PROCESS

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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Australia on December 7, 2022. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the AU2021903968 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 06/28/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but some of the information referred to therein (Foreign Patent Documents 1-3) has not been considered. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 17, in the reply filed on 08/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/25/2026. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 62’ (see Fig. 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Pg. 8, lines 13-14, appears to mistakenly include language that was intended to be deleted and replaced with a definition of desert sand, reading “Herein, the term “desert sand” refers to… [define by CaCO3 and SiO2 content? Typically comprising over 90% by weight of desert sands.]” On pg. 8, line 26, chemical formulas “Al2O3” and “Fe2O3” are missing subscripts. On pg. 8, line 27, “earth” should be capitalized. On pg. 8, line 28, there should be a period at the end of the sentence. Appropriate correction is required The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, there should not be a comma after “sand” (see claim 4 at line 3). In claim 8, there should be a space between numbers and units; “10kV” should read “10 kV” (see claim 8 at line 2). 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2 and 8 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. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, Examiner treated limitations following “such as” as not being a required part of the claimed invention. Clarification is requested. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the voltage applied to each electrode" (see claim 8 at line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which recites “desert sand” (see claim 1 at line 1). Claim 2 recites the further limitation “wherein the desert sand is a naturally occurring desert sand” (see claim 2 at lines 1-2), followed by exemplary language which as discussed above is not considered to be part of the claimed invention. It is not clear how “desert sand” would refer to anything other than sand from a desert, i.e., naturally occurring sand, and the present specification also explicitly states that “desert sand” means naturally occurring sand (see pg. 20); i.e., claim 1 already requires that the desert sand is naturally occurring, and is not further limited by claim 2. Claim 2 is therefore of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-15 and 17 are allowed. Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection set forth above. Claims 2 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach nor would one of ordinary skill in the art have considered it obvious to include in the claimed method the desert sand comprising iron oxide and alumina components as claimed. The present claims are allowable over the closest prior art, Bittner, et al., "Triboelectric Belt Separator for Beneficiation of Fine Minerals", Procedia Engineering, vol. 83, 1 January 2014, pg. 122-129 (hereinafter, “BITTNER”), Bullock (U.S. Pat. No. 3,143,492-A) (hereinafter, “BULLOCK”) and MacKay (U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,326-B2) (hereinafter, “MACKAY”), for the following reasons: BITTNER discloses a method for reducing the amount of silica in a mineral mixture of a type that also comprises calcium carbonate (see BITTNER at §3.2 and Table 3), the method comprising: imparting a net negative electrical charge to a silica component and a net positive electrical charge to a calcium carbonate component of the mineral mixture through interparticle friction by a triboelectrostatic mechanism (see BITTNER at §1, §2 and Table 3), and applying an electric field to the charged components of the mineral mixture by a triboelectrostatic mechanism (see BITTNER at Title, Abstract, and §2) such that the negatively charged silica component is separated from a remainder of the components of the mineral mixture (see BITTNER at Fig. 2 and Table 3). BITTNER does not explicitly mention that the material produced is a cement raw material feedstock; however, this is merely a recitation of an intended use of the material made by the method rather than an actual limitation directed to the claimed method, and is not considered to limit the present claims. Any material comprising calcium carbonate which is produced by the claimed method would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used as a cement raw material feedstock. However, BITTNER does not disclose or suggest that the mineral mixture is a desert sand, or that the mineral mixture comprises iron oxide and alumina components. BULLOCK discloses a method for reducing the amount of quartz (i.e., silica) in a mineral mixture of a type that also comprises calcium carbonate (i.e., calcite), and mentions natural sand as a mixture to which electrostatic separation may be applied (see BULLOCK at col. 1, lines 9-13, col. 3, lines 67-72, col. 4, lines 17-20, col. 5, lines 34-43, and col. 11, lines 31-60), the method comprising: imparting a net negative electrical charge to a silica component and a net positive electrical charge to a calcium carbonate component of the mixture through interparticle friction by a triboelectrostatic mechanism (see BULLOCK at col. 1, line 21 – col. 2, line 29, col. 4, lines 17-20, col. 5, lines 34-43, and col. 11, lines 31-60), and applying an electric field to the charged components of the mixture by a triboelectrostatic mechanism (see BULLOCK at col. 1, line 21 – col. 2, line 29, and col. 5, lines 34-43) such that the negatively charged silica component is separated from a remainder of the components of the mineral mixture (see BULLOCK at col. 4, lines 17-20, and col. 11, lines 31-60). BULLOCK does not explicitly mention that the material produced is a cement raw material feedstock; however, this is merely a recitation of an intended use of the material made by the method rather than an actual limitation directed to the claimed method, and is not considered to limit the present claims. Any material comprising calcium carbonate which is produced by the claimed method would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used as a cement raw material feedstock. However, BULLOCK does not disclose or suggest that the mineral mixture comprising the silica and calcium carbonate is sand, that the mixture comprising silica and calcium carbonate or the sand is a desert sand, or that the mixture comprising silica and calcium carbonate or the sand comprises iron oxide and alumina components. MACKAY discloses a method for reducing the amount of silica (i.e., quartz) in a mineral mixture of a type that also comprises calcium carbonate (see MACKAY at col. 1, lines 5-21, and col. 4, lines 15-50), the method comprising: imparting a net negative electrical charge to a silica component and a net positive electrical charge to a calcium carbonate component of the mineral mixture through interparticle friction by a triboelectrostatic mechanism (see MACKAY at col. 1, lines 5-21, col. 4, lines 15-50 and col. 5, lines 31-34), and applying an electric field to the charged components of the mineral mixture by a triboelectrostatic mechanism (see MACKAY at col. 1, lines 5-21 and col. 5, lines 16-49) such that the negatively charged silica component is separated from a remainder of the components of the mineral mixture (see MACKAY at col. 4, lines 15-50 and col. 5, lines 16-49). MACKAY does not explicitly mention that the material produced is a cement raw material feedstock; however, this is merely a recitation of an intended use of the material made by the method rather than an actual limitation directed to the claimed method, and is not considered to limit the present claims. Any material comprising calcium carbonate which is produced by the claimed method would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used as a cement raw material feedstock. However, MACKAY does not disclose or suggest that the mineral mixture is a desert sand, or that the mineral mixture comprises iron oxide and alumina components. Therefore, it is clear that BITTNER, BULLOCK and MACKAY, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claimed invention. The prior art as a whole fails to disclose or suggest the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Amber Orlando can be reached on (571) 270-3149. 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. /S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731 /ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731