FINAL REJECTION
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaiardo et al (US2016/0016200) in view of Starzmann (US2015/0266062) and in further view of Ito (WO2016/088558).
Referring to claims 1, 8-9. Gaiardo et al (herein “Gaiardo”) discloses a “Pneumatic Product Sorting Apparatus”. See Figs. 1-9 and respective portions of the specification. Gaiardo further discloses a pneumatic device (1), comprising modules, each module having valves (3) for supplying compressed air (pressurized fluid) (See at least Sects. 0034-044). Gaiardo further discloses that each solenoid valve (3) operates as a module having one or more valves for directing compressed air, and discloses the activation of solenoid valves to supply pressurized air jets (See at least Sects. 0034, 0051, 0064-0085). Likewise, Gaiardo discloses outlet nozzles for discharging one or more air jets coming from the modules and the nozzles being arranged such that firing nozzles are aligned along the same plane to ensure uniform jet timing (See at least Sects. 0057-0086). Gaiardo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the intensity of the compressed air jet delivered by each module being variable as a function of the combination of valves activated. Starzmann discloses “Sorting Device”. See Figs. 1-5 and respective portions of the specification. Starzmann further discloses a sorting device (4) comprising sorting nozzles (3), sorting valves (8), nozzle bodies (14, 15) and further teaches wherein compressed air blast intensity is varied depending on whether one or more sorting valves are activated, and further discloses purge and air control functionality to adjust jet strength (See at least Sects. 0043-0052). Additionally, Starzmann disclose nozzle orifices arranged in a linear aligned row (See at least Sects. 0039-0042). Ito discloses an “Ejector For Granular Material Color Sorting Machine”. See Figs. 1-9 and respective portions of the specification. Ito further discloses a pneumatic device (1) comprising solenoid valve devices (9), outlet nozzles (10, outlet nozzles), nozzle unit (15), solenoid valve unit (13), manifold unit (14), and nozzle devices (16). Ito further discloses nozzle units detachably connected to solenoid valves with each nozzle aligned to discharge compressed air from the module and aligned nozzle orifices in the ejector units (See at least Figs. 5-7). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pneumatic sorting device of Gaiardo by incorporating the valve control scheme of Starzmann, wherein air blast intensity is varied based on combinations of valves activated, in order to improve precision of sorting operations and provide finer control over the air jets. Likewise, it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Gaiardo to include the teachings of Ito, wherein the outlet nozzles have aligned outlet orifices, in order to achieve a compact, maintainable and efficient nozzle assembly that would allow for easier servicing and consistent jet discharge. It should further be noted that pneumatic sorting devices like Gaiardo operate by directing air jets towards objects moving along a guide path (channel) in order to separate objects based on characteristics. The recitation that the air jets are directed toward objects according to characteristics of the objects merely describes the intended operation of the sorting apparatus and does not impose a structural limitation distinguishing the claimed apparatus from the combination of Gaiardo, Starzmann and Ito.
Referring to claim 2. Gaiardo discloses a pneumatic device with multiple solenoid valves (modules) mounted around a central manifold, directing compressed air to nozzles arranged in a linear, aligned row (See Sects. 0039-0047 & at least Fig. 1). Gaiardo doesn’t disclose wherein the modules are arrange in a fan-like pattern relative to the nozzles. Ito discloses arranging nozzle units on a manifold in a fan-like pattern to achieve compact spacing and improved access to individual components (See at least Figs. 2, 5-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the modules of Gaiardo in a fan-like configuration as taught by Ito in order to achieve a more compact design while maintaining aligned nozzle discharge.
Referring to claim 3. Gaiardo discloses conduits extending from solenoid valves to the aligned nozzles outlets (See Sect. 0057-0067, 0088). Starzmann discloses sorting units comprising valves positioned symmetrically on opposite sides of the conduit relative to the airflow direction, enabling compact conduit routing to the nozzles (See at least Sects. 0027-0034, 0039-0024). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gaiardo’s conduit routing to incorporate Starzmann’s symmetrical arrangement of valves relative to the conduit flow path to reduce pneumatic losses and optimize spatial efficiency.
Referring to claim 4. Gaiardo discloses valves connected to respective conduits for directing compressed air toward nozzles (See Sects. 0051-0067 & at least Figs, 3, 5). Starzmann discloses using restrictor passages/orifices having different diameters to control airflow distribution and intensity (See least Sects. 0055-0063). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Starzmann’s teaching of varying orifice diameters into Gaiardo’s pneumatic system to achieve controlled differential airflow between conduits, allowing fine-tuning of air jet intensity based on operational requirements.
Referring to claim 5. Gaiardo discloses valves arranged along conduits connected to the nozzles (See at least Figs. 3, 5). Starzmann discloses optimizing airflow control by positioning restrictor orifices/passages with different diameters along a conduit to balance pressure and compensate for flow losses, placing smaller diameter orifices toward distal ends (See Sect. 0055-0063). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the valves in Gaiardo along the conduit in the manner taught by Starzmann to minimize pneumatic losses and ensure consistent airflow at each nozzle.
Referring to claim 6. Gaiardo discloses multiple solenoid valves (modules) connected via manifolds, capable of supporting several valves per module (See at least Sects. 0033-0047, 0088). Ito discloses ejector assemblies where each modules houses four or five valves to balance manifold efficiency and response time (See at least Figs. 5-7, claim 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Gaiardo’s modules to house four or five valves each, as taught by Ito, to optimize jet response speed and manifold size.
Referring to claim 7. Starzmann discloses integrating sensors at module inlets to monitor pressure drops caused by simultaneous or successive valve activations and a purge air and blast control system where pressure regulation and feedback mechanisms are used to ensure correct air delivery to sorting passages (See at least Sect. 0050-0055). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a pressure sensor at the module inlet of Gaiardo’s device, as taught by Starzmann, to monitor system performance and adjust activation timing to compensate for pressure losses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It should be noted that claim 8 is rejected with claim 1. Applicant argues that none of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose that “the intensity of the compressed air jet delivered by each module is variable as function of the combination of valves actuated”. Applicant further asserts that the cited references are incompatible and that the rejection relies on hindsight reconstruction.
As set forth in the previous Office Action, Gaiardo discloses a pneumatic product sorting apparatus comprising modules having valves configured to supply compressed air to outlet nozzles that discharge air jets for sorting operations. Specifically, Gaiardo teaches a pneumatic device including solenoid valves that direct pressurized air toward nozzles arranged to discharge air jets used for sorting products.
The previous Office Action also explained that Starzmann discloses controlling the strength or intensity of an air blasé used in sorting operations by activating one or more valves. In particular, Starzmann teaches varying the air blast intensity depending on whether one or more sorting valves are actuated, thereby providing adjustable air strength.
Accordingly, the combined teachings of Gaiardo and Starzmann provide a pneumatic sorting system having valves that supply compressed air to nozzles and in which the strength or intensity of the air blast can be adjusted based on the actuation of the one or more valves.
Applicant’s argument that the references fail to disclose the claimed variability of air jet intensity is not persuasive because the claim language does not require any specific structural feature for varying the jet intensity. Rather, the claim merely recites the functional capability that the intensity of the compressed air jet is variable as a function of the combination of valves actuated. The apparatus disclosed by Gaiardo, particularly when modified in view of Starzmann as previously proposed, inherently possesses the capability of varying the amount of compressed air delivered depending on which and how many valves are actuated.
It would have been readily understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that actuating different combinations of valves in a pneumatic system supplying compressed air to nozzles necessarily results in valves supplying compressed air increases the available airflow and pressured delivered to the nozzles, thereby increasing the resulting jet intensity. Conversely, actuating fewer valves decreases the airflow and resulting jet strength. Such behavior represents a predictable result of controlling airflow with pneumatic systems. Furthermore, the relationship between the number of actuated valves supplying compressed air and the resulting airflow delivered to the nozzles is an inherent physical property of pneumatic systems. Thus, varying the combination of valves that supply compressed air inherently results in variation of the resulting air jet intensity. The claimed variability in air jet intensity therefore represents an inherent and predictable consequence of operating the pneumatic valve structures disclosed in the cited references.
Furthermore, to the extent that the Applicant asserts that the prior art does not explicitly describe performing the claimed function, such argument is also not persuasive. Apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does, and a prior art apparatus that is capable of performing the claimed function meets the functional limitations of the claim. The pneumatic valve and nozzle structures disclosed by the combination of Gaiardo and Starzmann are clearly capable of varying air jet intensity based on the number of combination of valves actuated.
Applicant also argues that the cited references are incompatible or cannot be combined without hindsight. However, both Gaiardo and Starzmann related to pneumatic sorting systems employing compressed air jets controlled by valves to influence the movement of items being sorted. Because the references are directed to the same field of endeavor and address similar technical problems involving control of pneumatic air jets used in sorting operations, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably considered their teachings together when seeking to improve air jet control in pneumatic sorting devices.
The rejection therefore relies on the express teachings of the references and the predictable results of combining known elements in the same field of pneumatic sorting technology, rather than on hindsight reconstruction.
Additionally, applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.02, 2114. It should be noted that in claim 9 “according to the characteristics of the objects to be sorted”, in which the claim does not specify what characteristics are being evaluated or how such characteristics control the sorting operation. Accordingly, the limitation broadly describes the intended operation of a sorting system rather than imposing a specific structural limitation on the apparatus.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TERRELL HOWARD MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-5929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00 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, 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.
/TERRELL H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653