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 .
Claim Status
The Amendment filed on 30 June 2026 has been entered; claims 1-19 remain pending, of which claims 12-19 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 6 and 8 of the Remarks, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-8 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and the rejections of claims 9-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kouznetsov does not teach a mixture as reaction products; firstly, the Examiner points out that the claims do not recite “reaction products” or a “reaction” but a “mixture”. Secondly, Kouznetsov does teach that the collector composition is a reaction product of one or more surfactants, the hydroxycarboxylic acid, and the oleic acid (which, before, during, and after the reaction, exist as a mixture) (see Column 4, lines 54-64 of Kouznetsov).
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8 of the Remarks, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 3 and 4 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 3 and 4 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kouznetsov et al. (U.S. Patent # 9149814), hereinafter “Kouznetsov”.
Regarding Claim 1, Kouznetsov discloses a froth flotation collector (flotation and collected within the froth layer as described in Kouznetsov, Column 3, line 52-54) composition comprising a hydrophobic reaction product (considered to be a mixture before, during and after reaction) of an oleic acid source embodied as oleic acid (Kouznetsov, Column 5, line 10-12); a hydroxycarboxylic acid embodied as ricinoleic acid (Kouznetsov, Column 5, line 19-22); and one or more surfactants (Column 4, line 54 through Column 5, line 34).
Regarding Claim 2, Kouznetsov discloses a froth flotation collector composition where the surfactant is an anionic surfactant (ricinoleic, Kouznetsov, Column 5, line 19-22).
Regarding Claim 5, Kouznetsov discloses a froth flotation collector composition where the surfactant comprises a sulfonated surfactant that comprises an alkyl group (Kouznetsov, Column 7 line 59 - Column 8 line 13).
Regarding Claim 6, Kouznetsov discloses a froth flotation collector composition where the hydroxycarboxylic acid is ricinoleic acid (ricinoleic, Kouznetsov, Column 5, line 19-22).
Regarding Claim 7, Kouznetsov discloses a froth flotation collector composition where the oleic acid source is tall oil fatty acid (tall oil, Kouznetsov, Column 5, line 26-32).
Regarding Claim 8, Kouznetsov a froth flotation collector composition where the oleic acid source is 60 wt % to 95 wt % of the froth flotation collector composition; and the hydroxycarboxylic acid is 0.1 wt % to 5 wt % of the froth flotation collector composition (Kouznetsov, Column 4, line 58-64); and the surfactant is 0.1 wt % to 20 wt % of the froth flotation collector composition (Kouznetsov, Column 4, line 58-64).
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouznetsov, et al. (U.S. Patent # 9149814 in view of Silva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2024/0367179) and Tian et al. (Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 174, 625-633), hereinafter “Kouznetsov”, “Silva”, and “Tian”.
Regarding Claim 9, Kouznetsov teaches the mixture of claim 1, and additionally teaches a froth flotation collector composition and a water source (Kouznetsov, Column 4, line 23-30).
Kouznetsov does not disclose a lithium beneficiation slurry that has a lithium ore source.
Silva teaches a lithium beneficiation slurry (Silva: Paragraph [0021]) that has a lithium ore source (Silva: Paragraph [0021]); a water source (Silva, paragraph 21); and the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the reference of Kouznetsov with the reference of Silva because the invention of Silva falls within the same field of innovation regarding a froth flotation. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of the lithium beneficiation slurry added by Silva would improve the flotation performance, increases the grade and recovery of Li2O, and creates a process that is economical and environmentally friendly (Tian: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Kouznetsov and Silva and Tian teaches the limitations of claim 9, and additionally taches a lithium beneficiation slurry where the lithium ore source (Silva: Paragraph [0021]) is a pegmatite (Silva: Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kouznetsov and Silva and Tian teaches a lithium beneficiation slurry that has a frother (Silva: Paragraph [0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 02 October 2026
Prosecution Insights