DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 02/02/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-32 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 1
The Applicant’s argue that reference Knaus do not teach the limitations of the amended Claim 1 (pg. 13). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
Response to Amendment
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 1-32 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “dead bed chamber” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a bed of settled particles,” but the term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
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.
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 1-2, 6-7, 13, 15-21, 23-24, 27-29 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US3434596A (‘Knaus’) in view of Publication Island Copper grinding circuit — a progress review (‘Brown’, Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 3, 122–136 (1986)).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 6-7, 13, 15-21, 23-24, 27-29 and 31-32, Knaus teaches a slurry feeding arrangement configured to feed slurry to a froth layer (C1/L68-C2/L8), the slurry feeding arrangement comprising
one or more slurry feed means (Fig. 2, C3/L28-30, pipe 9) configured to feed the slurry;
a feed chamber (Fig. 2, C4/L4-8, pre-aerating launder 7) configured to receive the fed slurry from the one or more slurry feed means, wherein the fed slurry drops vertically into the feed chamber (Fig. 2); and
an overflow ramp (Fig. 2, C3/L39-52, wall 14) between the feed chamber and the froth layer configured to lead the fed slurry from the feed chamber to the froth layer (C4/L1-32).
Knaus does not teach that the feed chamber is a dead bed chamber.
Brown also relates to a slurry feeding arrangement (pg. 128, section Feed chute lining), wherein the feed chamber is a dead bed chamber (pg. 128, section Feed chute lining).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the feed chamber of Knaus to be a dead bed chamber, as demonstrated by Brown, to decrease ore impact velocity (Brown, pg. 128, section Feed chute lining) and reduce wear (Brown, pg. 127, section Cyclone feed sumps).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: a feed means connector (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L31-35, splitter 11) connectable to the one or more slurry feed means, wherein the feed chamber is placed under the feed connector and arranged to receive the fed slurry from the one or more slurry feed means (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L31-35).
Claim 6: the feed chamber is divided into one or more separate compartments by one or more partition walls (Knaus, Fig. 2).
Claim 7: the overflow ramp is arranged at an angle of 10 to 60 degrees to the horizontal (Knaus, Fig. 2).
Claim 13: the one or more slurry feed means are configured to feed the slurry by gravity (Knaus, C3/L53-66).
Claim 15: the slurry feeding arrangement further comprises at least one gas bubble arrangement configured to feed gas bubbles into the feed chamber and/or on the overflow ramp (Knaus, C3/L25-27).
Claim 16: the at least one gas bubble arrangement comprises one or more gas feed means configured to feed the gas bubbles into the feed chamber and/or on the overflow ramp (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L36-38, perforated pipes 12).
Claim 17: the one or more gas feed means are configured to feed gas bubbles inside the feed chamber through the top plate, feed chamber bottom, and/or one or more feed chamber sidewalls (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L36-38, perforated pipes 12).
Claim 18: the at least one gas bubble arrangement is configured to feed the gas bubbles on the overflow ramp, wherein the one or more gas feed means are arranged to provide the gas bubbles over the width of the overflow ramp perpendicular to flow of the slurry (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L36-38, perforated pipes 12).
Claim 19: the overflow ramp comprises a ramp bottom (Knaus, Figs. 3-4), wherein the at least one gas bubble arrangement is configured to feed gas bubbles on the overflow ramp at a distance from a lower edge of the overflow ramp (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L36-38, perforated pipes 12).
Claim 20: the ramp bottom has at least one of the following form: a curved (Knaus, Figs. 3-4), stepped, and/or corrugated.
Claim 21: each of the one or more gas feed means comprises one or more nozzles or outlets (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L36-38, perforated pipes 12).
Claim 23: the slurry feeding arrangement comprises 1 to 512 slurry feed means (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L28-30, pipe 9).
Claim 24: A flotation cell for treating particles suspended in slurry (abstract), the flotation cell comprising a tank (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L4-6, tank 1) for holding a volume of slurry and a froth layer over the volume of slurry (Knaus, C4/L1-43); and a slurry feeding arrangement according to claim 1 (see analysis of Claim 1).
Claim 27: the one or more slurry feed means are arranged above the froth layer (Knaus, Fig. 2).
Claim 28: the slurry feeding arrangement is configured to feed the slurry onto the froth layer, into the froth layer, into the froth slurry interface, and/or immediately below the froth layer (Knaus, Fig. 2).
Claim 29: the flotation cell further comprises a launder with a launder lip (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L7-24, overflow lip 6) for collecting froth from the froth layer.
Claim 31: the flotation cell comprises a flotation gas supply arrangement for supplying flotation gas into the volume of slurry below the slurry feeding arrangement (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L36-38, perforated pipes 12).
Claim 32: A method (Knaus, C1/L25-28) for treating particles suspended in slurry in a flotation cell according to claim 24 (see analysis of Claim 24), the method comprising
providing a tank (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L4-6, tank 1) for holding a volume of the slurry and a froth layer over the volume of the slurry (Knaus, C4/L1-43);
feeding, by a slurry feeding arrangement comprising one or more slurry feed means (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L28-30, pipe 9), the slurry to a feed chamber (Knaus, Fig. 2, C4/L4-8, pre-aerating launder 7), wherein the fed slurry drops vertically into the feed chamber (Knaus, Fig. 2);
receiving, by the feed chamber (Knaus, Fig. 2, C4/L4-8, pre-aerating launder 7), the fed slurry from the one or more slurry feed means;
leading the fed slurry, by an overflow ramp (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L39-52, wall 14) between the feed chamber and the tank, from the feed chamber to the froth layer (Knaus, C4/L1-32); and
feeding gas bubbles, by one or more gas bubble arrangements (Knaus, C3/L25-27), to the fed slurry before the fed slurry enters to the froth layer (Knaus, Fig. 2, C3/L36-38, perforated pipes 12).
Knaus does not teach that the feed chamber is a dead bed chamber.
Brown also relates to a slurry feeding arrangement (pg. 128, section Feed chute lining), wherein the feed chamber is a dead bed chamber (pg. 128, section Feed chute lining).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the feed chamber of Knaus to be a dead bed chamber, as demonstrated by Brown, to decrease ore impact velocity (Brown, pg. 128, section Feed chute lining) and reduce wear (Brown, pg. 127, section Cyclone feed sumps).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US3434596A (‘Knaus’) and Publication Island Copper grinding circuit — a progress review (‘Brown’, Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 3, 122–136 (1986)) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent US2324018A (‘Steffen’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Knaus and Brown teaches the slurry feeding arrangement of Claim 2, except that the feed means connector comprises a top plate having one or more feed openings, through which the fed slurry is arranged to enter the feed chamber.
Steffen also relates to a slurry feeding arrangement (C1/L42-C2/L4), wherein the feed means connector comprises a top plate (Fig. 3, C3/L30-43, lower ring 27) having one or more feed openings (Fig. 3), through which the fed slurry is arranged to enter the feed chamber (Fig. 3, C3/L59-63, circulation indicated by arrows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the feed means connector of Knaus and Brown to include the top plate of Steffen so that pulp is circulated, as indicated by the arrows (see Steffen, Fig. 3), so parts of a flotation cell submerged in pulp wear evenly (Steffen, C1/L42-50).
Claims 4-5, 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US3434596A (‘Knaus’) and Publication Island Copper grinding circuit — a progress review (‘Brown’, Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 3, 122–136 (1986)) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20120111436A1 (‘Matsufuji’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 8, the combination of Knaus and Brown teaches the slurry feeding arrangement of Claim 1, except that the feed chamber comprises a feed chamber bottom and a slurry overflow lip located above the feed chamber bottom; wherein the overflow ramp extends obliquely downwards from the slurry overflow lip; and wherein the fed slurry is configured to flow from the feed chamber over the slurry overflow lip onto the overflow ramp during operation of the slurry feeding arrangement, wherein the feed chamber is ring-shaped, and the slurry overflow lip is arranged on the perimeter of the feed chamber, further comprising a slurry overflow lip, wherein the slurry overflow lip is ring-shaped and the overflow ramp encircles the slurry overflow lip.
Matsufuji also relates to a slurry feeding arrangement ([0013]), wherein the feed chamber (Fig. 1, [0038], treatment tank main body 10) comprises a feed chamber bottom (Fig. 1) and a slurry overflow lip located above the feed chamber bottom; wherein the overflow ramp (Fig. 1, [0041], froth recovery tray 16) extends obliquely downwards from the slurry overflow lip (Fig. 1, [0041], froth overflow port 11); and wherein the fed slurry is configured to flow from the feed chamber over the slurry overflow lip onto the overflow ramp during operation of the slurry feeding arrangement (Fig. 1, [0041] and [0054]), wherein the feed chamber is ring-shaped (Fig. 1, [0042]), and the slurry overflow lip is arranged on the perimeter of the feed chamber (Fig. 1, [0054]), wherein the slurry overflow lip is ring-shaped and the overflow ramp encircles the slurry overflow lip (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the slurry feeding arrangement of the combination of Knaus and Brown to comprise a slurry overflow lip located above the feed chamber bottom, wherein the overflow ramp extends obliquely downwards from the slurry overflow lip, and wherein the fed slurry is configured to flow from the feed chamber over the slurry overflow lip and wherein the feed chamber is ring-shaped, and the slurry overflow lip is arranged on the perimeter of the feed chamber, wherein the slurry overflow lip is ring-shaped and the overflow ramp encircles the slurry overflow lip, as demonstrated by Matsufuji, so space for recovering froths is formed around the overflow ramp, allowing froth having flowed down the overflow ramp to be recovered through a froth recovery port (Matsufuji, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Knaus and Brown teaches the slurry feeding arrangement of Claim 1, including that the overflow ramp comprises a ramp surface, a ramp bottom and a weir (Knaus, Fig. 2, C4/L18-26, overflow lip 6), wherein the ramp surface is arranged towards the froth layer (Knaus, Fig. 2); configured to slope towards the froth layer (Knaus, Fig. 2); and configured to rise up from the ramp bottom towards the weir (Knaus, Fig. 2), except that the ramp surface is arranged downwards towards the ramp bottom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the ramp surface of Knaus and Brown downwards, as demonstrated by Matsufuji, so space for recovering froths is formed around the overflow ramp, allowing froth having flowed down the overflow ramp to be recovered through a froth recovery port (Matsufuji, [0054]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US3434596A (‘Knaus’) and Publication Island Copper grinding circuit — a progress review (‘Brown’, Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 3, 122–136 (1986)) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20210323002A1 (‘Bourke’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 9-11, the combination of Knaus and Brown teaches the slurry feeding arrangement of Claim 1, except that the slurry feeding arrangement comprises feeding strips extending from a lower edge of the overflow ramp and arranged at a distance from each other in the direction of the lower edge, wherein the ends of the feeding strips are connected to a lower edge of the overflow ramp, and the feeding strips taper towards their second ends, and wherein the feeding strips are triangular in shape.
Bourke also relates to a slurry feeding arrangement (abstract), wherein the slurry feeding arrangement comprises feeding strips (Fig. 5, bottom structure 7 above the upper line indicating settling zone B ([0126])) extending from a lower edge of the overflow ramp (Fig. 5, bottom structure 7 below the upper line indicating settling zone B ([0126])) and arranged at a distance from each other in the direction of the lower edge (Fig. 5), wherein the ends of the feeding strips are connected to a lower edge of the overflow ramp (Fig. 5), and the feeding strips taper towards their second ends (Fig. 8, [0131]), and wherein the feeding strips are triangular in shape (Fig. 8, [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the slurry feeding arrangement of Knaus and Brown to comprise the feeding strips of Bourke to allow suspended particles to settle down (Bourke, [0130]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US3434596A (‘Knaus’), Publication Island Copper grinding circuit — a progress review (‘Brown’, Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 3, 122–136 (1986)) and U.S. Publication US20210323002A1 (‘Bourke’) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20120111436A1 (‘Matsufuji’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Knaus, Brown and Bourke teaches the slurry feeding arrangement of Claim 9, except that the slurry feeding arrangement comprise one or more downward sloping guiding plates placed under the lower edge of the overflow ramp and/or the feeding strips.
Matsufuji teaches that the slurry feeding arrangement comprise one or more downward sloping guiding plates placed under the lower edge of the overflow ramp (Fig. 1, [0053]) and/or the feeding strips.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the slurry feeding arrangement of Knaus, Brown and Bourke to comprise one or more downward sloping guiding plates placed under the lower edge of the overflow ramp, as demonstrated by Matsufuji, so space for recovering froths is formed around the overflow ramp, allowing froth having flowed down the overflow ramp to be recovered through a froth recovery port (Matsufuji, [0054]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US3434596A (‘Knaus’) and Publication Island Copper grinding circuit — a progress review (‘Brown’, Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 3, 122–136 (1986)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20090288995A1 (‘Lambert’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Knaus and Brown teaches the slurry feeding arrangement of Claim 1, except that the feed chamber is configured to operate in atmospheric pressure.
Lambert also relates to a slurry feeding arrangement (abstract), wherein the feed chamber is configured to operate in atmospheric pressure ([0039] and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the feed chamber of Knaus and Brown to be configured to operate in atmospheric pressure, as demonstrated by Lambert, to significantly reduce operating costs (Lambert, [0070]).
Claims 25-26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent US3434596A (‘Knaus’) and Publication Island Copper grinding circuit — a progress review (‘Brown’, Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 3, 122–136 (1986)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20200215551A1 (‘Tuominen’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 25-26 and 30, the combination of Knaus and Brown teaches the flotation cell of Claim 24, except that the feed chamber has an annular or circular shape, and the feed chamber is arranged concentric to a tank side wall and the one or more slurry feed means are arranged concentric to the tank side wall of the flotation cell, the flotation cell further comprises one or more froth crowders arranged to direct froth towards a launder.
Tuominen also relates to a flotation cell (abstract), wherein the feed chamber has an annular or circular shape ([0023]), and it is arranged concentric to a tank side wall and the one or more slurry feed means are arranged concentric to a tank side wall of the flotation cell (Fig. 3a), comprising one or more froth crowders (Fig. 3a, [0104], froth blocker 31) arranged to direct froth towards a launder ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the one or more froth crowders of Tuominen and the flotation cell of Knaus and Brown to direct or guide the upwards-flowing slurry within the flotation tank closer to a froth overflow lip of a froth collection launder, thereby enabling or easing froth formation very close to the froth overflow lip, which may increase the collection of valuable ore particles (Tuominen, [0013]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights