DETAILED ACTION This detailed action is in response to the application filed on September 08 , 2023 and any subsequent filings. 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 Claims 1- 11 are pending ; Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter argument filing date" \* MERGEFORMAT February 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I could be used with a lithium ore magnetic separation kit, but the kits of claim 17 cannot be used with a lithium ore magnetic separation kit , and would not be unduly burdensome for the Examiner to search and examine Groups I and lll . This is not found persuasive because the lithium ore d e es not have to be utilized with the froth flotation kit recited in claim 17 w hich includes froth floatation which is a separation technique to achieve the composition in claim 1. To meet MPEP § 806.05(g) requirements the composition of claim 1 can be separated with magnetic separation and utilized with magnetic separation kit . In addition, froth flotation collector composition and froth flotation kit are in different classification areas. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL . 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 1-2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Kouznetsov (US 9149814 B2) (appears on the PTO-892). Regarding Claim 1, Kouznetsov discloses a froth flotation collector (flotation and collected within the froth layer, Kouznetsov , Column 3, line 52-54) composition that has an oleic acid source (oleic, Kouznetsov , Column 5, line 10-12); a hydroxycarboxylic acid ( ricinoleic , Kouznetsov , Column 5, line 19-22). 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 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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouznetsov , et al., U.S. Patent No. 9149814 B2 (" Kouznetsov "), in view of Ge , et al., U.S. Patent No. 11175587 B2 (" Ge ") . Regarding Claim 3, paragraphs 6 and 7 in the office action discuss the reference from Kouznetsov to achieve the invention of claim 1. Kouznetsov discloses a froth flotation collector that includes a surfactant . Kouznetsov does not disclose the surfactant that has a compound having the structure XOOC—CH(R)—CH2—COOY, wherein R is selected from C10-C22 alkyl, alkenyl, aryl, aralkyl, or aralkenyl , and X and Y are independently selected from hydrogen, lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium, zinc, magnesium, ammonium, alkylammonium, and alkanolammonium . Ge teaches a surfactant comprises a compound having the structure XOOC—CH(R)—CH2—COOY, wherein R is selected from C10-C22 alkyl, alkenyl, aryl, aralkyl, or aralkenyl , and X and Y are independently selected from hydrogen, lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium, zinc, magnesium, ammonium, alkylammonium, and alkanolammonium (Ge, Column 2, line 20-44). 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 Ge because the invention of Ge falls within the same field of innovation regarding a surfactant . 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 surfactant stripper solution added by Ge would improve ability to quickly clean and remove all resist residues, etch residues and related materials at moderate to low temperatures without requiring a final ashing . In addition, the s urfactant stripper solution i mproves safe ty when used in a manufacturing environment, increases shelf-life, and minim izes toxicity (Ge, Column 1, line 53- Column 2 line 3) . Regarding Claim 4, paragraphs 17-20 in the office action discuss the reference s from Kouznetsov and Ge , and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of C laim 3 . The combination of references teaches a froth flotation collector composition where the R is an alkyl (Ge, Column 2, line 20-44). Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouznetsov , et al., U.S. Patent No. 9149814 B2 (" Kouznetsov "), in view of Silva , et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20240367179 A1 (" Silva ") , in view of, “ A novel approach for flotation recovery of spodumene, mica and feldspar from a lithium pegmatite ore .” Tian , et al (" Tian ") . Regarding Claim 9, paragraphs 6 and 7 in the office action discuss the reference from Kouznetsov to achieve the invention of claim 1. Kouznetsov discloses a froth flotation collector composition and a water source ( water , 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 (slurry, Silva, paragraph 21) that has a lithium ore source (ore, Silva, paragraph 21); a water source (water, 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, paragraphs 22-25 in the office action discuss the reference s from Kouznetsov and Silver , and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of C laim 9 . The combination of references teaches a lithium beneficiation slurry where the lithium ore source (ore, Silva, paragraph 21) is a pegmatite (pegmatite, Silva, paragraph 91). Regarding Claim 11, paragraphs 22-25 in the office action discuss the reference s from Kouznetsov and Silver , and the motivation of combining the references to achieve invention of C laim 9 . The combination of references teaches a lithium beneficiation slurry that has a frother ( frother , Silva, paragraph 24). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DeMarkus J Hodge whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3593 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. / DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/ Examiner, Art Unit 1779 /Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779