DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claims 11 and 14 and dependent claims 12, 13, and 15-17.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nemarov et al. (RU 2636727 C1).
Regarding independent claim 11, Nemarov discloses a process of ore beneficiation with application of ultrasound to a flotation or waste froth, comprising: positioning an air-emission ultrasonic transducer (8) above the flotation or waste froth by adjusting an inclination angle of the air-emission ultrasonic transducer in relation to a surface of the flotation or waste froth so that the inclination angle is less than 90 degrees (see at least Fig. 1, note that inclination angle disclosed by Nemarov is capable of being varied, also note that the structure of one of the tanks can be varied so that it is “any other shape” also varying the angle of inclination); and emitting ultrasonic waves from the air-emission ultrasonic transducer towards the flotation or waste froth (see English translation).
Regarding independent claim 14, Nemarov discloses an ore beneficiation system with application of ultrasound to a flotation or waste froth, comprising: an air-emission ultrasonic transducer (8) positioned above the flotation or waste froth, the air-emission ultrasonic transducer being adapted to emit ultrasonic waves toward the flotation or waste froth; and wherein an angle of inclination of the air-emission ultrasonic transducer relative to a surface of the flotation or waste froth is less than 90 degrees (see Fig. 1).
Regarding dependent claims 12, 13, and 15-17, Nemarov discloses stirring a mixture formed by an ore slurry and the flotation or waste froth using at least one stirring medium (2, 6, 13). Positioning the air-emission ultrasonic transducer is carried out over at least one of a flotation effluent froth flow chute, or a feeding area of a thickening tank (see Fig. 1). A distance and the angle of inclination of the air-emission ultrasonic transducer with respect to the surface of the flotation or waste froth is variable and adjustable (note that distance and inclination angle disclosed by Nemarov is capable of being varied, also note that the structure of one of the tanks can be varied so that it is “any other shape” also varying the distance and angle of inclination).
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hassanzadeh et al. (An Improvement on Selective Separation by Applying Ultrasound to Rougher and Re-Cleaner Stages of Copper Flotation).
Regarding independent claim 11, Hassanzadeh et al. discloses a process of ore beneficiation with application of ultrasound to a flotation or waste froth, comprising: positioning an air-emission ultrasonic transducer (“Homogenizer”) above the flotation or waste froth by adjusting an inclination angle of the air-emission ultrasonic transducer in relation to a surface of the flotation or waste froth so that the inclination angle is less than 90 degrees (see at least Fig. 2c, note that inclination angle and distance above flotation is capable of being varied); and emitting ultrasonic waves from the air-emission ultrasonic transducer towards the flotation or waste froth (see Fig. 2c).
Regarding independent claim 14, discloses an ore beneficiation system with application of ultrasound to a flotation or waste froth, comprising: an air-emission ultrasonic transducer (“Homogenizer”) positioned above the flotation or waste froth, the air-emission ultrasonic transducer being adapted to emit ultrasonic waves toward the flotation or waste froth; and wherein an angle of inclination of the air-emission ultrasonic transducer relative to a surface of the flotation or waste froth is less than 90 degrees (see Fig. 2c).
Regarding dependent claims 12, 13, and 15-17, Hassanzadeh discloses stirring a mixture formed by an ore slurry and the flotation or waste froth using at least one stirring medium (“Impeller”). Positioning the air-emission ultrasonic transducer is carried out over at least one of a flotation effluent froth flow chute, or a feeding area of a thickening tank (see Fig. 2b). A distance and the angle of inclination of the air-emission ultrasonic transducer with respect to the surface of the flotation or waste froth is variable and adjustable (see at least Fig. 2c, note that inclination angle and distance above flotation is capable of being varied).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (US 2023/0129507 and WO 2020257847) disclose an ultrasonic transducer above a flotation tank in which the distance between the transducer and the tank is variable.
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