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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 11 FEBRUARY 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 FEBRUARY 2026.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-19
Withdrawn Claims: 20-22
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3” has been used to designate both a dewatering system and a third flotation unit. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Page 14, line 4 “rater” should read “rather”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “TankCell®”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “wherein particles are fed for interaction with froth layer in the froth layer, under the froth layer close proximity thereof, or above the froth layer, or any combinations thereof” in lines 5-7 of the claim should read “wherein particles are fed for interaction with the froth layer in the froth layer, under the froth layer in close proximity thereof, or above the froth layer, or any combinations thereof”.
In Claim 1, “the arrangement” twice in line 8 and line 11 of the claim should read “the flotation arrangement”.
In Claim 3, “the second floatation unit” in lines 1-2of the claim should read “the second flotation unit”.
In Claim 4, “wherein particles are fed for interaction with froth layer in the froth layer, under the froth layer close proximity thereof, or above the froth layer, or any combinations thereof” in lines 4-6 of the claim should read “wherein particles are fed for interaction with the froth layer in the froth layer, under the froth layer in close proximity thereof, or above the froth layer, or any combinations thereof”.
In Claim 5, “where-in” in line 3 of the claim should read “wherein”
In Claim 5, “the vessel” in line 4 of the claim should read “the closed vessel”.
In Claim 13, “the vessel” in line 3 of the claim should read “the closed vessel”.
In Claim 14, “the arrangement” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “the flotation arrangement”.
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 7, 9, and 17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a solid material stream with a solids content of above 50 weight-%”, and the claim also recites “preferably 60 to 80 weight-%”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the stream" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the outlet" in line 2 and “the inlet” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the slurry" in line 3 of the claim. There are two previously introduced slurries introduced in claim 16 being “for slurry infeed” and “in slurry therein”, upon which claim 17 depends. It is unclear which slurry is being referenced in claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Vollert (International Patent Application No. WO 2020037357 A1) hereinafter Vollert.
Regarding Claim 1, Vollert discloses a flotation circuit (i.e., a flotation arrangement comprising; Figs. 1, Circuit A, Fig. 10; Page 3, Lines 1-5)
including a plant for recovering metals from an ore with a fines flotation element (i.e., a first flotation section including a first flotation unit comprising; Fig. 1, 10, #7), specifically mentioned to be a conventional Outotec tank cell which includes a mechanical agitator in an example (i.e., a mechanical agitator; Page 20, Lines 4-7),
followed by a coarse flotation element (i.e., a second flotation section including a second flotation unit, which comprises; Fig. 1, #25, Fig. 10, #19; Page 7, Lines 11-32), specifically utilizing a HydroFloatTM cell which is a fluidized bed separator (i.e., i) a fluid bed device comprising devices for creating a fluid bed, and/or ii) a froth device comprising devices for creating a froth layer, wherein particles are fed for interaction with the froth layer in the froth layer, under the froth layer in close proximity thereof, or above the froth layer, or any combinations thereof; Page 19, Lines 20-22),
wherein the rougher tailings (Fig. 10, #13) from the fines flotation (Fig. 10, #7) are pumped to a cyclone pack (i.e., wherein the flotation arrangement further comprises a dewatering system for separating solid material and liquid to obtain a dewatered solid material stream and a separated liquid stream; Fig. 10, #91) to remove fines with as much water as possible while the underflow (Fig. 10, #95) gravity feeds CrossFlowTM separators (Fig. 10, #97) which in turn send the underflow (Fig. 10, #101) of the separators to the HydroFloatTM coarse flotation cells (i.e., said dewatering system is arranged before the second flotation unit and connected thereto for leading said dewatered solid material stream to the second flotation unit; Fig. 10, #19) wherein the overflows of the cyclone bank (Fig. 10, #93) and separators (Fig. 10, #99) are sent to a tails thickener (i.e., the flotation arrangement comprises recovery means for recovering the separated liquid stream; Fig. 10, #75; Page 22, Line 9 to Page 23, Line 30).
Regarding Claim 3, Vollert further discloses that the coarse flotation element (i.e., the second flotation unit comprises; Fig. 1, #25, Fig. 10, #19; Page 7, Lines 11-32) specifically utilizes a HydroFloatTM cell which is a fluidized bed separator (i.e., a fluid bed device comprising devices for creating a fluid bed; Page 19, Lines 20-22).
Regarding Claim 4, Vollert further discloses that the coarse flotation element (i.e., the second flotation unit comprises; Fig. 1, #25, Fig. 10, #19; Page 7, Lines 11-32) specifically utilizes a HydroFloatTM cell which is a fluidized bed separator (i.e., a fluid bed device comprising devices for creating a fluid bed; Page 19, Lines 20-22) and that process water, frother, and air from storage units (Fig. 10, #89) are added to the HydroFloatTM cells (i.e., a froth device comprising devices for creating a froth layer, wherein particles are fed for interaction with the froth layer in the froth layer, under the froth layer in close proximity thereof, or above the froth layer, or any combinations thereof; Page 23, Lines 20-21).
Regarding Claim 5, Vollert further discloses a fines flotation element (i.e., a first flotation section including a first flotation unit comprising; Fig. 1, 10, #7), specifically mentioned to be a conventional Outotec tank cell which includes an inlet in the bottom area of the tank, and outlet also near the bottom, and an overflow launder for concentrate at the top of the tank (i.e., ii) at least one device comprising a flotation vessel and an inlet connected for receiving feed to be handled in said flotation vessel and arranged to a lower part of the flotation vessel, and overflow means for removing flotation concentrate, arranged to an upper part of the flotation vessel, and an outlet for removing underflow, arranged to a lower part of the flotation vessel; Page 20, Lines 4-7).
Regarding Claim 6, Vollert further discloses wherein the rougher tailings (Fig. 10, #13) from the fines flotation (Fig. 10, #7) are pumped to a cyclone pack (i.e., wherein the dewatering system is a dewatering cyclone; Fig. 10, #91).
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “wherein the dewatering system is arranged to provide a solid material stream with a solids content of above 50 weight-%, preferably 60 to 80 weight-%, of the total weight of the stream” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 8, Vollert further discloses that the fines flotation element (i.e., a first flotation section including a first flotation unit comprising; Fig. 1, 10, #7), is a conventional Outotec tank cell which includes a mechanical agitator (Page 20, Lines 4-7) and that conventional flotation mechanical cells consist of an impellor or stator to suspend particles, disperse gas, and facilitate bubble-particle contact (wherein the mechanical agitator comprises means for mixing a slurry and creating bubbles therein; Page 19, Lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 10, Vollert further discloses that the fines flotation element (i.e., a first flotation section including a first flotation unit comprising; Fig. 1, 10, #7), is a conventional Outotec tank cell which includes a mechanical agitator (Page 20, Lines 4-7) and that conventional flotation mechanical cells consist of a froth zone which aids in the separation of valuable bubble-particle (wherein the first flotation unit comprises a flotation vessel and the flotation vessel comprises devices for creating a froth layer; Page 19, Lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 11, Vollert further discloses that the fines flotation element (i.e., a first flotation section including a first flotation unit comprising; Fig. 1, 10, #7), is a conventional Outotec tank cell which includes a mechanical agitator (Page 20, Lines 4-7) and that conventional flotation mechanical cells consist of an impellor or stator to suspend particles, disperse gas, and facilitate bubble-particle contact (wherein the mechanical agitator comprises means for mixing a slurry and creating bubbles therein; Page 19, Lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 12, Vollert further discloses a fines flotation element (i.e., a first flotation section including a first flotation unit comprising; Fig. 1, 10, #7), specifically mentioned to be a conventional Outotec tank cell which includes an inlet in the bottom area of the tank, and outlet also near the bottom, and an overflow launder for concentrate at the top of the tank (i.e., ii) at least one device comprising a flotation vessel and an inlet connected for receiving feed to be handled in said flotation vessel and arranged to a lower part of the flotation vessel, and overflow means for removing flotation concentrate, arranged to an upper part of the flotation vessel, and an outlet for removing underflow, arranged to a lower part of the flotation vessel; Page 20, Lines 4-7).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollert (International Patent Application No. WO 2020037357 A1) hereinafter Vollert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gui et al (Chinese Patent Application No. CN 102430480 A) hereinafter Gui.
Regarding Claim 2, Vollert does not teach wherein the recovery means are arranged to lead at least part of the separated liquid stream to the second flotation unit.
However, Gui teaches a centrifugal dewatering machine (Fig. 2, D) between two flotation columns (Fig. 2, C and H) where the filtrate from the dewatering (Fig. 2, #6) is sent to a buffer tank (i.e., wherein the recovery means; Fig. 2, F) to be combined with material that has been sent to a ball mill (Fig. 2, E) and sent to the second flotation column (i.e., are arranged to lead at least part of the separated liquid stream to the second flotation unit; Fig. 2, Paragraph 0025, Machine Translation) for the purpose of the complete dissociation of bound minerals from a previous flotation concentrate which will improve the quality and recovery rate of the subsequent flotation concentrate (Paragraph 0012, Machine Translation).
Gui is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a flotation process (Paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the flotation circuit as taught by Vollert with sending the water from dewatering to combine with ground material from a ball mill to a second flotation as taught by Gui because the water and ball mill would cause a complete dissociation of bound minerals from a previous flotation concentrate which will improve the quality and recovery rate of the subsequent flotation concentrate.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollert as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Chaiko et al (International Patent Application No. WO 2015095054 A2) hereinafter Chaiko.
Regarding Claim 9, Vollert teaches in Fig. 7 that flotation cells (Fig. 7, #63 & 69) are used in multiples together in flotation circuits (Page 20, Lines 1-7).
Vollert does not explicitly teach wherein the first flotation unit comprises at least three flotation vessels arranged in series such that the outlet for removing underflow of a preceding flotation vessel is connected to the inlet of a following flotation vessel.
However, Chaiko teaches that a typical flotation circuit comprises one or more rougher cells, with three shown in Fig. 1 (i.e., wherein the first flotation unit comprises at least three flotation vessels arranged in series; Fig. 1, #5a-c), which are connected such that they deliver tails (Fig. 1, #6a-b) to subsequent rougher cells as feed (i.e., such that the outlet for removing underflow of a preceding flotation vessel is connected to the inlet of a following flotation vessel; Page 11, Lines 12-22).
Chaiko is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to flotation to refine ores (Page 1, Lines 8-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the flotation circuit as taught by Vollert to have three flotation cells connected in series as taught by Chaiko because Chaiko teaches that this configuration is typical and therefore well-known in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tuominen et al (International Patent No. WO 2019008217 A1) hereinafter Tuominen.
Regarding Claim 13, Vollert does not teach wherein the first flotation unit comprises a flotation vessel and the flotation vessel comprises a closed vessel for a pressurized flotation, wherein flotation concentrate is removed by pressure from the closed vessel.
However, Tuominen teaches that the froth flotation unit comprises a mechanically agitated pressure vessel with a mixer and flotation gas input (i.e., wherein the first flotation unit comprises a flotation vessel and the flotation vessel comprises a closed vessel for a pressurized flotation, wherein flotation concentrate is removed by pressure from the closed vessel; Page 7, Lines 3-12) for the purpose of directing brittle froth more efficiently and reliably towards froth overflow lip and froth overflow collection launder (Page 2, Lines 21-37).
Tuominen is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a froth flotation unit for treating mineral ore particles suspended in slurry (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the flotation circuit as taught by Vollert with the mechanically agitated pressure vessel with a mixer and flotation gas input as taught by Tuominen because the mechanically agitated pressure vessel with a mixer and flotation gas input would more efficiently and reliably direct brittle froth towards the froth overflow lip and the froth collection launder.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jameson (US Patent Application No. 20080308502 A1) hereinafter Jameson.
Regarding Claim 14, Vollert further discloses the use of cleaner and cleaner scavenger flotation cells in Fig. 10 and describes the same cells in a previous example (Fig. 7, #69) as consisting of Jameson cells and Outotec tank cells (Page 20, Lines 8-12).
Vollert does not teach wherein the flotation arrangement further comprises a third flotation unit comprising a flotation vessel that comprises devices for pneumatical gas addition.
However, Jameson teaches a flotation cell (Fig. 1, #21) with a being premixed to the slurry (i.e., wherein the flotation arrangement further comprises a third flotation unit comprising a flotation vessel that comprises devices for pneumatical gas addition; Fig. 1, Paragraph 0070) for the purpose of providing a simple and efficient method of generating fine bubbles and bringing them into contact with particles to be floated (Paragraph 0016).
Jameson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the froth flotation process for the recovery or separation of particles from suspensions in liquids (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the flotation circuit as taught by Vollert with the flotation cell as taught by Jameson because the flotation cell would provide a simple and efficient method of generating fine bubbles and bringing them into contact with particles to be floated.
Regarding Claim 15, Jameson further teaches that the flotation cell (Fig. 1, #21) produces a froth layer (i.e., wherein the flotation vessel comprises a froth separation device comprising devices for creating a froth layer, comprising; Fig. 1, #23)
and comprises a riser (Fig. 1, #20) which discharges an emulsion into the flotation tank seen to be in an upper part of the flotation cell (i.e., an inlet connected for receiving feed to be handled in said flotation vessel and arranged to an upper part of the flotation vessel; Fig. 1)
with a launder (Fig. 1, #25) located on the top of the flotation cell for the collection of froth that flows over the lip (Fig. 1, #24) of the flotation cell (i.e., and an overflow means for removing flotation concentrate, arranged to an upper part of the flotation vessel; Paragraph 0070).
Regarding Claim 16, Jameson further teaches that the contactor (Fig. 1 &4, #16) which feeds the gas-liquid mixture to the flotation cell is a downcomer (i.e., wherein the flotation vessel comprises a downcomer for slurry infeed) and can have an exit nozzle (i.e. the downcomer equipped with a nozzle; Fig. 4, #37) and that the pressure in the downcomer is well above the ambient pressure of the flotation cell (i.e., for feeding pressurized flotation gas in slurry therein; Paragraphs 0081-0082).
Regarding Claim 17, Jameson further teaches that the contactor contains a shock wave bubble generator (i.e., wherein the downcomer comprises an outlet nozzle; Fig. 2, #18) that causes the gas-liquid mixture to reach the speed of sound and generate shockwaves (i.e., configured to induce a supersonic shockwave into the slurry) and is located where the contactor connects to the flotation cell (i.e., as it exits the downcomer; Fig. 2; Paragraph 0073).
Regarding Claim 18, Vollert further teaches comminution circuit (Fig. 1, #3 & 5) that includes a classifier (i.e., comprising a separation unit) which produces an oversize stream which is transferred to a milling step for further comminution (i.e., arranged for preventing large particles entering in the third flotation unit; Page 12, Lines 14-33).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollert in view of Jameson as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Filmer et al (US Patent Application No. 20180111131 A1) hereinafter Filmer.
Regarding Claim 19, Vollert further teaches that the classifier is done via particle size (Page 12-14).
Vollert in view of Jameson does not explicitly teach wherein the separation unit comprises a grizzly or a grating.
However, Filmer teaches that classification devices are typically screens (i.e., wherein the separation unit comprises a grating; Paragraph 0066) where the oversize material is further ground down for the purpose of liberating sufficient gangue (Paragraph 0044).
Filmer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to recovering valuable ore with flotation (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the flotation circuit made obvious by Vollert in view of Jameson with the screen classifier as taught by Filmer because the screen classifier is well-known and would identify particles that need more gangue to be liberated prior to entering the flotation circuits.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772