DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticpated by Zipperian (US 4,735,709). Zipperian discloses a method of separating one type of coarse particulate materials from other types of materials dispersed in an aqueous phase, comprising: adding a hydrophobizing agent to an aqueous phase comprising coarse particulate materials to selectively render one type of coarse particulate material hydrophobic (see at least col. 4, lines 39-44); feeding the aqueous phase comprising the coarse particulate materials to a flotation cell (10) configured to push the coarse particulate materials upward with accelerative forces and pull the coarse particulate materials downward with decelerative forces while allowing air bubbles (see at least col. 4, lines 36-45) to attach to the one type of coarse particulate material that is selectively hydrophobized and thereby reducing the apparent specific gravity of the one type of coarse particulate material and form a layer of froth phase; allowing the coarse particulate materials in the flotation cell to form a layer of particulate materials with the one type of coarse particulate material on top of the layer of particulate materials (see at least col. 4, lines 35-50); allowing the one type of coarse particulate material to enter the froth phase via the accelerative forces, wherein the one type of coarse particulate material is upgraded via froth cleaning action provided by the froth phase (see at least col. 4, lines 45-50); and separating the one type of coarse particulate material from the froth phase and thereby obtaining the one type of coarse particulate material separated from other types of coarse particles (see at least col. 4, lines 45-50). Zipperian further discloses rendering the one type of coarse particulate material hydrophobic prior to inclusion in the aqueous phase wherein the one type of coarse particulate material is rendered selectively hydrophobic by surface treatment (see at least col. 4, lines 39-45).
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) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 2003/0146134) in view of Jameson (US 2013/0341252). Yoon discloses a method of separating one type of fine particulate materials from other types of materials dispersed in an aqueous phase (see at least paras. 0025-0029), comprising: injecting an aqueous suspension of a cloud of small air bubbles into an aqueous phase comprising one type of fine particulate material (see at least para. 0039), wherein the one type of fine particulate material is hydrophobized and the one type of fine particulate material is selectively collected by the air bubbles (see at least paras. 0025-0029); allowing the air bubbles loaded with the one type of fine particulate material to rise in the aqueous phase (see at least para. 0039); collecting the air bubbles loaded with the one type of fine particulate material thereby obtaining a low-grade concentrate of the one type of fine particulate material (see at least para. 0039); processing the low-grade concentrate of the one type of fine particulate material in a flotation process to generate a high-grade concentrate of the one type of fine particulate material (see at least para. 0046); rendering the one type of fine particulate material selectively hydrophobized prior to inclusion in the aqueous phase (see at least paras. 0026 and 0039); and determining performance of a flotation plant for separation of the one type of fine particulate material from other types of fine particles, the performance determined based upon a flotation model that determines grade versus recovery curves for the one type of fine particulate material from mineral liberation characteristics (see at least Figs. 1-3); and adjusting operation of the steps based upon the determined performance (see at least paras. 0041-0045). The one type of fine particulate material is rendered selectively hydrophobic by surface treatment (see at least para. 0013). The surface treatment utilizes a long-chain surfactant as a hydrophobizing agent (see at least paras. 0015-0017). The one type of fine particulate material comprises a sulfide mineral, the surface treatment comprises adding a thiol-type reagent to the aqueous phase for hydrophobization (see at least paras. 0015-0017). Yoon discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose that the cloud of small air bubbles is less than 500 microns. Yoon is silent regarding the size of the air bubbles. However, Jameson discloses a similar method which includes injecting an aqueous suspension of a cloud of small air bubbles of less than 500 microns into an aqueous phase comprising one type of fine particulate material during a separation process (see para. 0015) for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the separation process. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, modify Yoon by injecting an aqueous suspension of a cloud of small air bubbles of less than 500 microns into the aqueous phase, as disclosed by Jameson, for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the separation process
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 2003/0146134) in view of Jameson (US 2013/0341252) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zipperian (US 4,735,709). The combination of Yoon and Jameson discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose that the separating of the one type of fine particulate material using the cloud of small air bubbles occurs in a cyclonic flotation system. However, Zipperian discloses a similar method which includes using a cyclonic flotation system (see at least col. 5, lines 1-5) for the purpose of improving the separation process. 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 have the separating of the one type of fine particulate material using the cloud of small air bubbles occur in a cyclonic flotation system, as disclosed by Zipperian, for the purpose of improving the separation process.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zipperian (US 4,735,709) in view of Yoon (US 2003/0146134). Zipperian discloses a method of separating one type of coarse particulate materials from other types of materials dispersed in an aqueous phase, comprising: adding a hydrophobizing agent to an aqueous phase comprising coarse particulate materials to selectively render one type of coarse particulate material hydrophobic (see at least col. 4, lines 39-44); feeding the aqueous phase comprising the coarse particulate materials to a flotation cell (10) configured to push the coarse particulate materials upward with accelerative forces and pull the coarse particulate materials downward with decelerative forces while allowing air bubbles (see at least col. 4, lines 36-45) to attach to the one type of coarse particulate material that is selectively hydrophobized and thereby reducing the apparent specific gravity of the one type of coarse particulate material and form a layer of froth phase; allowing the coarse particulate materials in the flotation cell to form a layer of particulate materials with the one type of coarse particulate material on top of the layer of particulate materials (see at least col. 4, lines 35-50); allowing the one type of coarse particulate material to enter the froth phase via the accelerative forces, wherein the one type of coarse particulate material is upgraded via froth cleaning action provided by the froth phase (see at least col. 4, lines 45-50); and separating the one type of coarse particulate material from the froth phase and thereby obtaining the one type of coarse particulate material separated from other types of coarse particles (see at least col. 4, lines 45-50). Zipperian further discloses rendering the one type of coarse particulate material hydrophobic prior to inclusion in the aqueous phase wherein the one type of coarse particulate material is rendered selectively hydrophobic by surface treatment (see at least col. 4, lines 39-45). Zipperian further discloses that the one type of corse particulate material comprises a sulfide mineral (see at least col. 1, lines 29-30).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Zipperian discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the surface treatment utilizes a long-chain surfactant as a hydrophobizing agent or that the surface treatment comprises adding a thiol-type reagent to the aqueous phase for hydrophobization. However, Yoon discloses a similar method which utilizes a surface treatment utilizing a long-chain surfactant surfactant as a hydrophobizing agent (see at least paras. 0015-0017) or that the surface treatment comprises adding a thiol-type reagent to the aqueous phase for hydrophobization (see at least paras. 0015-0017) for the purpose of improving the efficiency of separation. 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 a surface treatment utilizing a long-chain surfactant surfactant as a hydrophobizing agent or have the surface treatment comprise adding a thiol-type reagent to the aqueous phase for hydrophobization, as disclosed by Yoon, for the purpose of improving the efficiency of separation.
Regarding claim 21, Zipperian discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose determining performance of a flotation plant for separation of the one type of fine particulate material from other types of fine particles, the performance determined based upon a flotation model that determines grade versus recovery curves for the one type of fine particulate material from mineral liberation characteristics; and adjusting operation of the steps based upon the determined performance. However, Yoon discloses a similar method which includes determining performance of a flotation plant for separation of the one type of fine particulate material from other types of fine particles, the performance determined based upon a flotation model that determines grade versus recovery curves for the one type of fine particulate material from mineral liberation characteristics (see at least Figs. 1-3); and adjusting operation of the steps based upon the determined performance (see at least paras. 0041-0045) for the purpose of improving the separating efficiency of the flotation plant. 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 modify Zipperian by determining performance of the flotation plant for separation of the one type of fine particulate material from other types of fine particles, the performance determined based upon a flotation model that determines grade versus recovery curves for the one type of fine particulate material from mineral liberation characteristics; and adjusting operation of the steps based upon the determined performance, as disclosed by Yoon, for the purpose of improving the separating efficiency of the flotation plant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 are allowed.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parrott et al. (US 2024/0375123) and Parrott et al. (US 2024/0375122) disclose methods for hodrophobizing particulate material and utilizing air bubbles to process the material in flotation processes.
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