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 of Claims 1-25 and 27 in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 and 13-19 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.
Claim 2 recites “the second portion 216” but claim 1 recites “a second portion 236.” It is unclear if the two recited elements are the same or different as they have the same name but different reference numerals. If they are the same, then terminology should be consistent throughout the claims. If they are different, then there is a lack of antecedent basis for the second portion 216.”
Claim 13 recites “a disperser hood” but the independent claim also recites “a disperser hood.” As such it is unclear if the elements are the same or different from one another.
Claim 1 recites “the annular body 234 is configured to be provided radially- inwardly of a disperser hood 136 in the self-aspirated froth flotation cell 100” making the interpretation of the disperser hood to be an unclaimed element within the froth flotation cell. However, claim 13 then positively states the disperser hood as part of the slurry vortex stabilizer. As such, the claims appear to contradict one another on if the disperser hood is part of the claimed apparatus. The claim language should be amended to be consistent with the position that the displacer hood is part of the claimed apparatus and not just a surrounding element or for the displacer hood to be part of the froth flotation cell and not part of the apparatus.
Claim 14 further provides confusing language as it states the disperser hood share a monolithic and unitary structure with the slurry vortex stabilizer, but the claims are directed to a slurry vortex stabilizer and claim 13 states the vortex stabilizer comprises a disperser hood.
Claim 17 recites “the upper collar.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims.
Claims 19 and 22 recite “the body.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims.
Claim 20 recites “a separable disperser hood” but the independent claim also recites “a disperser hood.” As such it is unclear if the elements are the same or different from one another.
Claim 22 recites “the disperser.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims.
Claim 24 recites “a disperser hood” but the independent claim also recites “a disperser hood.” As such it is unclear if the elements are the same or different from one another.
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) 1-3, 6-10, 13, 22-23, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oblad et al. (WO 00/51743 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1 Oblad teaches slurry vortex stabilizer comprising: an annular body (46) having an upper annular edge (edge at top of annular body) and an aperture (65 78), the aperture extending through a central region of the annular body, the aperture having an inner surface bounded between an upper inner edge and a lower inner edge (interior upper and lower edges of annular ring); an annular undersurface (bottom of annular ring) comprising an inner first portion (inner portion of the annular ring), a second portion outer portion of annular ring) provided around the first portion, and an annular intersection, transition, or inflection therebetween (area between first portion and second portion); and, a sloped upper surface (70) which tapers downwardly towards the central region of the annular body as it approaches the aperture (Figs. 2-5, abstract, and pages 7-9).
It is noted that the claims are directed to solely a vortex stabilizer and not to the surrounding elements of a froth flotation cell (tank, rotor, drive shaft, disperser hood). As such, elements of the froth flotation cell other than the slurry vortex stabilizer are not given patentable weight as they are directed to potential placement and positioning of a claimed apparatus in regards to other unclaimed elements.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 3-4 show the first portion radially inward of the second portion as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, as can be seen in the figures, the aperture extends concentrically through the annular body providing the structure claimed.
Regarding claims 6-7, it is submitted that the sloped upper surface would have an angled floor in a frustospherical shape (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claims 8-9, it is submitted that the annular ring shown in Figs. 4-5 would have the first portion shape of frustospherical and the second portion as concave or dished.
Regarding claim 10, as can be seen in Fig. 5, the annular edge narrows as it approaches the innermost and outermost edges.
Regarding claim 13, Oblad teaches a disperser hood (29) (Fig. 5). It is noted that as the disperser hood is now being positively claimed as part of the apparatus, the language of claim 1 is now given patentable weight. Oblad further teaches the that disperser hood (29) is located radially outward of the annular ring (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, the annular body is capable of being placed in the manner claimed with unclaimed elements.
Regarding claim 23, it is submitted that the annular body would have what is defined as an upper collar (upper edge portion).
Regarding claim 25, the annular body is capable of being placed in the manner claimed with unclaimed elements.
Regarding claim 27, Oblad teaches the slurry vortex stabilizer of claim 1.
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) 4-5, 14-16, 19-21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oblad et al. (WO 00/51743 in IDS).
Regarding claims 4-5, Oblad teaches that the “ vortex stabilizing member (46) generally takes the form of a flat or curved ring.” In the figures the curved ring has an upper convex surface with a frustospherical shape but not a concave shape as claimed. However, based on the language of Oblad and the teaching that the ring can have different shapes, one skilled in the art would have found that the specific shape would not be considered critical especially as it already teaches certain curved ring shapes. Therefore, modifying the curved ring shape to have a concave upper surface would have been obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 14, it appears the disperser hood and the annular ring and disperser hood are formed from different elements but it is never positively taught one way or another. However, making separate elements integral would have been an obvious matter to one skilled in the art (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Regarding claim 15, as stated in claim 14. it appears the disperser hood and the annular ring and disperser hood are formed from different elements and would therefore have some sort of gap. However, making integral elements separable would have been an obvious matter to one skilled in the art especially as a gap for the annular ring and disperser hood elements is taught in Fig. 2 of Oblad (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Regarding claim 16, it is submitted that Figs. 2-3 show mounting elements to connect the various parts. As such, it would have been obvious to provide mounting elements as claimed in order to attach the various parts to wherever they would be needed.
Regarding claim 19, it is submitted that the annular body is capable of interacting with unclaimed elements as claimed.
Regarding claims 20-21, see claim 16 above for inclusion of mounting hardware and such hardware would be capable of connecting to other unclaimed elements.
Regarding claim 24, see claims 14-15 for making integral elements integral or separable.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oblad et al. (WO 00/51743 in IDS) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Haughton et al. (US 2005/0174883).
Regarding claims 11-12, Oblad fails to teach webbing as claimed. Haughton teaches that for rings/annular bodies, it is beneficial to provide webbing in order to support the annular rings to maintain their shape ([0108]). As such, it would have been obvious to provide webbing as claimed in order to provide support to the annular body.
Regarding claims 17-18, Oblad teaches that the disperser hood has a bell/frustoconical shape as claimed but fails to teach the bell having a number of perforations or openings. Haughton teaches that for a dispersing means having a bell/frustoconical shape, perforations of different sizes and shapes can be provided in order to fine tune the mixing currents and droplet size of the dispersion ([0108]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide perforations or openings as claimed in order to fine tune the mixing currents and droplet size of the dispersion.
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