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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 1/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 7, 10-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belcher (US 2,969,879 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Belcher teaches a flotation cell comprising a flotation tank (64), a feeding device (12), a guiding arrangement, the guiding arrangement comprises at least one guiding plate (36 60) capable of being arranged in a flotation cell, wherein the at least one guiding plate is arranged obliquely in relation to horizontal and in surrounding form and below the feed device (12) and the guiding arrangement is capable of directing the slurry discharged from the feeding device towards an overflow lip (foam trough) (Figs. 1-3, 5-6, and C5/L15-C7/L35).
It is noted that the limitation directed to relative position of the guiding plate to a froth layer is comparing a physical structure to the material being treated during operation. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Further, how the froth is formed and where it is located during operation also relates to how the device is operated and not the structure of the device itself "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
It is further noted that Belcher teaches that the guiding plate is taught to be “a short distance above the water level 62” (C6/L34-36) while the collecting portion for the froth is located slightly above liquid level (C7/L5-15). As the froth layer during operation would be located at liquid level and above and the levels of the froth collector and guiding plate are also taught to be at nearly identical heights, the Belcher apparatus is capable of having the guiding plate in the froth layer during operation.
Regarding claim 2, as can be seen in Fig. 1, there are two guiding plates (36 60) arranged at different planes.
Regarding claims 3-4, Belcher teaches that the guiding plates have the same overall shape (ring shaped) (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claims 7, as noted above, comparing structural elements to a fluid being treated during operation merely compares a fluid being treated during operation to the actual structure of the apparatus. As such, such limitations provide little further limiting elements to the apparatus. However, as can be seen in Fig. 1, feeding device (12) is capable of providing slurry to a froth layer, which would be located at the top of the liquid level.
Regarding claim 10, Belcher teaches that the uppermost guiding plate (36) has a smaller diameter than the lowermost guiding plate (60) (Figs. 1-3 and C5/L15-C6/L69).
Regarding claim 11, Belcher teaches the guiding plate having the oblique design claimed (Figs. 1-3 and C5/L15-C6/L69).
Regarding claim 15, Belcher teaches a gas supply (50),
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Belcher (US 2,969,879 in IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Belcher teaches that the guiding arrangement is arranged around a vertical axis and Figs 2-3 show the arrangement appears to be located around a middle axis of the tank. It is noted that while one skilled in the art would interpret the guiding arrangement placement as claimed, it does not explicitly state so. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to place the arrangement consistent with the drawings surrounding a vertical axis of the tank as it would be an expected placement central to the tank thereby allowing treatment across the whole diameter of the tank.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belcher (US 2,969,879 in IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Belcher teaches that the shape of the guiding plate (60) is a hexagon essentially formed from one rectangle at an oblique angle to horizontal and a second rectangle arranged horizontally and connected to the first rectangle (Fig. 1). Thus, Belcher fails to teach the guiding plate being a rectangular shape. It is Examiner’s position that a slight modification to the shape to only have the oblique rectangular portion would have been an obvious change in shape (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Nothing in the record notes the rectangular shape would provide any significant benefit and it is Examiner’s position that such a change in shape would allow for the same function as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that Fig. 1 appears to show the angle of the guiding plate being within the range claimed (Fig. 1 appears to show the angle around 45 degrees). However, as interpreting the figures alone does not provide sufficient specificity to overlap the range claimed, it is Examiner’s position that choosing an angle around 45 degrees would have been an obvious matter of a choosing an angle close to what is shown in Fig. 1, or it would have been an obvious matter to choose an angle in the range claimed as such angles would perform the function taught in Belcher and would merely be choosing an obvious shape in light of the teachings of Belcher with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 13-14, it is noted that the guiding plates in Belcher appear to have similar angles/similar lines (Figs. 1-3), but it is never explicitly taught for the angles to have the same angle or line. Belcher teaches that the guiding plates are arranged in an overlapping manner (Figs. 1-3 and C5/L15-C6/L69). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the guiding plates with the same angle/line as claimed as it is merely an obvious change in shape without any further disclosed significance above what is taught in Belcher and known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Belcher fails to disclose at least one guiding plate is in a surrounding form and below the device. Attention is directed to Fig. 1 clearly showing feeding device 12 being a tube that extends from above the guiding arrangement around the top of the guiding arrangement wherein nearly all of the entire guiding arrangement is below the feeding device thereby reading on the claim limitation.
Applicant argues that the guiding arrangement is not configured to direct slurry toward an overflow lip. As can be seen in Fig. 3-6, the guiding arrangement is oriented in such a way to allow for flow to extend outwards towards the overflow lip.
Applicant argues that the guiding plate is not arranged in the froth layer. As discussed above, limitations directed to the relative placement of the an element of an apparatus to a fluid being treated is problematic as it is directed to both a material being treated and also operational steps, which are not given patentable weight. Further, Examiner has provided explicit teachings in Belcher that provide a basis for both the guiding plates and froth trough being located at the same level, which would be the froth layer level.
Lastly, it is noted that Applicant’s argument that Belcher provides a teaching away is unpersuasive. In order for a reference to teach away from the claimed invention the disclosure must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, no such criticizing disclosure is found, merely a recitation of how Belcher prefers to skim the foam. The preceding sentences to the one cited by Applicant does not limit the foam layer to only the edge and states there are many possible ways of skimming the foam or froth from the tank.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., feeding tube and guiding arrangement are entirely separate, the entirely of the guiding arrangement is below the feeding device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights