DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claims 1, 11, and 19; and dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20.
The Preliminary Amendment has been entered.
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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 11 is 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. The term “sufficiently” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (“Effects of monovalent and divalent ions in coal gasification brine on the froth entrainment and flotation kinetics of anthracite coal”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zheng discloses a process of separating materials by flotation (see abstract), the process comprising: forming a feed slurry (see at least 2.2.1), which includes solid particles in ion managed water (see at least 2.1), in a flotation operation (see at least 2.2.1), wherein the ion managed water has a concentration of dissolved indifferent monovalent ions of at 0.3 wt% to 5 wt% (see table 3) and a concentration of dissolved multivalent ions of no more than 0.3 wt% (see table 3 and the examiner notes that this range includes zero), and recovering the materials including at least one selected from oil, bitumen, hydrocarbon, coal, tar, a halide, a fluoride, a chloride, a carbonate, a silicate, and an oxide (see at least 3.1).
Regarding independent claim 11, Zheng discloses a process of separating materials by flotation (see abstract), the process comprising: treating a source of water to have a first concentration of dissolved indifferent monovalent ions and a second concentration of dissolved multivalent ions in the source water to form an ion managed water (see 2.1 and table 3), combining the ion managed water with crushed ore to form a feed slurry (see at least 2.2.1), which includes solid particles in the ion managed water, in a flotation operation, and recovering the materials including at least one selected from oil, bitumen, hydrocarbon, coal, tar, a halide, a fluoride, a chloride, a carbonate, a silicate, and an oxide (see at least 3.1), wherein the first concentration is sufficiently high and the second concentration is sufficiently low to improve the flotation operation and improve a liquid-solid separation operation (see at least 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3).
Regarding independent claim 19, Zheng discloses a process of separating materials by flotation (see abstract), the process comprising: treating water reclaimed from a tailings storage facility (see 2.1, “Zhaozhuang coal plant”) to form ion managed water (see at least 2.1) having a concentration of dissolved indifferent monovalent ions of 0.3 wt% to 5 wt% (see table 3) and a concentration of dissolved multivalent ions of no more than 0.3 wt% (see table 3 and the examiner notes that this range includes zero), the treating of the water includes adding indifferent monovalent salts to the water to increase a concentration of indifferent monovalent ions dissolved in the water (see 2.1), wherein the indifferent monovalent salts are added in dry form or dissolved in an aqueous medium (see 2.1), forming a feed slurry (see at least 2.2.1), which includes solid particles in the ion managed water, in a flotation operation, and recovering the materials including a fluoride (inherently disclosed since coal contains fluoride).
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 12-14, and 18 Zheng discloses that the forming of the feed slurry comprises combining the ion managed water with crushed ore, and wherein the ion managed water is sourced from one or more of: (i) an external make-up water source, (ii) water recovered from a solid-liquid separation process, and/or (iii) water reclaimed from a tailings storage facility (see 2.1, “Zhaozhuang coal plant”). Zheng discloses treating the source of water to form the ion managed water (see 2.1). The source of water is treated by adding indifferent monovalent salts to the source of water to increase the concentration of the dissolved indifferent monovalent ions dissolved in the source of water (see 2.1). Indifferent salt is added in dry form to the flotation operation or dissolved in an aqueous medium and added to the flotation operation (see 2.1). The materials include fluorite (inherently disclosed since coal contains fluoride). The ion managed water is sourced from water recovered from a solid-liquid separation process (see 2.1). The ion managed water is sourced from water reclaimed from a tailings storage facility (see 2.1). The first concentration is in a range of from 0.3 wt% to 5 wt% (see table 3), and the second concentration is no more than 0.3 wt% (see table 3 and the examiner notes that this range includes zero).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8-9, 15-17, and 20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Painter et al. (US 2019/0071332), Ren et al. (US 9,457,295), and Thornton et al. (US 4,693,830) disclose processes of recovering materials from tailings having monovalent and multivalent ions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653