DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claim 1; and dependent claims 2-17.
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 Objections
Claims 4-17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 1-3 are objected to because they utilize the transitional phrase “characterised in that” which is not in accordance with USPTO customary practice.
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.
Claims 1-3 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 1 recites “a tube (31) comprising a flexible perforated membrane . . . the tube (31) comprising a flexible perforated membrane being configured to . . .” Claim 3 goes on to again recite “a flexible perforated membrane.” How many “flexible membrane”(s) do the claims require?
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin et al. (US 2020/0206750 A1) in view of Mankosa et al. (US 8,960,443).
Regarding independent claim 1, Galvin discloses A flotation circuit comprising: a flotation apparatus (30) comprising feed introduction means (3), the feed introduction means being configured to deliver feed material into a main separation chamber (33) of the flotation apparatus; wherein particles of the feed material entering the main separation chamber end up leaving the flotation apparatus through an upper outlet (40) of the flotation apparatus or through a lower outlet of the flotation apparatus, characterised in that the flotation circuit comprises a sparger (1) having a sparging mix conduit or chamber (2); and a tube (10) comprising a flexible perforated membrane (see at least para. 0013) disposed within the sparging mix conduit or chamber; the tube comprising a flexible perforated membrane (see at least para. 0013) being configured to: i) receive an aerated fluid comprising a combination of sparger water, and sparger air or gas therein (see at least para. 0088), ii) shear said aerated fluid upon passing of the aerated fluid through the flexible perforated membrane of the tube (see at least para. 0089), and iii) disperse sheared aerated fluid into the sparging mix conduit or chamber such that the sheared aerated fluid combines with the feed material moving within the sparging mix conduit or chamber (see at least para. 0090); wherein aerated slurry comprising a combination of i) the incoming feed material and ii) sheared aerated fluid is introduced to the main separation chamber of the flotation apparatus (see at least abstract).
Galvin discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose an aerated fluid comprising reagent. However, Mankosa discloses a similar device which includes an aerated fluid comprising a reagent (see at least col. 4, lines 40-55) for the purpose of improving flotation. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to utilize an aerated fluid comprising a reagent, as disclosed by Mankosa for the purpose of improving flotation.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 3, Galvin discloses that the tube of the sparger is configured as a straight tube (see at least Fig. 2). The sparger comprises a plurality of sparging mix conduits each having a tube comprising a flexible perforated membrane therein (see at least Fig. 2 and para. 0013).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ding et al. (US 6,126,836) and Ding et al. (US 5,928,125) disclose similar devices utilizing spargers.
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
Prosecution Insights