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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218 in IDS) in view of Hildreth (US 4,026,799) and Yang (US 2016/0060137).
Regarding claim 1, Dobby teaches an apparatus comprising a tank capable of storing a fluid, the tank comprises an inlet (3) in the sidewall of the tank, a first outlet (8) in a second sidewall, and a second outlet (4 17) in the second sidewall, and an agitator (5 6 9) (Figs. 1, 3, and 5-6; [0028]-[0036]). Dobby further teaches that a gas can be injected into the tank through a pipe or sparger (second inlet having one or more gas dispensers) located below the agitator ([0032]).
Dobby fails to specifically teach the second inlet for the gas/sparger means being provided through a bottom portion of the sidewall. Hildreth teaches that a gas sparger means located inside a tank at the bottom thereof comprises an inlet for the gas sparger that is provided through a bottom portion of the sidewall (Fig. 1 and C3/L45-60). The tank in Dobby would have to have some sort of design to allow for the second inlet/sparger located at the bottom of the tank. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a design for providing the gas to the bottom of the tank in the manner taught in Hildreth by having the second inlet being provided in a bottom portion of the sidewall of the tank as it is a known design that provides the same placement for the sparger/gas diffuser heads at the bottom of the tank and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
As can be seen in Fig. 5, the first inlet is located above the second outlet but below the first outlet. Therefore, Dobby fails to teach the first inlet being located above the first and second outlet as claimed. Yang teaches that for flotation units, at least two of the various outlets can be located below the inlet to the flotation/frothing apparatus (Yang Fig. 5 and [0028]-[0033]). As such, it would have been obvious to move the outlet that is located above the inlet in Dobby to be slightly below the inlet as such designs are known in other separation units that use gas/bubbles as a separation aid with a reasonable expectation of success. This is also consistent with MPEP 2144.04 providing a basis that the slight rearrangement of parts would have been obvious when the rearrangement would not change the operation of the device as such locations are already known and use din the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
It is noted that the specific fluid treated/produced (recycled slurry), how the claimed apparatus is connected to unclaimed elements (drain) are not given patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
In this case, the claimed apparatus is capable of treating various fluids and producing a recycled slurry. Further, piping connected to the outlet port for outlets (4 17) could be categorized as a drain as the piping removes/drains fluids from the tank.
Regarding claim 2, as can be seen in Fig. 3, Dobby teaches that the various tanks can be connected in series.
Regarding claims 3-4, as discussed above, the specific components of the fluid treated are not given patentable weight. The Dobby apparatus is capable of treating fluids with the components claimed and therefore meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Dobby teaches that the agitator is an impeller/fan (6) driven by a motor (9) ([0032] and [0046]). It is submitted that while it is never explicitly stated that the motor comprises at least one bearing, it is submitted that rotating parts such as impellers/motors would typically have bearings in order to allow for the desired rotation, or it would have been obvious to provide a motor with a bearing to allow for the desired rotation.
Regarding claim 8, Dobby teaches an apparatus comprising a first tank/flotation module capable of storing a fluid having an inlet (3), a first outlet (4), and a second outlet (8 17), and an agitator (5 6 9) (Figs. 1, 3, and 5-6; [0028]-[0036]). Dobby further teaches that the various tanks/flotation modules can be connected in series (Fig. 3 and [0045]) thereby providing a second tank having another inlet (third inlet), a third outlet (8), and a fourth outlet (4 17), wherein the first outlet is connected to the another inlet/third inlet (Fig. 3). Further, each tank would have its own agitator capable of creating bubbles (Fig. 3). Dobby further teaches that a gas can be injected into the tank through a pipe or sparger (second inlet having one or more gas dispensers) located below the agitator ([0032]).
Dobby fails to specifically teach the second inlet for the gas/sparger means being provided through a bottom portion of the sidewall. Hildreth teaches that a gas sparger means located inside a tank at the bottom thereof comprises an inlet for the gas sparger that is provided through a bottom portion of the sidewall (Fig. 1 and C3/L45-60). The tank in Dobby would have to have some sort of design to allow for the second inlet/sparger located at the bottom of the tank. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a design for providing the gas to the bottom of the tank in the manner taught in Hildreth by having the second inlet being provided in a bottom portion of the sidewall of the tank as it is a known design that provides the same placement for the sparger/gas diffuser heads at the bottom of the tank and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
As can be seen in Fig. 5, the first inlet is located above the second outlet but below the first outlet. Therefore, Dobby fails to teach the first inlet being located above the first and second outlet as claimed. Yang teaches that for flotation units, at least two of the various outlets can be located below the inlet to the flotation/frothing apparatus (Yang Fig. 5 and [0028]-[0033]). As such, it would have been obvious to move the outlet that is located above the inlet in Dobby to be slightly below the inlet as such designs are known in other separation units that use gas/bubbles as a separation aid with a reasonable expectation of success. This is also consistent with MPEP 2144.04 providing a basis that the slight rearrangement of parts would have been obvious when the rearrangement would not change the operation of the device as such locations are already known and use din the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
It is noted that the specific fluid treated/produced (recycled slurry), how the claimed apparatus is connected to unclaimed elements (drain) are not given patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
In this case, the claimed apparatus is capable of treating various fluids and producing a recycled slurry. Further, piping connected to the outlet port for outlets (4 17) could be categorized as a drain as the piping removes/drains fluids from the tank.
Regarding claims 9-12, the specific type of fluid being treated, various reagents, gas, and results of the combination during treatment are considered to be intended use and the material worked upon. Dobby is capable of treating/holding the specific fluids cited and would result in similar effects.
Regarding claim 13, it is submitted that the second tank in series is configured to/capable of collecting the agglomeration as claimed during its operation.
Regarding claim 14, Dobby teaches that the agitator is an impeller/fan (6) driven by a motor (9) ([0032] and [0046]). It is submitted that while it is never explicitly stated that the motor comprises at least one bearing, it is submitted that rotating parts such as impellers/motors would typically have bearings in order to allow for the desired rotation, or it would have been obvious to provide a motor with a bearing to allow for the desired rotation.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 8 above. It is noted that having the same/similar tanks in series would result in the 2nd tank in series having a fourth inlet as claimed as it is merely a repeat of the second inlet.
Regarding claim 16, Dobby teaches that the first inlet (3) is capable of inputting a slurry.
Regarding claim 17, Dobby teaches that the third outlet (8) located in the middle portion of the second flotation module/tank is configured to provide a stream that is recycled. As discussed above, the specific fluid being treated is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 18, the various tanks in Dobby are capable of holding the fluids claimed.
Regarding claim 19, it is submitted that the first and second tanks in series are configured to/capable of collecting the components as claimed during its operation.
Regarding claim 20, it is submitted that the outlet at the top of the first and second tanks (17) are capable of providing a draining means for the tank.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218 in IDS) in view of Hildreth (US 4,026,799) and Yang (US 2016/0060137) and further in view of Livshits et al. (US 2010/0193445).
Regarding claim 7, Dobby fails to teach the apparatus includes an other tank connected at an upper portion of the tank. Livshits teaches that in a flotation unit having an inlet and multiple outlets, the froth/floatable portion is removed from the liquid being treated at the top of a tank via an outlet (top of cylinder 702) and then the liquid is moved to an other tank (728) for disposal/drain (Fig. 7 and [0077]).
Applying Livshits to Dobby results in the upper outlet (17) being connected to a downstream second tank that is configured for the tank to be connected to a drain/disposal means. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a second tank to hold the separated froth/foam removed from the tank during the flotation process thereby allowing the for the second tank to hold the separated portion and allow the for the second tank contents to be connected to a drain.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobby et al. (US 2013/0140218 in IDS) in view of Hildreth (US 4,026,799) and Yang (US 2016/0060137) and further in view of Smith (US 4,425,227).
Regarding claim 21, Dobby fails to teach a heating device capable of controlling a temperature of the fluid within the tank. Smith teaches that for specific fluids, separation and recovery can be increased by controlling the fluid temperature during a flotation stage via a heating means (C10/L14-C11/L5). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a heating means as claimed in order to allow for operating the flotation cells of Dobby at higher temperatures thereby ensuring greater separation and recovery efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above rejection has been modified to address the specific placement of the inlet and outlets.
Applicant argues that the specific placement of the inlet and outlets’ height provide some sort of critical benefit or unexpected results (facilitates flotation separation). It is noted that the argued benefits would already be realized via the Dobby design Fig. 5 as the inlet is already above the second outlet therefore providing the benefit associated with not creating turbulence for the heavier settling particles. Further, while Fig. 5 shows the first outlet that is slightly above the first inlet, a flow restrictor (7) where flotation would have to happen to the raw slurry/water prior to passing through the first outlet (8) reading on the reasoning providing for the first outlet being below the first inlet. It is also noted that Applicant’s arguments directed to the potential benefits are not supported by any evidence and are not applied to how the Dobby inlet and outlet heights would not provide the same benefits, only a generic statement that such issues could happen and not that they would happen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777