pages 3-6).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the addition of non-ethoxylated alcohols to ethoxylated alcohols, Applicant teaches, in the Figures 1-4, that regardless of the average degree of ethoxylation and the equivalents of ethylene oxide used there is a significant portion of unreacted (0 EO) alcohol. Due to the common reference of “average degree of ethoxylation” as the name for describing the reaction results, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that the ethoxylation reaction does not result in a uniform product. Adding in extra non-ethoxylated alcohol is similar to adding in ethoxylated alcohols with a low equivalent of ethylene oxide used, by adding more unreacted alcohols. Furthermore, Michailovski teaches that unreacted alcohols which are not ethoxylated can be included, but the unreacted alcohols should comprise less than 15% by weight of the total weight of the collector composition (Page 14, Lines 38-43).
Additionally, the results from the instant application,
PNG
media_image1.png
310
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compared to the results of the prior art Michailovski,
PNG
media_image2.png
228
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
226
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
218
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The instant application demonstrates one example of optimizing recovery versus optimizing grade of concentrate in which a small trade-off is accomplished. The prior art demonstrates that wide ranges of recovery and grade are possible with varying degrees of ethoxylation, including very similar results of a 72.1% recovery with a 37.8% grade of the concentrate, which makes the opposite trade-off as the instant application by increasing grade slightly for a small decrease in recovery. Michailovski also demonstrates that the relationship between low ethoxylation and high ethoxylation is not necessarily linear (See table 3 above) where there was a dip in recovery % and spike in grade % in the 50/50 mix concentration of high and low values. As stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, Michailovski teaches the components of the surfactant system and the general ranges of the concentrations of the instant claim for the use in concentrating phosphate minerals from an ore. With the knowledge taught by Michailovski, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the equivalents of ethoxylation to optimize the collector, which would necessarily adjust the amount of non-ethoxylated alcohol compared to ethoxylated alcohol.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All other arguments have been indirectly addressed.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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, 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
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777