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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on September 26, 2025 has been received. Claims 3-8, 10, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, and 32-37 are canceled. Claim 39 is new. Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, 20, 22-24, 26-31, 38, and 39 are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 26, 2025 have been fully considered.
In particular, Applicant argues that the prior art references to Norris et al. (WO 2012/107732 A2) and Redding (WO 92/09368 A1) each fail to disclose or adequately teach the new limitations of independent claim 1, where:
“the rate of pressurization is: 0.001-1 bar per millisecond, or 0.001-1 bar per microsecond, or 0.001-1 bar per nanosecond, or 0.001-1 bar per picosecond”; and
“the rate of [de]pressurization is: 0.001-1 bar per millisecond, or 0.001-1 bar per microsecond, or 0.001-1 bar per nanosecond, or 0.001-1 bar per picosecond”.
The arguments are considered persuasive, and therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered prior art to Michalon (US 3,687,180 A), detailed below.
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 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, 20, 22-24, 26-31, 38, and 39 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 1, the recitation “where the rate of pressurisation is:” (at line 18) is considered indefinite because step (d) of the method pertains to “depressurising”. Therefore, it appears that the word “pressurisation” should be changed to --depressurisation--.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, 20, 22-24, 26, 29-31, 38, and 39 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 Michalon (US 3,687,180 A).
Regarding claim 1, Michalon discloses a method of at least partially breaking down a material or product item or combination of material or product items (i.e., a method of breaking-up or comminuting porous solid substances or bodies; see, e.g., column 1, lines 1-15 and 63-67; column 3, lines 37-41 and 52-56); the method (e.g., the method applied using the apparatus of FIG. 3; see column 4, line 38, to column 5, line 18) comprising the steps of:
a. introducing said material or product item or combination of material or product items into a treatment vessel (i.e., introducing porous solid bodies C into a chamber 10 within a cylinder 13 by means of a removable end 12);
b. introducing at least one working fluid into the treatment vessel (i.e., introducing a liquid and/or gaseous fluid into the chamber 10 by means of a cock 11);
c. increasing pressure on the material or product item or combination of material or product items in the treatment vessel to above atmospheric pressure (i.e., means 15, 16, 17 apply a variation of the fluid pressure in the chamber 10; the pressure on the bodies C is increased to a maximum pressure above atmospheric pressure during a compression step of the compression-decompression cycle (P(t)/P(0) from 0 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1; see FIG. 1; column 2, lines 22-29; column 4 , lines 6-19), during which the means 15, 16, 17 effects a movement of the piston 14 towards the porous solid bodies C in the chamber 10);
d. subsequently depressurizing the material or product item or combination of material or product items in the treatment vessel to achieve a pressure reduction on the material or product item or combination of material or product items in the treatment vessel in the vessel (i.e., the porous solid bodies C in the chamber 10 are depressurized to a minimum pressure during a subsequent decompression step of the compression-decompression cycle (P(t)/P(0) from 1 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 0; see FIG. 1), during which the means 15, 16, 17 effects a movement of the piston 14 away from the porous solid bodies C in the chamber 10); and
e. repeating steps (c) and (d) at least once to effect at least partial breakdown of said material or product item or combination of material or product items (i.e., the cyclic variation in pressure comprises a minimum of 3 cycles, with the specific number of cycles being based on the type of bodies C to be broken down, the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure of the compression-decompression cycle, and the amount of breakdown desired; see column 4, lines 47-51; also FIG. 2, column 2, lines 30-47).
With respect to the rate of pressurization during the pressure increasing step (c), Michalon (at column 2, lines 66-67) discloses that “the compression gradient must be at least three times smaller than the decompression gradient.”
With respect to the rate of [de]pressurization during the depressurizing step (d), Michalon (at column 2, lines 59-66) discloses “a decompression gradient at least equal to 105 bars per second”.
Therefore, when the method employs a decompression gradient of 105 bars per second, the rate of [de]pressurization equals 0.105 bar per millisecond, which is within the claimed range. A rate of pressurization that is three times smaller than 0.105 bar per millisecond equals 0.035 bar per millisecond, which is also within the claimed range.
In addition, the specific rate of pressurization/depressurization is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise rate of pressurization/depressurization would be considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Also, it is noted that the present specification (at page 20, lines 1-12) sets forth that the claimed rates of pressurization/depressurization are, at best, preferred limitations. As such, without more, the claimed rates of pressurization/depressurization cannot be considered “critical”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the rate of pressurization/depressurization in the method of Michalon in order to obtain the desired degree of breaking down and time spent to achieve the breaking down for the given material(s) and/or product item(s) to be treated, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Michalon discloses that the steps (c) and (d) of increasing pressure and subsequently depressurizing comprises one treatment cycle (i.e., one compression-decompression cycle; see FIG. 1), and the method includes a plurality of treatment cycles (i.e., a minimum of 3 cycles, see column 4, lines 47-51; e.g., 50, 100, or 150 cycles, see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Michalon discloses that the treatment vessel is sealed during treatment, and the material or product item or combination of material or product items to be treated are introduced before sealing the treatment vessel (i.e., bodies C are initially introduced into the chamber 10 by means of the removable end 12; the removable end 12 is then replaced to seal the chamber 10; see FIG. 3), and any products formed are removed from the treatment vessel after the treatment vessel is unsealed (i.e., after the completion of the treatment, the broken up bodies C are removed from the chamber 10 by means of the removable end 12).
Regarding claim 11, Michalon further discloses the step of optimizing the volume of the treatment vessel prior to, during, or after the introduction of the material or product item or combination of material or product items (i.e., the volume of the chamber 10 is adjusted during the treatment by the movement of the piston 14; see FIG. 3) and controlling/managing the volume during treatment (i.e., the movement of the piston 14 is controlled/managed by the means 15, 16, 17).
Regarding claim 12, Michalon further discloses that said method steps can be performed using the apparatus according to FIG. 6 (see column 5, lines 52-67), wherein the method further comprises the step of optimizing an amount of working fluid introduced (i.e., using a servo-valve 31 to regulate the amount of fluid introduced from a source of fluid pressure 30 to the chamber 10, via a fluid conduit 29) to suit the material or product item or combination of material or product items introduced.
Regarding claim 13, Michalon further discloses that said method steps can be performed using the apparatus according to FIG. 7, wherein the method further comprises the step of allowing a portion of the working fluid to bypass, purge, or exit the treatment vessel without undergoing pressurization and/or depressurization through at least one bypass, purge, or exit arrangement connected to an outlet of the treatment vessel (i.e., the chamber 10 is connected to an outlet equipped with a discharge valve 33, through which a portion of the fluid can be purged from the chamber 10 to limit the pressure of the chamber 10 to a desired pressure value; see column 6, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 14, Michalon further discloses that the working fluid is injected into the treatment vessel using at least one injector (i.e., the fluid is injected into the chamber 10 via the line equipped with the cock 11; see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Michalon further discloses that said method steps can be performed using the apparatus according to FIG. 7, wherein the step of increasing the pressure in the treatment vessel is adiabatic pressurization (i.e., the chamber 10 is pressurized using the pressure generated by explosion means 34; see column 6, lines 1-15). Michalon further discloses that said method steps can be performed using the apparatus according to FIG. 8 (see column 6, lines 22-64), wherein the step of depressurizing the treatment vessel is adiabatic expansion (i.e., via an abrupt bursting of a strip 42 that covers an escape orifice 32).
Regarding claim 18, Michalon discloses that the step of increasing the pressure in the treatment vessel and/or the step of depressurization of the treatment vessel is of adjustable duration (i.e., the duration of the pressure increasing step can be adjusted by selection of an appropriate compression gradient, and the duration of the depressurization step can be adjusted by selection of an appropriate decompression gradient, see column 2, lines 59-67).
Regarding claim 20, Michalon discloses that the step of increasing the pressure in the treatment vessel is adjustable in degree of pressure increase and/or the step of depressurization of the treatment vessel is adjustable in degree of pressure decrease (i.e., the pressure in the chamber 10 can be varied from -1 to +500 bars, and the difference between the maximum and minimum pressures can be up to 500 bars, see column 2, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 22, Michalon discloses that the step of increasing the pressure in the treatment vessel is longer in duration than the depressurization step (i.e., the compression gradient during the pressure increasing step is at least three times smaller (slower) than the decompression gradient during the depressurization step, see column 2, lines 66-67).
Regarding claim 23, Michalon further discloses that the step of increasing the pressure in the treatment vessel and the subsequent depressurization step occurs a plurality of times with a single charge of at least one working fluid (i.e., the bodies C are subjected to a minimum of 3 cycles using a single charge of the fluid admitted to the chamber 10 by means of the cock 11; see FIG. 3; column 4, lines 39-50).
Regarding claim 24, Michalon further discloses the step of agitating an environment within the treatment vessel in order to circulate the working fluid within the treatment vessel (i.e., the cyclic variation of pressure in the chamber 10 by the piston 14 produces a “vibratory action” that inherently agitates the environment and circulates the fluid within the chamber 10; see FIG. 3; column 4, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 26, Michalon further discloses that the step of increasing the pressure in the treatment vessel is followed by a step of holding the treatment vessel at an elevated pressure before the subsequent depressurization of the treatment vessel (as shown by the pressure curve in FIG. 1, after the pressure in the chamber 10 has been increased from the minimum pressure to the maximum pressure, P(t)/P(0) = 0 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1, the pressure in the chamber 10 is held at the maximum pressure, P(t)/P(0) = 1, for a period of time (t), before the pressure in the chamber 10 is subsequently decreased from the maximum pressure to the minimum pressure, P(t)/P(0) = 1 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 0).
Regarding claim 29, Michalon discloses that the at least one working fluid can be gaseous (i.e., a gaseous fluid and/or liquid, with emphasis; see column 3, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 30, Michalon discloses that the at least one working fluid can be a mixture of gaseous and liquid phases (i.e., a gaseous fluid and/or liquid, with emphasis; see column 3, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 31, Michalon discloses that the at least one working fluid can include a gaseous fluid and liquid (see column 3, lines 61-64). Michalon further discloses that an example of a gaseous fluid is air, and an example of a liquid is fluid silicone (see column 3, lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mixture of materials, e.g., air and fluid silicone, for the at least one working fluid in the method of Michalon because the working fluid can include both a gaseous fluid and liquid, and air and fluid silicone were mentioned as suitable materials for effecting the pressure variation in the treatment vessel.
Regarding claim 38, Michalon further discloses that said method steps can be performed using the apparatus according to FIG. 7 (see column 6, lines 1-15), wherein the increase in pressure is applied through the application of at least two pulses of increased pressure (i.e., the increase in pressure is obtained by consecutive explosions of the cartridges 34), and the depressurizing occurs through the absence of increased pressure applied by the at least two pulses of increased pressure (i.e., during the absence of the explosions).
Michalon further discloses that said method steps can be performed using the apparatus according to FIG. 6 (see column 5, lines 52-67), wherein the increase in pressure is applied through the application of at least two pulses of increased pressure (i.e., pulses of fluid under pressure from a source of fluid pressure 30, as by regulated by a servo-valve 31, wherein the pulses of fluid are supplied to the chamber 10 via a fluid conduit 29 at a maximum pre-regulated value and a selected frequency, such as 50 times per second); and the depressurizing occurs through the absence of increased pressure applied by the at least two pulses of increased pressure (i.e., during the absence of the pulses of fluid under pressure, when the servo-valve 31 regulates the pressure to a minimum value close to zero).
Regarding claim 39, Michalon further discloses that the method can be used as a method of treating porous solid bodies C of vegetable origin, including oleaginous pips and seeds and of leguminous plants, the fruit of which is a shell, e.g., sunflowers, grapes, walnuts, peanuts, etc. (see column 1, lines 1-15). Such porous solid bodies C would be considered product items that are “food product items” by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalon (US 3,687,180 A) in view of Spirovski et al. (WO 2014/056022 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Michalon fails to disclose a further step of monitoring the at least partial breakdown of the material or product item or combination of material or product items or treatment vessel for treatment effectiveness.
Spirovski et al. discloses a method of at least partially breaking down a material or product item or combination of material or product items (i.e., a method for disintegration of a solid, e.g., tablet; see paragraph [0001]), the method comprising the steps of:
introducing the material or product item or combination of material or product items and a working fluid into a treatment vessel (i.e., during a step 302, see FIG. 3a, a solid (e.g., tablet) and a liquid are provided in a receptacle 120, see FIG. 1; paragraph [00061]);
increasing the pressure on the material or product item or combination of material or product items in said treatment vessel 120 and subsequently depressurizing the material or product item or combination of material or product items in the treatment vessel 120 to achieve a pressure reduction on the material or product item or combination of material or product items in the treatment vessel in the vessel (i.e., during steps 304, 308, and 312, see FIG. 3a, the receptacle 120 is loaded into a sonotrode, and ultrasonic energy is applied to the contents of the receptacle 120; ultrasonic vibrations of a predetermined amplitude (see FIG. 2) distort the sonotrode, which causes “pressure changes” in the receptacle 120 and the disintegration of the solid into particles; see paragraphs [00044], [00062]); and
repeating the steps of increasing the pressure and subsequent depressurizing at least once to effect at least partial breakdown of the material or product item or combination of material or product items (i.e., a sonication time is controlled to achieve an adequate degree of disintegration of the solid; see paragraph [00062]).
Specifically, Spirovski et al. discloses that the method includes the further step of monitoring the at least partial breakdown of the material or product item or combination of material or product items or treatment vessel for treatment effectiveness (i.e., one or more optical sensors, accelerometers, or the like are used for detecting the condition of the receptacle contents and, specifically, the degree to which the solid has been disintegrated and/or dispersed; the one or more sensors then provide a feedback signal to a control unit 106, see FIG. 1, which is in turn used to control the operation of the ultrasound transducer 108 which causes the pressure changes in the receptacle 102; see paragraph [00068]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further perform the step of monitoring the at least partial breakdown of the material or product item or combination of material or product items or treatment vessel for treatment effectiveness in the method of Michalon because the degree to which the material(s) and/or product item(s) have been broken down by the pressure changes occurring in the treatment vessel could be detected, so as to determine when the desired degree of breakdown has been achieved, as taught by Spirovski et al.
Regarding claim 28, Spirovski et al. further discloses that the steps of increasing the pressure in the treatment vessel and subsequent depressurization of the treatment vessel are varied in real time depending upon the treatment effectiveness (i.e., the operation of the ultrasound transducer which causes the pressure changes in the receptacle 102 is automatically controlled in real time by the control unit 106, based on the feedback signal received from the one or more sensors used to detect the degree to which the solid has been disintegrated in the receptacle 102; see paragraph [00068]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further vary, in real time, the steps of increasing the pressure in the treatment vessel and subsequent depressurization of the treatment vessel, depending upon the treatment effectiveness, in the modified method of Michalon because the treatment effectiveness, as determined based on the feedback signal of one or more sensors used for detecting the degree to which the material(s) and/or product item(s) have been broken down in the treatment vessel, could then be used to automatically control the operations of the means which was used to apply the pressure changes in the treatment vessel in real time, so as to achieve the desired degree of breakdown, as taught by Spirovski et al.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalon (US 3,687,180 A) in view of Norris et al. (WO 2012-107732 A2).
Michalon discloses that the method is used as a method of treating porous solid bodies C of vegetable origin, including oleaginous pips and seeds and of leguminous plants, the fruit of which is a shell, e.g., sunflowers, grapes, walnuts, peanuts, etc. (see column 1, lines 1-15). Such bodies C would be considered “food product items” by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Michalon further discloses that the method is not limited to the treatment of food product items, and the method “… can be used with success for causing… in general all bodies having porosity, to burst into small fragments.” (see column 3, lines 52-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Michalon to the treatment of other product items, to effect the at least partial breaking down of the other product items.
Norris et al. further discloses a method of at least partially breaking down a material or product item or combination of material or product items (i.e., a method of fragmenting a discrete waste product item or a combination of discrete waste product items; see page 4, lines 16-18; page 4, line 32, to page 5, line 10), the method comprising the steps of:
a. introducing said material or product item or combination of material or product items into a treatment vessel or temporarily creating a treatment vessel from the material's or product item's or a combination of materials' or product items' existing casing(s) or carrier(s) (i.e., in the reference step (a), introducing the discrete waste product item or combination of discrete waste product items into a pressure vessel; see page 4, lines 20-21);
b. introducing at least one working fluid into the treatment vessel (i.e., in the reference step (b), supplying steam as the working fluid into the vessel; see page 4, lines 23-24; page 11, lines 10-20; page 12, lines 21-28);
c. increasing pressure on the material or product item or combination of material or product items in said treatment vessel to above atmospheric pressure (i.e., also in the reference step (b), increasing the pressure in the vessel to a pressure of at least 0.5 bar above atmospheric pressure; see page 4, lines 23-24; page 10, lines 14-21);
d. subsequently depressurising the material or product item or combination of material or product items in treatment vessel to achieve a pressure reduction on the material or product item or combination of material or product items in the treatment vessel in the vessel (i.e., in the reference step (c), subsequently decompressing the vessel to achieve a pressure reduction of at least 0.5 bar; see page 4, lines 26-27; page 10, line 27, to page 11, line 8); and
e. repeating steps (c) and (d) at least once to effect at least partial breakdown of said material or product item or combination of material or product items (i.e., in the reference step (d), repeating the reference steps (b) and (c) to effect fragmentation of the waste product item or combination of waste product items; see page 4, lines 29-30; page 11, lines 22-34).
Specifically, Norris et al. discloses that the method is used for treating product items that are “waste product items”, as found in household or municipal waste, including:
food waste, such as cooked or raw products of animal or vegetable origin, e.g., meat, poultry, fish, fruit, vegetables, etc.; plastic waste, such as articles or bottles made of plastics; carbon fiber composites; wood; building materials, glass, paper, card, and textile materials (see page 4, line 32, to page 5, line 10; page 7, line 11, to page 9, line 32).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Michalon as a method of treating other product items, such as the “waste product items” taught by Norris et al., because one of ordinary skill in the art would have further expected the breaking down of the waste product items to likewise benefit from the advantages, including short treatment times and low power consumption, of using the method of Michalon (see column 3, lines 32-36).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774