DETAILED ACTION 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 Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1: “ contact of” in line 8 should read “contact ing [[ of ]] ” Claim 1: “ash” in lines 14 and 15 should read “ MSWI ash” in order to be consistent with how the ash is referred to in line 1 and in steps a-e . Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-19 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 the limitation “to concentrate one or metals " in line 1 . The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what “one” refers to in this context as an alternative that is concentrated instead of metals, or if the claim instead requires concentrating one or more metals . Claim 1 recites the limitation “crushing and sizing particles thereof from about 100 to about 400 mesh” in lines 3-4. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if particles start at about 100 mesh and are crushed and sized to become about 400 mesh, or if particles are crushed and sized to have a size between about 100 and about 400 mesh. Claim 1 recites the limitation " adding the MSWI ash in a froth flotation solution " in line 5 . The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the ash is added to a froth flotation solution, or if the MSWI ash already in a froth flotation solution is e.g. added to a separation step or apparatus, and if so, how the MSWI ash becomes “in a froth flotation solution” . Claim 5 recites the limitation " wherein steps (a), (b), (f), and (g) ". The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the claim further limits regarding these claims, as claim 5 does not disclose any further limitations of the claims or which if any of the steps are performed in claim 5 . Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein (e) is performed before any other step”. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the claim only requires that none of the other steps listed in claim 1 (steps (a)-(d) or (f)-(g)) be performed before step (e), or if step (e) is performed before any other step including those not claimed in the instant application. Claim 10 recites the limitation " wherein in the pH " in line 1 . The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what aspect or element “in the pH” is raised to 3.5, 5.5, or 10, or if the claim intends to set forth that the pH is raised to the claimed values . Claim 14 recites the limitation " wherein the sulfide is added first ". The limitation is indefinite as parent claim 13 requires that the step comprise wherein the MSWI ash is prepared as a slurry in water, followed by the sequential addition of the sulfide and cationic collector, making unclear if sulfide is added prior to the MSWI ash being prepared as a slurry in water, or if it is only added first relative to the addition of cationic collector (i.e., added first is relative to the method as a whole, or only regarding the order of the addition steps) . Claim 16 recites the limitation " wherein 1 " in line 1 . The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what “1” refers to, or how it is further limited by the claim . Claim 18 recites the limitation " after carbonation ". The limitation is indefinite as there is no prior mention of carbonation in claim 18 or parent claims 17 or 1 , making unclear if carbonation as disclosed in claim 18 is always present in the process of clai ms 17 or 1 , or only occurs in certain embodiments of claim 18 when ex. certain compounds are present in the MSWI ash. Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Papouchado et al. ( US 20200239978 A1 ) . Regarding claim 1, Papouchado teaches a method to concentrate one or metals (Title, abstract, [0066, 00130]) from an ash comprising municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) ash [0065]. Papouchado teaches treating the ash with a leaching solution to provide a leachate (Fig. 1, [0057]), and preparing a c hemically separated fraction of the ash by solvent extraction or ion exchange [0130] or selective precipitation [0007, 0055, 0138]. Regarding claim 2, Papouchado teaches treating the ash with a leaching solution to provide a leachate (Fig. 1, [0057]), and preparing a chemically separated fraction of the ash by solvent extraction or ion exchange [0130] or selective precipitation [0007, 0055, 0138] (i.e., wherein at least two of the steps are performed ). Regarding claim 7, Papouchado teaches wherein the step comprises (f) and wherein the leaching solution comprises an acid (Fig. 1, [0057, 0074]). Regarding claim 8, Papouchado teaches leaching with 6N hydrochloric acid (pH -0.77 ), 6N nitric acid (pH -0.77 ), and 6N aqua regia (pH -0.77 ) [0087], and then teaches adjusting the pH to a pH of 1 at pH adjustment tank 120 by adding calcium carbonate [0058], which would intrinsically result in the leaching solution at an intermediate point having a pH of 0.0 as claimed as the pH goes from -0.77 to 1. Regarding claim 9, Papouchado teaches raising the pH of the leachate in pH adjustment tanks 120, 130, 150, and 165 to precipitate one or more metals therein (Fig. 1-2, [0058-0059]) . Regarding claim 10, Papouchado teaches wherein in the pH is raised to 4 (which would include raising the pH to 3.5) [0058], to 8 (which would include raising the pH to 5.5) [0058], and to 10.5-11 (which would include raising the pH to 10) in three sequential steps [0059]. Papouchado teaches wherein precipitated metal is isolated from the leachate in sequential steps at S/L separators 140, 155, and 170 (Fig. 1-2, [0058-0059]). Claims 1 -2, 6 , and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karbarz ( US 20130164198 A1). Regarding claim 1, Karbarz teaches a recovery method for a continuous calcium extraction and PCC production from waste (title, abstract), wherein the waste may comprise fly ash and incineration ash (i.e., municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) ash) [0036]. Karbarz teaches the method enriches the content of iron and other metals in a fraction of the ash (i.e., a method to concentrate one or metals ) [0031, 0035]. Karbarz teaches reducing the MSWI ash in size by crushing and sizing particles thereof to a particle size on the order of 100 mesh [0037], teaching crushing and sizing from about 100 to about 400 mesh as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above. Karbarz teaches c ontact of the MSWI ash with a magnetic field to provide a magnetic fraction of the ash and a non-magnetic fraction of the ash [0035]. Karbarz teaches placing the MSWI ash in an aqueous solution [0039-0040], and treating with a gas comprised of carbon dioxide to generate calcium carbonate [0041], where the reaction parameters may be controlled to form calcite [0005]. Karbarz teaches the surface area of the ash reacts [0037], and that the fraction subjected to treating with carbon dioxide still comprises CaO (Table II), therefore the treatment with carbon dioxide would form a calcite-coated particle comprising lime (i.e., calcite-coated lime as claimed). Regarding claim 2, Karbarz teaches steps (a), (c), and (e) as noted regarding claim 1 above, and therefore teaches wherein at least two of the steps are performed . Regarding claim 6, Karbarz teaches that step (a) is optionally performed [0037], and that step (c) is performed downstream of the process [0035], therefore step (e) is performed before any other step as claimed for when step (a) is not performed in Karbarz . Regarding claim 17, Karbarz teaches wherein the step comprises (e), wherein the MSWI ash is provided to an aqueous solution and the gas is bubbled therein (Fig. 1, [0014, 0020]) 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. Claim s 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karbarz as applied to claim 1 as anticipated by 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Hwang ( US 5047145 A , cited in IDSs filed 07/18/2024 , 06/13/2025 ) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . Regarding claim 3, Karbarz teaches a method according to claim 1 above. Karbarz teaches wherein step (c) is performed [0035], but does not teach wherein step (d) is performed. Hwang teaches a w et process for fly ash beneficiation (Title), where fly ash is formed into a slurry, gravitationally separated, separated by a magnetic field, and adding a frothing agent and air to remove carbon (Abstract), where the fly ash comprises iron (i.e., a metal) (Col. 1 lines 23-28), thus Hwang and Karbarz are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of beneficiating wastes comprising fly ashes containing metal values. Hwang teaches adding the ash to a float/sink solution (Col. 2 lines 48-58), which collects relatively pure cenosphere product as a float fraction (Col. 2 lines 62-64) and produces a sink fraction which is subjected to magnetic separation (Col. 3 lines 29-55, Col. 5 lines 8-11) . Hwang teaches the specific gravity of the solution may be adjusted in order to separate cenosphere fraction into different density classifications (Col. 2 line 65-Col. 3 line 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the MSWI ash of Karbarz to a float/sink solution as taught by Hwang, as doing so would recover any cenospheres present in the MSWI ash as a product . Hwang, discussed above, does not teach the float/sink solution having a specific gravity of 2.4-3.0 in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where 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. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a float/sink solution with a specific gravity suited for beneficiating the municipal solid waste incineration ash of Karbarz . Further, the mere recitation of a numerical parameter in an otherwise known process will not generally result in patentability of a claim directed to that process, absent evidence of criticality of the numerical parameter. In the instant case the numerical parameter (the specific density of the float/sink solution) does not appear to be critical to the invention, at least for the reason it is recited solely in a dependent claim. Thus, the disclosure of Karbarz in view of Hwang is held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a method as presently claimed. Regarding claim 4, Hwang teaches wherein a sink fraction of step (d) is contacted with a magnetic field to provide magnetic and non-magnetic fractions of ash where the magnetic fraction is removed (Hwang: Col. 3 lines 29-55, Col. 5 lines 8-11 ). Karbarz in view of Hwang does not teach wherein the non-magnetic fraction is added to the solution of (d) . However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)C. Since the instant application does not disclose any new or unexpected result due to changing the order of mixing steps compared to the prior art, and Hwang teaches the sink fraction of step (d) is treated by magnetic separation to remove a magnetic fraction (i.e., both a floating fraction and a magnetic fraction are removed from the ash) it would have been obvious to select any order of the addition of components because the removal of magnetic material by magnetic separation and cenospheres from the ash by float/sink solution would occur regardless of the sequence of the addition of the components. Claim s 5 , 11 -12 , and 13-1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papouchado as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Oehr et al. ( US 20120234211 A1 ) , Liu et al. ( CN 107051749 A , original document and machine translation provided herein) , and Xie et al. ( CN 110589856 A , original document and machine translation provided herein) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . Regarding claim 5, Papouchado teaches a method according to claim 1 above. Papouchado teaches wherein steps (f) and (g) are performed, but does not teach wherein steps (a) and (b) are also performed. Oehr teaches a m ethod for upgrading combustion ash (Title), where combustion ash is pulverized and subjected to froth flotation to form a mercury-enriched ash slurry and a mercury-depleted ash slurry (Abstract), thus Oehr and Papouchado are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to concentrating metals in combustion ashes . Oehr teaches reducing the MSWI ash in size by crushing [0010, 0021] and sizing particles thereof to a mean particle size of 28.6 µm [0024], which is “from about 100 to about 400 mesh” (37-149 µm) as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above. Oehr teaches adding the MSWI ash in a froth floatation solution to separate the MSWI ash in a froth floating fraction and a tailings fraction [0017], where a hydrophobic collector may be used (i.e., a cationic or anionic collector) [0017], thus Oehr teaches wherein the froth flotation solution comprises a cationic collector. Oehr teaches the crushing reduces the mean particle size which enhances flotation yield [0021], and the froth flotation renders mercury hydrophobic by use of the collector chemical [0017], which can then be discarded or further processed, and produces a mercury-depleted ash product [0019-0020]. Oehr teaches a high mercury content of ash reduces its acceptance as a cement kiln raw material [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added steps of crushing and sizing and froth flotation as taught by Oehr to the method of Papouchado , as doing so would improve froth flotation yield and remove mercury from the ash, improving its acceptance as a cement kiln raw material as taught by Oehr . Oehr teaches a frothing agent may be added during the froth flotation step [0017], however Papouchado and Oehr are silent to choices of frothing agent, and do not teach wherein the froth floatation solution comprises a sulfide. Liu teaches a s trengthened floatation method of zinc oxide ore (Title), where zinc ore is ground and slurried [0008], then sodium sulfide is added for sulfidation, before a collector is added to react with the zinc [0008]. Because Papouchado in view of Oehr is silent with respect to a suitable frothing agent , in order to carry out the invention of Papouchado in view of Oehr one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a frothing agent suitable for use within the process of Papouchado in view of Oehr , such as that of sodium sulfide frothing agent as taught by Liu . As Papouchado in view of Oehr and Liu both relate to froth flotation of metal-bearing materials , one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the frothing agent of Liu . Regarding claim 11, Papouchado teaches a method according to claim 1 above, but does not teach wherein the steps comprise step (b). Oehr teaches a m ethod for upgrading combustion ash (Title), where combustion ash is pulverized and subjected to froth flotation to form a mercury-enriched ash slurry and a mercury-depleted ash slurry (Abstract), thus Oehr and Papouchado are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to concentrating metals in combustion ashes. Oehr teaches reducing the MSWI ash in size by crushing [0010, 0021] and sizing particles thereof to a mean particle size of 28.6 µm [0024], which is “from about 100 to about 400 mesh” (37-149 µm) as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above. Oehr teaches adding the MSWI ash in a froth floatation solution to separate the MSWI ash in a froth floating fraction and a tailings fraction [0017]. Oehr teaches the crushing reduces the mean particle size which enhances flotation yield [0021], and the froth flotation renders mercury hydrophobic by use of the collector chemical [0017], which can then be discarded or further processed, and produces a mercury-depleted ash product [0019-0020]. Oehr teaches a high mercury content of ash reduces its acceptance as a cement kiln raw material [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added steps of crushing and sizing and froth flotation as taught by Oehr to the method of Papouchado , as doing so would improve froth flotation yield and remove mercury from the ash, improving its acceptance as a cement kiln raw material as taught by Oehr . Oehr teaches the collector may be hydrophobic, or hydrophobic and slightly hydrophilic, and that kerosene or kerosene and tall oil may be used as collectors [0017], but Oehr does not give a complete list of suitable collectors. Papouchado in view of Oehr does not teach wherein the collector is cationic. Xie teaches m ethods for recovering and separating potassium and sodium salts from waste incineration fly ash (i.e., MSWI ash) (Title), where fly ash is mixed with water to obtain a highly concentrated brine, adjusted to pH 5-7, and concentrated to obtain a mixed salt [0012-0013], which is separated by flotation [0014], therefore Xie and Papouchado in view of Oehr and Liu are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes for treating MSWI ashes by wet process. Xie teaches the flotation uses dodecylamine as a collector (i.e., a cationic collector) [0020]. Because Oehr is silent with respect to what all collectors may be used , in order to carry out the invention of Oehr one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching collectors suitable for use within the process of Papouchado in view of Oehr , such as that of dodecyclamine taught by Xie . As Oehr and Xie both relate to beneficiating MSWI ash by wet process , one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the dodecyclamine collector of Xie . Oehr teaches a frothing agent may be added during the froth flotation step [0017], however Papouchado and Oehr are silent to choices of frothing agent, and do not teach wherein the froth floatation solution comprises a sulfide. Liu teaches a s trengthened floatation method of zinc oxide ore (Title), where zinc ore is ground and slurried [0008], then sodium sulfide is added for sulfidation, before a collector is added to react with the zinc [0008]. Because Papouchado in view of Oehr is silent with respect to a suitable frothing agent , in order to carry out the invention of Papouchado in view of Oehr one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a frothing agent suitable for use within the process of Papouchado in view of Oehr , such as that of sodium sulfide frothing agent as taught by Liu . As Papouchado in view of Oehr and Liu both relate to froth flotation of metal-bearing materials , one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the frothing agent of Liu . Regarding claim 12, Xie teaches using a dodecyclamine collector [0020], where as the dodecyclamine is in water-soluble form [0020], one of ordinary skill would recognize the dodecyclamine to be in a salt form. Regarding claim 13, Oehr and Liu teach wherein the MSWI ash is prepared as a slurry in water ( Oehr : [0009], Liu: [0012]). Liu teaches after forming the slurry, sequential addition of the sulfide and the collector (Liu: [0008]). Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches wherein the sulfide is added first [0008]. Papouchado in view of Oehr and Liu is silent to forming a layer of metal sulfides, however , pa ragraph [0027] of the present specification discloses “A 14th aspect of the present disclosure, either alone or in combination with any other aspect, relates the method of the 13th aspect, wherein the sulfide is added first to form a layer of metal sulfates ” , in accord with the method as presently claimed. As Papouchado in view of Oehr and Liu discloses substantially the same process that Applicant states produces this feature, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable assumption that the features of claim 14 would also occur when practicing the method of Papouchado in view of Oehr and Liu . See MPEP 2112 § (III-V) and 2112.01 § (I). Regarding claim 15, Oehr teaches air is bubbled in the slurry [00 17, 00 24] . Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karbarz as applied to claim 1 as anticipated by 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Hwang , Liu , and Xie FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . Karbarz teaches wherein step (c) is performed [0035], but does not teach wherein the non-magnetic fraction is provided into a froth flotation solution of step (b). Hwang teaches a w et process for fly ash beneficiation (Title), where fly ash is formed into a slurry, gravitationally separated, separated by a magnetic field, and adding a frothing agent and air to remove carbon (Abstract), where the fly ash comprises iron (i.e., a metal) (Col. 1 lines 23-28), thus Hwang and Karbarz are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of beneficiating wastes comprising fly ashes containing metal values. Hwang teaches adding the ash to a float/sink solution (Col. 2 lines 48-58), which collects relatively pure cenosphere product as a float fraction (Col. 2 lines 62-64) and produces a sink fraction which is subjected to magnetic separation (Col. 3 lines 29-55, Col. 5 lines 8-11). Hwang teaches the specific gravity of the solution may be adjusted in order to separate cenosphere fraction into different density classifications (Col. 2 line 65-Col. 3 line 28). Hwang teaches wherein step (c) is performed and removing the magnetic portion (Col. 3 lines 29-55), which is utilized for commercial purposes such as pigments, heavy media, iron metal, electromagnetic shields in the case of iron oxides or a cement raw material in the case of iron silicates (Col. 3 lines 56-59). Hwang teaches the non-magnetic fraction is provided into a froth floatation solution in the presence of a hydrophobic collector (Col. 3 line 60 – Col. 4 line 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the MSWI ash of Karbarz to a float/sink solution as taught by Hwang, as doing so would recover any cenospheres present in the MSWI ash as a product . Hwang, discussed above, does not teach the float/sink solution having a specific gravity of 2.4-3.0 in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where 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. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a float/sink solution with a specific gravity suited for beneficiating the municipal solid waste incineration ash of Karbarz . Karbarz in view of Hwang does not teach wherein the froth floatation solution comprises a sulfide or a cationic collector . Liu teaches a s trengthened floatation method of zinc oxide ore (Title), where zinc ore is ground and slurried [0008], then sodium sulfide is added for sulfidation, before a collector is added to react with the zinc [0008]. Because Karbarz in view of Hwang is silent with respect to a suitable frothing agent , in order to carry out the invention of Karbarz in view of Hwang one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a frothing agent suitable for use within the process of Karbarz in view of Hwang , such as that of sodium sulfide frothing agent as taught by Liu . As Karbarz in view of Hwang and Liu both relate to froth flotation of metal-bearing materials , one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the frothing agent of Liu . Hwang teaches an effective amount of collector such as an oil or other material is used in the froth flotation step which is compatible with removing unburned carbon from the system (Col. 3 line 67 – Col. 4 line 2), but Karbarz in view of Hwang and Liu does not teach a cationic collector. Xie teaches m ethods for recovering and separating potassium and sodium salts from waste incineration fly ash (i.e., MSWI ash) (Title), where fly ash is mixed with water to obtain a highly concentrated brine, adjusted to pH 5-7, and concentrated to obtain a mixed salt [0012-0013], which is separated by flotation [0014], therefore Xie and Karbarz in view of Hwang and Liu are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes for treating MSWI ashes by wet process. Xie teaches the flotation uses dodecylamine as a collector (i.e., a cationic collector) [0020]. Because Karbarz in view of Hwang is silent with respect to what all collectors may be used , in order to carry out the invention of Karbarz in view of Hwang one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching collectors suitable for use within the process of Karbarz in view of Hwang , such as that of dodecyclamine taught by Xie . As Hwang and Xie both relate to beneficiating ash by wet process , one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the dodecyclamine collector of Xie . Karbarz in view of Hwang, Liu, and Xie does not teach the claimed order wherein a tailings fraction of step (b) is added to the float/sink solution of step (d) . However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)C. Since Karbarz in view of Hwang, Liu, and Xie performs each of steps (b)-(d), and removes the magnetic fraction of the ash of step (c) (and further treats the non-magnetic fraction), removes the froth floating fraction of step (b) (and further treats the tailings fraction), and removes the float fraction of step (d) (and further treats the sink fraction). As the instant application does not disclose any new or unexpected result due to changing the order of process steps compared to the prior art, it would have been obvious to select any order of the addition of components because the Karbarz in view others ultimately removes and retains the same fractions as in the instant application, regardless of the sequence of the steps performed . Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karbarz as applied to claim 17 under 35 USC 102 above, further in view of Kunzmann et al. ( WO 2013113848 A1 , provided with IDSs filed 07/18/2024 , 06/13/2025 , Examiner-provided machine translation provided herein ) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . Karbarz teaches carbonation of the slurry by carbon dioxide gas, but does not teach wherein after carbonation of the slurry by the gas, sodium oleate is added to the slurry Kunzmann teaches p rocesses for processing aluminum-containing raw materials (Title), where aluminum oxide is produced from aluminum-containing raw materials, such as fly ash [0101]. Kunzmann teaches extracting alumina from the ash comprises treating a suspension of fly ash with gas [0252], where the gas may be carbon dioxide [0 054-0058, 0 272-0273], thus Kunzmann and Karbarz are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of concentrating metals found in combustion ashes. Kunzmann teaches the treatment of the suspension optionally takes place in the presence of a surfactant [0058] , which may be sodium oleate which make s it possible to extract 45-58% alumina from bauxite, nepheline, kaolin, alunite and fly ash by means of various actions [0263] . As sodium oleate is added while treating with carbon dioxide, at least a portion of the sodium oleate is added after carbonation of the slurry by the gas as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added sodium oleate after the carbonation of the slurry by carbon dioxide gas as taught by Kunzmann to the method of Karbarz as doing so would make possible greater alumina extraction from the fly ash as taught by Kunzmann . Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karbarz in view of Kunzmann as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of College et al. (US 6197200 B1, cited in IDSs filed 07/18/2024 , 06/13/2025 ) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" . Karbarz in view of Kunzmann teaches a method according to claim 18 above. Karbarz in view of Kunzmann does not teach wherein methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC) is added to the slurry . College teaches a m ethod of purifying flue gas waste slurries for use in gypsum production (Title), where a waste slurry containing fly as h is screened and subjected to magnetic separation to remove calcium from the slurry (Abstract, Col. 2 lines 6-22), thus College and Karbarz are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to removing calcium from fly ash in slurr ies . College teaches contacting the slurry with a foaming agent to capture and remove carbon and oils from the slurry, cleaning the slurry (Col. 3 lines 36-42), where the foaming agent may include methyl isobutyl carbinol (i.e., wherein methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC) is added to the slurry) (Col. 3 lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added MIBC to the slurry as taught by College in the method of Karbarz as d oing so would remove carbon and oil impurities from the slurry . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1995 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-1401 . 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. /Keith D. Hendricks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733