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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitatios “wherein the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually connected to pressurized gas supply devices” are already present in instant claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherrell et al. (US 2020/0368761), in view of Kim et al. (KR 101864178B1, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Sherrell teaches a flotation method of separating and recovering mineral particles through a flotation treatment, the flotation treatment including floating the mineral particles in a liquid to be treated containing the mineral particles (refer abstract, [0002], fig. 1), by using minute air bubbles having an air bubble diameter having a size range of 1 µm to 1.2 mm (refer sparger 62 introducing microbubbles, [0040] discloses microbubble size) and air bubbles having a larger diameter than the minute air bubbles in the liquid to be treated (refer agitator 70 generating bubble larger than microbubbles, [0007] disclosing larger air bubble size to be between 0.8 to 2 mm).
Sherrell discloses that introducing microbubble in addition to conventional large bubbles improves removal efficiency (refer [0009]-[0011]). Selecting size of microbubbles would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Sherrell’s disclosure of microbubble size range ( 1 µm to 1.2 mm) overlapping the claimed range of 200 µm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Sherrell discloses that the minute air bubbles are generated by microbubble generator 60 which mixes air into recirculated slurry (refer [0147]) and larger air bubbles are generated by supplying air to stator 71 comprises a system or assembly for introducing flotation gas into the flotation cell 110 (refer [0123]). It is implied that air is supplied from outside and therefore is annex to the flotation device.
Sherrel does not teach that the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually provided with flow rate valves, and the flow rate of the air bubbles generated from each of the devices is individually adjusted according to a desired flotation time, and regulating over respective flow rates of air bubbles through control using the flow rate valves by controlling the degrees of opening of the flow rate valves.
Kim teaches a flotation system comprising supplying large bubbles and fine bubbles into flotation vessel (refer abstract). A blower (300) connected to air supply pipes having valves controlling flow of air to generate the large bubbles and minute bubbles in tank 100 (refer fig. 2, last paragraph on page 6). Kim further discloses that a flow rate measuring instrument capable of measuring the flow rate and a valve for controlling the flow rate of the air are provided in the untreated water supply pipe 113, the chemical supply pipe 115, the second air supply pipe 121 and the first discharge pipe 151, a flow meter F is provided to quantify the supply of untreated water, air, chemicals and the like, thereby controlling the phosphorus and nitrogen crystallization reaction precisely (refer last paragraph on page 8). Fig. 2 also indicates providing a valve and flowmeter on each of the air supply valves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sherrel such that the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually provided with flow rate valves, and the flow rate of the air bubbles generated from each of the devices is individually adjusted, and regulating over respective flow rates of air bubbles through control using the flow rate valves by controlling the degrees of opening of the flow rate valves as taught by Kim for controlling as flow rate. Selecting controlling air flow for how long and how much would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because Kim discloses that the growth rate of the crystal can be adjusted by the air supply amount of the micro-bubble diffuser (refer beginning of page 11).
The limitation of “the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually connected to pressurized gas supply devices, and each of the pressurized gas supply devices independently supplies pressurized gas to a corresponding one of the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device” is taught by Kim because Kim discloses individual air supply pipes, each having a flow control valve controlling supply of air to the minute and larger air bubble generating devices. In this instance, the individual valves controlling supply of air are considered “pressurized gas supply devices”.
Regarding claim 7, Sherrell teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Sherrell teaches that minerals have particle size D80 of less than 200 µm (refer [0078]). Selecting size of particles would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Sherrell’s disclosure of mineral particles size being less than 200 µm overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Sherrell teaches limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Sherrell teaches that minerals have particle size D80 of less than 200 µm (refer [0078]). Selecting size of particles would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Sherrell’s disclosure of mineral particles size being less than 200 µm overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Alternatively, claim(s) 1, 6-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherrell et al. (US 2020/0368761), in view of Kim et al. (KR 101864178B1, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping) and Neu et al. (US 2021/0276902A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Sherrell teaches a flotation method of separating and recovering mineral particles through a flotation treatment, the flotation treatment including floating the mineral particles in a liquid to be treated containing the mineral particles (refer abstract, [0002], fig. 1), by using minute air bubbles having an air bubble diameter having a size range of 1 µm to 1.2 mm (refer sparger 62 introducing microbubbles, [0040] discloses microbubble size) and air bubbles having a larger diameter than the minute air bubbles in the liquid to be treated (refer agitator 70 generating bubble larger than microbubbles, [0007] disclosing larger air bubble size to be between 0.8 to 2 mm).
Sherrell discloses that introducing microbubble in addition to conventional large bubbles improves removal efficiency (refer [0009]-[0011]). Selecting size of microbubbles would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Sherrell’s disclosure of microbubble size range ( 1 µm to 1.2 mm) overlapping the claimed range of 200 µm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Sherrell discloses that the minute air bubbles are generated by microbubble generator 60 which mixes air into recirculated slurry (refer [0147]) and larger air bubbles are generated by supplying air to stator 71 comprises a system or assembly for introducing flotation gas into the flotation cell 110 (refer [0123]). It is implied that air is supplied from outside and therefore is annex to the flotation device.
Sherrel does not teach that the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually provided with flow rate valves, and the flow rate of the air bubbles generated from each of the devices is individually adjusted according to a desired flotation time, and regulating over respective flow rates of air bubbles through control using the flow rate valves by controlling the degrees of opening of the flow rate valves.
Kim teaches a flotation system comprising supplying large bubbles and fine bubbles into flotation vessel (refer abstract). A blower (300) connected to air supply pipes having valves controlling flow of air to generate the large bubbles and minute bubbles in tank 100 (refer fig. 2, last paragraph on page 6). Kim further discloses that a flow rate measuring instrument capable of measuring the flow rate and a valve for controlling the flow rate of the air are provided in the untreated water supply pipe 113, the chemical supply pipe 115, the second air supply pipe 121 and the first discharge pipe 151, a flow meter F is provided to quantify the supply of untreated water, air, chemicals and the like, thereby controlling the phosphorus and nitrogen crystallization reaction precisely (refer last paragraph on page 8). Fig. 2 also indicates providing a valve and flowmeter on each of the air supply valves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sherrel such that the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually provided with flow rate valves, and the flow rate of the air bubbles generated from each of the devices is individually adjusted, and regulating over respective flow rates of air bubbles through control using the flow rate valves by controlling the degrees of opening of the flow rate valves as taught by Kim for controlling as flow rate. Selecting controlling air flow for how long and how much would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because Kim discloses that the growth rate of the crystal can be adjusted by the air supply amount of the micro-bubble diffuser (refer beginning of page 11).
Regarding the limitation “the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually connected to pressurized gas supply devices, and each of the pressurized gas supply devices independently supplies pressurized gas to a corresponding one of the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device”, Neu teaches a water treatment system comprising a tank having a plurality of air bubble headers. Neu also teaches that “Fine and/or coarse bubbles are introduced into second stage tank 24 by blower 18 via a second valve 32 and air header. In one embodiment the air bubbles introduced into the second stage tank 24 may be of a different size and/or rate than the size and/or rate of the bubbles introduced into first stage tank 16. In one embodiment a second blower independent of the first blower 18 may be used to pump air into the second stage tank 24” (refer [0018]). Therefore, Neu establishes that it is known in the art to provide separate blowers supplying air to generate bubble generators generating different sizes of air bubbles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique of providing individual air supply devices to individual air discharge in the method of modified Sherrel. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include and applies in this instance: Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Sherrell teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Sherrell teaches that minerals have particle size D80 of less than 200 µm (refer [0078]). Selecting size of particles would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Sherrell’s disclosure of mineral particles size being less than 200 µm overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Sherrell teaches limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Sherrell teaches that minerals have particle size D80 of less than 200 µm (refer [0078]). Selecting size of particles would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Sherrell’s disclosure of mineral particles size being less than 200 µm overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1, applicant argued that Sherrell et al. (US 2020/0368761), in view of Kim et al. (KR 101864178B1) fail to teach the limitation of “the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually connected to pressurized gas supply devices, and each of the pressurized gas supply devices independently supplies pressurized gas to a corresponding one of the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device”, and that Kim teaches a single blower (300).
This is not found to be persuasive because Kim teaches that each of the air supply line includes a valve controlling supplying air to the minute air bubble generation device and the floatation device. Since the valves are controlling air supply individually, the valves are considered pressurized gas supply devices and meets the claim limitation of “the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device are individually connected to pressurized gas supply devices, and each of the pressurized gas supply devices independently supplies pressurized gas to a corresponding one of the minute air bubble generation device and the flotation device”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights