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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 3/6/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-11, 18, 20, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jameson (US 2018/0243757).
Regarding claim 1, Jameson teaches an apparatus comprising a tank (10) for holding a volume of slurry, the tank comprising a launder with a launder lip (40), a fine slurry outlet (30) below the launder lip, and a coarse slurry outlet (20) below the fine slurry outlet for discharging coarse output slurry from the volume of slurry, wherein the apparatus comprises a solid-liquid separation arrangement (31 76) configured to collect output slurry from the volume of slurry via the fine slurry outlet and to separate suspended solids and flotation liquid from the output slurry to form a solids portion (38) and a liquid portion (32) (Figs 1-4) and [0009] and [0108]-[0126]).
It is noted that the classification types of apparatuses listed in Jameson (0038]), such as a screen or a hydrocyclone, would be considered liquid solid separators in the art as they produce one stream of larger solid particles and another stream/liquid portion of smaller particles and liquid consistent with the claim limitations.
It is noted that limitations directed to the fluid treated and the results of treating the fluid (solids fraction of the liquid portion) via the apparatus are not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim. "[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) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). 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). Jameson teaches all structural elements of the claimed apparatus and would therefore read on all recitations that are given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2, Jameson teaches that the solids/coarse portion are guided out of the apparatus (CON2) (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Jameson teaches a circulation arrangement (34) circulating the liquid portion back into the tank (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Jameson teaches a circulation inlet (9) capable of feeding flotation liquid (72) back into the tank (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Jameson teaches a flotation gas supply (71) that injects a gas into the liquid portion prior to being fed back into the tank (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Jameson teaches that the circulation arrangement includes a first slurry feeding arrangement (60), wherein the slurry feed is mixed with the liquid portion prior to being fed back into the tank (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Jameson teaches a second slurry feeding arrangement (80) for feeding slurry into the tank (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Jameson teaches a flotation liquid supply arrangement as claimed (34 70 71 72) (Figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Jameson teaches a slurry agitation arrangement (gas/air and liquid combination provided to inlet (9) that form bubbles that flow upwardly (Figs. 1-3 [0026]).
Regarding claim 23, Jameson teaches an arrangement having the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Jameson teaches a mill/grinder preceding the apparatus ([0148]-[0149]).
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) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jameson (US 2018/0243757) in view of Ziobin et al. (US 5,277,317 in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that while Jameson appears to show the secondary slurry feeding arrangement in the top 40% of the tank in the figures, such a teaching is not explicitly taught. Ziobin teaches that for a flotation arrangement for treating a slurry having ore/mineral in a liquid, a classification means is provided in order to provide an inlet to the flotation arrangement tank for the slurry at the top (24)in the froth layer created as well as another inlet above a coarse outlet (Fig. 1 and C6/L25-C8/L7). Such an arrangement allows for better separation and flotation of the desired mineral particles. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a classification means that separates the slurry into a fraction that is fed to the froth layer and another inlet that provides a feed above the coarse outlet as such an arrangement will allow for better treatment and flotation of the desired mineral/ore particles during flotation treatment.
Regarding claims 13-15, as discussed in claim 12 above, the secondary slurry inlet for a fraction of separated by the classification means is provided at the top of the tank above the fine slurry outlet of Jameson as said secondary slurry inlet is designed to provide the slurry to the froth layer.
Regarding claims 16-17, as discussed in claim 12 above, Jameson in view of Ziobin teaches the classification means providing the inlet at the top of the tank (second slurry feeding arrangement) for the coarse portions separated via the classification means and another inlet above the coarse slurry outlet (tertiary slurry inlet). It is noted that one skilled in the art could interpret the another inlet between the coarse slurry outlet and fine slurry outlet as immediately below the fine slurry outlet, or such an arrangement would not be considered novel as it is merely moving the inlet height to a relative position above the coarse outlet with no unexpected results or change in the operation of the apparatus (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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed above, limitations directed to the fluid being treated and the results of the operating the apparatus are not given patentable weight as “apparatus 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. Applicant should claim a physical structure rather than properties of a potential outlet stream.
Applicant argues that the a screen or hydrocyclone are not solid/liquid separation arrangements. Examiner respectfully disagrees as there are many instances in the art where screens and hydrocyclones are used to separate solids from a liquid.
Lastly, Applicant asserts that one skilled in the art would not modify the solid/liquid separation unit to achieve the desired solids fraction. It is noted that Applicant has not provided any structure or details as to how the solids/liquid separation arrangement is modified, only giving a result of intended operation. Examiner is unclear what modifications Applicant is referring to as no structural limitations are given for such modifications in this apparatus claim. For example, depending on the liquid treated, a screen or sieve of specific sizing, or a hydrocyclone of specific ratios could result in a solids fraction claimed but the claimed language provides no structural basis as to what modifications or structure is necessary for the solids/liquid separation arrangement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights