Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-3,5,9-24 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitations of ore have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite an indifferent salt, interpreted as a salt that is soluble in the aqueous phase of a slurry, and including at least alkali salts, alkali halide salts such as sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium and potassium nitrate/phosphate/sulfate, ammonium salts including chloride, bromide, carbonate, bicarbonate, nitrate, sulfate, hydrogen sulfate, dihydrogen phosphate, hydrogen phosphate, phosphate, multivalent salts including calcium and magnesium salts including chloride, bromide, nitrate, and sulphate (instant 0035-0039).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: feed system in claim 1, interpreted in view of the instant specification to include at least connection to a source of slurry (0017).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the treated feed slurry stream has a concentration of the indifferent salt dissolved in an aqueous phase thereof of at least 0.5 wt% to 2wt%, this is unclear, is 2 wt% an upper limit, or to be interpreted as at least?
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3,5 and 9-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Painter (WO 2018/144336), in view of Berger (US PG Pub 2015/0191377).
With respect to claim 1 Painter ’336 teaches treating composition including fines in the form of tailings to consolidate and dewater, from mining processes such as of metal ores, phosphate ore and oil sands (0030, process of thickening a slurry wherein the feed slurry includes tailings from processing a metal-based ore, a phosphate ore, a nitrate ore, or an iodine ore), by treating the composition with one or more highly water soluble salt(s) and consolidating such as by mixing followed by gravity sedimentation in a settling tank (0033-0045, 0068-0072, combining a first portion of a feed slurry in a thickener apparatus with an indifferent salt to separate the feed slurry), the process includes treating with at least one salt and/or at least one flocculant (0010-0022), solids in the composition can be consolidated such as by mixing followed by gravity sedimentation in a settling and separated decanting (0045, separating the treated feed slurry stream into an underflow slurry and an overflow liquid, removing the overflow liquid from a thickener tank via a port or a lip),
Flocculants with concentration of not less than about 0.005%, in an example, 0.1 wt% polyacrylamide (0021, 0048, 0080, a dosage of no less than 0.005 wt% of one or more polymer flocculants, wherein the one or more polymer flocculants include a non-ionic polyacrylamide or a co- polymer thereof), salts include salts having a monovalent cation, e.g., such as sodium chloride, sodium nitrate, sodium phosphates (0038, wherein the indifferent salt has a monovalent cation without multivalent cations, wherein the indifferent salt includes one or more salts selected from the group consisting of sodium chloride, sodium nitrate, and sodium sulfate), and to form a treated feed slurry stream having a concentration of the indifferent salt dissolved in an aqueous phase thereof of 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% (0042), the process water separated from an initial treated composition can advantageously include a significant amount of the one or more highly water-soluble salt(s) initially used to treat the composition and recovering at least a portion of the separated process water; recycling at least a portion of the recovered separated process water to treat additional aqueous fines (0066, recovering the overflow liquid including wherein the overflow liquid includes the indifferent salt dissolved therein); wherein the dosage refers to a weight of the one or more polymer flocculants to a weight of solids in the slurry (0049), the specific details of the thickener are typical configurations for a thickener and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the limitation of with an increase efficiency of at least 10% as compared to the feed slurry in the thickener apparatus without the added indifferent salt, examiner notes "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. A “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP §2111.04). Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, the fact that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance because the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency." Additionally Figure 6 illustrates samples treated with water, salt, or various solutions of salt and polymer providing an increase efficiency of at least 10% as compared to the feed slurry in the thickener apparatus without the added indifferent salt
Alternatively, with respect to the thickener details and increased efficiency, Berger teaches a similar process comprising concentration of suspensions, including suspensions containing minerals such as tailings from mining or mineral processions operations (0008, 0009, 0085-0087), the suspension (slurry) introduced into a vessel (a thickener) where solids settle and are flowed out as an underflow (abstract), feeding slurry and flocculant solution into a thickener feedwell and free water discharges to an overflow (Fig. 3, 0131), a process of thickening a slurry, the process comprising treating a feed slurry in a thickener apparatus to separate the feed slurry into an underflow slurry and an overflow liquid, an active agent for instance may be provided as ammonium or alkali metal salts such as sodium or potassium salts (0045, 0094, with an indifferent salt) the process enables an increase in solids sediment concentrations of greater than 10% by weight in comparison to conventional processes operating in the absence of the agent, and a more rapid compaction phase can be achieved ensuring rapid settling of solids (0030-0037, 0076-0077, 0092, an increase efficiency of at least 10% as compared to the feed slurry in the thickener apparatus without the added indifferent salt, the separation efficiency is determined by (i) a rate of sedimentation of solids, (ii) a rate of an overflow liquid throughput, (iii) a mass of the solids present in the underflow slurry, or any combination of (i) to (iii), wherein the thickener apparatus includes the thickener tank, and a feedwell that includes a chamber for receiving the feed slurry, wherein the feedwell is disposed in the thickener tank, and wherein the thickener tank includes the port or the lip for the overflow liquid (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Painter’s taught settling tank would include a feedwell, and ports as these are typical components for settling tank as shown by Berger, and process using salts including e.g. sodium and potassium salt (0047) would confer the same benefits as taught by Berger, as Berger teaches the process enables an increase in solids sediment concentrations of greater than 10% by weight in comparison to conventional processes operating in the absence of the agent (0092), and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 2, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter the feed slurry includes tailings from processing the metal-based ore or the phosphate ore, as discussed above, and a settling tank and decanting process water as discussed above; Berger teaches the suspension introduced into a vessel where solids settle and are flowed out as an underflow (abstract), feeding slurry and flocculant solution into a thickener feedwell and free water discharges to an overflow (Fig. 3 with ports, 0131).
With respect to claim 3, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches wherein the treated feed slurry stream has a concentration of the indifferent salt dissolved in an aqueous phase thereof of at least 0.5 wt% to 2wt% (0080-0083).
With respect to claim 5, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches the process water separated from an initial treated composition can advantageously include a significant amount of the one or more highly water-soluble salt(s) initially used to treat the composition and recovering at least a portion of the separated process water; recycling at least a portion of the recovered separated process water to treat additional aqueous fines as discussed above (0066, comprising recovering the overflow liquid which includes the indifferent salt dissolved therein and concentrating the indifferent salt in the overflow liquid and combining the concentrated indifferent salt with additional a second portion of the feed slurry), wherein the recovered overflow liquid includes the indifferent salt dissolved therein at a concentration of at least 0.3 wt% (0014, 0042-0043, 0065, 0080-0083), wherein the feed slurry includes tailings from processing the metal-based ore, and wherein the metal-based ore includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, gold, silver, molybdenum, lithium, and iron (0003, 0030, 0034).
With respect to claim 9, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches in forming the treated feed slurry stream, combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the one or more polymer flocculants occurs concurrent with or subsequent to combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the indifferent salt (0054, 0069).
With respect to claim 10, the process of claim 5 is taught above. Painter teaches in forming the treated feed slurry stream, combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the one or more polymer flocculants occurs subsequent to combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the indifferent salt, wherein in forming the treated feed slurry stream, combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the indifferent salt comprises combining a stream of the first portion of the feed slurry with a stream of an aqueous solution including the indifferent salt to form the treated feed slurry stream (0054, 0069), wherein the aqueous solution includes the indifferent salt at a concentration of 1 wt% to 5 wt% (0014, 0042-0043, 0065, 0080-0083), wherein the one or more polymer flocculants includes the non-ionic polyacrylamide and the indifferent salt includes sodium chloride (0021, 0038, 0048, 0080), wherein the feed slurry has a solids concentration of greater than 15 wt% solids (0031), wherein the metal-based ore includes copper (0003, 0030). The taught combination does not explicitly teach wherein the feed slurry has a solids loading rate of 2.5 to 6 (t/h)/m2, however since the specification is silent to unexpected results, the loading rate, is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the loading rate is a variable that can be modified, among others, by dilution of the feed (Painter 0071), the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the loading rate to obtain the desired separation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to claim 11, the process of claim 5 is taught above. Painter teaches in forming the treated feed slurry stream, combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the one or more polymer flocculants occurs concurrent with combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the indifferent salt, wherein in forming the treated feed slurry stream, combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the indifferent salt comprises combining a stream of the first portion of the feed slurry with a stream of an aqueous solution including the indifferent salt to form the treated feed slurry stream (0054, 0069), wherein the aqueous solution includes the indifferent salt at a concentration of 1 wt% to 5 wt% (0014, 0042-0043, 0065, 0080-0083), wherein the one or more polymer flocculants includes the non-ionic polyacrylamide and the indifferent salt includes sodium chloride (0021, 0038, 0048, 0080) ,wherein the feed slurry has a solids concentration of greater than 15 wt% solids (0031), wherein the feed slurry includes tailings from processing the metal-based ore, wherein the metal-based ore includes copper ore (0003, 0030). The taught combination does not explicitly teach wherein the feed slurry has a solids loading rate of 2.5 to 6 (t/h)/m2, however since the specification is silent to unexpected results, the loading rate, is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the loading rate is a variable that can be modified, among others, by dilution of the feed (Painter 0071), the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the loading rate to obtain the desired separation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to claim 12, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches in forming the treated feed slurry stream, combining the first portion of the feed slurry with the indifferent salt comprises combining a stream of the first portion of the feed slurry with a stream of an aqueous solution including the indifferent salt to form the treated feed slurry stream (0054, 0069).
With respect to claim 13, the process of claim 12, is taught above. Painter teaches the aqueous solution includes the indifferent salt at a concentration of 1 wt% to 5 wt%, (0014, 0042-0043, 0065, 0080-0083).
With respect to claim 14, 15, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches the indifferent salt is sourced from a natural source such as seawater (0015, 0044, 0093).
With respect to claim 16, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches salts include sodium chloride and flocculants in include polyacrylamide as discussed above (0021, 0038, 0048, 0080), the one or more polymer flocculants includes the non-ionic polyacrylamide and the indifferent salt includes sodium chloride.
With respect to claims 17, 18 and 19, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches salts can include ammonium based salt, and ammonium sulfate (0013, 0018, 0038-0040, 0064), the indifferent salt further includes one or more salts selected from sodium phosphate, potassium chloride, potassium nitrate, potassium phosphate, potassium sulfate, ammonium acetate, ammonium chloride, ammonium bromide, ammonium carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ammonium hydrogen sulfate, ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, ammonium hydrogen phosphate, and ammonium phosphate.
With respect to claim 20, the process of claim 1, is taught above. Painter teaches further comprising concentrating the indifferent salt in the overflow liquid and combining the concentrated indifferent salt with a second portion of the feed slurry as discussed above, wherein the recovered overflow liquid includes the indifferent salt dissolved therein at a concentration of 0.3 wt% to 0.7 wt%, (0014, 0042-0043, 0065, 0080-0083), wherein the feed slurry includes tailings from processing the metal-based ore, and wherein the metal-based ore includes copper ore (0003, 0030, 0034).
With respect to claim 21, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches wherein the tailings are from processing a metal-based ore, wherein the metal-based ore includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, gold, silver, molybdenum, lithium, and iron (0003, 0030, 0034) and wherein the recovered overflow liquid includes the indifferent salt dissolved therein at a concentration of 0.3 wt% to 1 wt% , (0014, 0042-0043, 0065, 0080-0083).
With respect to claim 22, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches wherein feed slurry has a solids concentration of greater than 30 wt% solids (0019).
With respect to claim 23, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Painter teaches wherein the feed slurry includes tailings from processing the metal-based ore, and wherein the metal-based ore includes copper ore (0003, 0030).
With respect to claim 24, the process of claim 1 is taught above. Berger teaches the thickener tank further includes a rotating rake assembly to sweep the underflow slurry, wherein the feedwell is disposed in the center of the thickener tank Fig. 3, 0110, Painter teaches composition of the fines depends on the source of the materials, but generally fines are comprised mostly of silt and clay material and sometimes minerals or mineral matter, depending on the ore (0031), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat feeds where the feed slurry is free of clay, depending on the ore.
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 JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777