FINAL OFFICE ACTION This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application: Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774 . Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300. 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 a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)). Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.83(a) since the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. T he subject matter of claim 5. Contrary to the remarks on this objection, Figures 1(a) and 1(b) which do not exhibit the crispest lines ever seen in patent drawings, fail to show dimensions of the flow channels 11 that “vary”. INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES Replacement Drawing Sheets Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified. Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin. Annotated Drawing Sheets A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets. Timing of Corrections Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application. If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability. Specification The 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. The substitute Abstract of the Disclosure is objected to because: a. the recitation of "” Disclosed is ” in line 1 and “ Also disclosed is ” in line s 3-4 are improper implied phrases. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The revised title of the invention is approved. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 5-9, and 12-16 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. Claim 1, last section is unclear: is not the dirty feedwater cleared of solid particulate matter since the solids leave/separate from the feedwater and then exit the solids relief ports 13 and solids relief holes 15 as described in instant ¶ [0027]? [0027] The advantage of the present invention is that centrifugal force continuously forces any solids or precipitate up each channel (11) and out through the solids relief port (13) and the solids relief hole (15) so that they therefore self-empty. There are no volumes of water located in the system that would allow solids to settle out into and put the bowl out of balance. NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent c laims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b). construed to include all the 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 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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr ., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt , 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz , 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interpret s claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc ., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California , 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejectio n of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier , 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli , 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112. 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. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PEACOCKE et al. (US 7503888 B1) that discloses with regard to claim 1 a Batch Centrifugal Concentrator (BCC) comprising a rotary bowl 10; flow channels 47 and/or any of the vertical or horizontal channels connected thereto as seen in Figure 2 capable of receiving a flowing fluid ; solids relief ports 39 that are designed to preclude blockage (col. 7, lines 41-58) at a respective top portion of each respective flow channel of the flow channels as defined above and seen in Figure 2 ; wherein an inner portion of the bowl includes a plurality of fluid injection ports 40 fluidly connected to the flow channels to receive feedwater therefrom as seen in Figure 2 ; and capable of mitigating the adverse effects associated with dirty feedwater ; thus the flow channels are channels capable to feed the fluid at a velocity to clear solid particulate matter in the flow of fluid through the channels. Claim 5: wherein dimensions of the fluid flow channels seen in Figure 2 and as defined above in fluid communication with channels 47 are of variable diameters to maintain a fluid flowrate, along a substantial portion of the a sidewall of the bowl 10 - see Figure 2 showing different cross-sectional areas of said fluid flow channels in fluid communication with the channels 47. Claim 6: wherein each of the solids relief ports 39 is located near a top of the a sidewall of the rotary bowl 10 within upper surface 28 - Figure 2. With regard to the amended claims and remarks related thereto, t he manner s in which the recited centrifuge is operated (such as channeling feed water at a velocity that clears solid particulate matter, mitigate adverse effects associated with dirty feedwater, supplying feedwat e r to the injection ports, etc.) recite absolutely no further structure and as held in In re Casey , 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), "the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself." See MPEP 2115. Nevertheless, the patent to PEACOCKE et al. discloses all of the recited structure irrespective of the manner in which said structure is operated : APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does .” Hewlett-Packard Co . v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr ., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt , 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz , 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interpret s claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc ., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City , 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). The Supreme Court has noted: Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742). 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 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. The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 , February 27, 2024 , wherein t he Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id . at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea , 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR , 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id. From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n , 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’) . In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42. The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc ., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. T he Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal. ’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre- KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id ., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel ). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR . Unwired Planet , 841 F.3d at 1003. When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments , 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton , 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claims 7- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEACOCKE et al. (US 7503888 B1) in view of WO 2019/144179 A1. PEACOCKE et al. does not disclose the recited bowl segments. WO ‘179 discloses a segmented bowl for a batch centrifugal concentrator constructed from a plurality of segments that are each placed adjacently to one another, so that each segment is in intimate contact with its neighboring segments, so that when a sufficient number of segments are put into place, they form the bowl of the batch centrifugal concentrator. A segmented bowl for a batch centrifugal concentrator constructed from a plurality of segments that are each placed adjacently to one another is disclosed, so that each segment is in intimate contact with its neighboring segments, so that when a sufficient number of segments are put into place, they form the bowl of the batch centrifugal concentrator. The segments are arcuate in shape, and when put in place, they combine to form a bowl shape with a circular profile and a suitably sloping interior sidewall. This wall will consist of an interior sidewall profile that is adapted to optimally concentrate precious components from a slurry operated upon by the batch centrifugal concentrator. Optionally, there are a plurality of different shapes of segments, and each different shape of segment is capable of being laid adjacent to each other, and in intimate contact with its neighboring segments, to form one discrete layer within the formation of the bowl. Preferably, each discrete layer of segments is in intimate contact with any adjacent layer of segments so that the bowl can be constructed by placing the segments into a plurality of discrete layers. The segments remain in place and in intimate contact with adjacent segments even when the bowl in the batch centrifugal concentrator is rotated at operational speed. Optionally, at least some of the individual segments are constructed out of at least two parts. Preferably, the first part is a rearward part, nearest to the exterior of the bowl and the second part is a forward part, nearest to the interior of the bowl. Preferably, the rearward part is adapted to permit fastening means to attach to and retain the forward part [i.e., means to enable adjacent segments to be interconnectable] . Preferably, the segment is adapted to enable the second part to be detached from the first part and replaced by a new second part if the original second part has become damaged or has otherwise reached the end of its useful life. It also allows for cleaning of the outflow holes and water channels inside of the segment. Optionally, at least the second part is adapted to be 3D printed so that replacement second parts may be printed when required. Preferably, at least some of the segments are hollow and include a fluid flow path that allows a suitable fluid, such as water, to flow into the segment via at least one inflow conduit, and at least partially flow out of the segment via at least one outflow port, into the interior of the bowl, even while the bowl is rotating at operational speed. Preferably, the outflow of fluid into the interior of the bowl creates a fluidised bed effect in the vicinity of the outflow port on the interior sidewall of the bowl. [0018] Optionally, each segment is capable of being fitted with an insert that overlays at least one outflow port and is adapted to still permit the outflow of the suitable fluid, while mitigating the likelihood of the ingress of any solid material into the outflow port, thereby reducing the chance of the outflow port from becoming clogged. Preferably, the insert is hinged either at its top or bottom edge and is capable of swinging away from the outflow port, under the influence on the flow of fluid through the outflow port, and when the flow is suspended, the centrifugal forces associated with the rotating bowl cause the insert to swing back to its position overlaying the outflow port, thereby enabling the insert to act as a barrier, thereby preventing material from clogging the at least one outflow port. In another preferred embodiment, the insert is manufactured from a suitably resilient and robust material. Any suitable resilient material may be used, however the preferred material is rubber. The insert includes a flap portion and a bulbous portion. At least some of the segments that are hollow, and includes retaining means that are adapted to retain the bulbous portion of the insert. Preferably, the retaining means are adapted to enable an insert to be replaced when required. Preferably, at least some of the segments include additional retaining means that are adapted to retain at least one cover. Preferably, each cover is manufactured from a suitable hard-wearing material, and when attached to it associated segment via the additional retaining means, it presents a comparatively harder wearing surface to a region of the segment that is subjected to high wear during the normal operation of the batch centrifugal concentrator. Preferably, the bowl is adapted to be transported to a site in a totally or partially disassembled condition, and then assembled at the site. Optionally, each segment, or at least the forward portion of the segment, is capable of being manufactured on site using a suitable 3D printer. Figure 1 shows the segment 1 that has an outer sidewall portion 3 and an inner sidewall portion 5. In one preferred embodiment, the segment 1 is a unitary design, which could be manufactured in a single piece. In another preferred embodiment, the segment 1 is constructed from a plurality of sub-parts. Optionally the segment is capable of being produced by 3D printing. Preferably, the segment 1 is at least partially hollow, and includes a cavity 7. The cavity 7 has an inlet conduit 9, and a plurality of comparatively small outflow ports 11. Each segment 1 has an arcuate shape so that when a plurality of segments 1 ar e placed adjacent to one another in intimate contact, they combine to form a bowl with a circular profile, and a sloping inner sidewall 5. The bowl is capable of being spun at sufficiently high speed to induce a centripetal force on any material fed into the rotating bowl, while retaining the bowl’s integrity. The outflow of a suitable fluid, typically water, through the plurality of outflow ports 1 1 creates zones within the inner sidewall 5 of the bowl that act as a fluidized bed. Turning to Figure 2, we are shown an alternative preferred embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the segment 1 includes an additional insert 13 that is removably insertable into the inner sidewall 5 of the segment 1. The additional insert 13 is manufactured from a suitable hard-wearing material, such as a metal, polyurethane or ceramic, and the additional insert thereby provides enhanced wear resistance in regions of the segment that are subjected to high wear. In another embodiment, this enhanced wear resistance material may be incorporated into the segment as part of the manufacturing process, for example, in the form of a liquid or paste that cures to form an integrated part of the bowl segment. This insert may either be exposed at the surface or buried below a surface layer of the bowl segment such that it becomes exposed as a result of operational wear. The interface between the high wear resistance material and the main body of the bowl segment can be keyed such that the hard-wearing material will not fall out of the segment during operation. Turning to Figure 3, we are shown a preferred embodiment that includes a resilient insert 15. The insert includes a bulbous portion 17 and a flap portion 19. The bulbous portion 17 is capable of being removably inserted into retaining means 21 that are formed in the segment 1. At rest, or when the outflow of liquid is not flowing out of the outflow ports 11, the flap portion 19 overlays the outflow ports 11. The flap portion 19 mitigates the likelihood that solid material will become lodged in some, or all the outflow ports 11, causing them to become clogged. When the flow of liquid is present, the force of the flow forces the flap to move out of its overlaying position and allow the flow of fluid to proceed. In this embodiment, a resilient material is used, that is capable of yielding and resiliently deforming when in use, however it should be noted that other forms of insert are within the scope of the present invention, including a stiff form of insert that is hinged, preferably at the top, and is capable of swinging away from the outflow port under the influence of the outflow of fluid from the outflow ports 11. In Figure 4, we are shown a sectional side view of a bowl 23 that has been constructed from a plurality of segments 1. In this preferred embodiment, a single segment extends from the bottom to the top of the bowl 23. ln another preferred embodiment, there is a plurality of segment shapes that arc adapted to form discrete layers of segments that arc then placed one on top of the other, in intimate contact, to form the bowl. Finally, in Figure 5, we are shown another preferred embodiment of the present invention ln this embodiment, the segment 1 includes a rearward portion 25 and a forward portion 27. The portions are fastened together via fastening means 31. Any suitable fastening means may be used. Optionally a gasket 29 may be used to make a fluid proof seal between to two portions when fully fastened together. Both portions includes a fluid flow channel 7 that complement one another when the two portions are fastened together. In another embodiment, this channel is wholly contained in either the rearward or forward portion. An inflow conduit 9 is included in the rearmost portion and is connected to the fluid flow channel 7. Fluid enters the segment through the inlet conduit 9 and the fluid flows through the fluid flow channel 7 and flows out of the segment through the plurality of outflow ports 11. This creates a fluidised bed arrangement in the vicinity of the outflow ports 11. Optionally, the rearmost portion 25 is made from a solid durable material, such as steel, whereas the forward portion 27 is made from a different material. Because it is the forward portion 27 that is subjected to wear and tear and the impact loads associated with the operation of the BCC, this embodiment has the advantage that the damaged/worn forward portion 27 can be easily removed from the rearward portion 25 and replaced with a new forward portion 27. It is also optional that at least the forward portion is able to be 3D printed so that a replacement forward portion 27 for that segment is ready when required. This cuts down on inventory considerations, and the logistics involved in handling replacement portions 27. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the rotary bowl of Peacocke et al. to be formed of the recited segments as taught by WO ‘179 for the advantages set forth above and for the purposes of whereby the segments, or the sub-parts of the segments, can be more easily transported to the site where the Batch Centrifugal Concentrator (BCC) will be operated, thereby mitigating the need to transport the large bulky bowl component t he manufacture of the segments, or the replacement of broken or worn out segments, can be manufactured at the site, using a 3D printer to cut down significantly on the time it takes for the part to be ordered, manufactured off-site and transported to the site ; to enhance the maintenance of the BCC since the b owl in the BCC is adapted to be deconstructed in-situ and the bowl is no longer unitary, so therefore the need for heavy lifting equipment to manipulate the bowl into or out of the BCC is significantly reduced since the bowl can be disassembled and reassembled in-situ as required ; hi gh wear areas of the segment are able to be protected with high wearing inserts and a s these inserts wear out over time, then only the insert may need to be replaced ; such that the problem associated with the clogging of the outflow ports is mitigated by use of an insert that nominally covers and protects the outflow ports when the flow of fluid from the outflow port is not flowing ; and to provide the ability to be able separate the forward and rearward portions of the segment from each other that allows for easy cleaning of the water channel and outflow holes - per ¶ [0040] - [0041]. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEACOCKE et al. (US 7503888 B1) in view of GB 2572331 A . PEACOCKE et al. does not disclose the recited seal assembly. Regarding claim 12, GB ‘331 discloses a seal assembly merely suitable for a batch centrifugal concentrator, said seal including ( from F igure 3, page 1, lines 19-21) a non-rotating lower portion 306 which includes a port at 304 ( F igure 3 with non-rotating lower portion 306, in let port 304 and out let port located in the space with in 302) ; a rotating upper portion 302 , 224 which includes ports (Figure 1) and wherein each port is interconnected by a conduit that is adapted to enable fluid to flow into, through and out of the seal assembly (figure 3 with rotating portion 302, water in let port 304 and out let port the space in 302) ; wherein a gap is provided between the lower and upper portions (figure 3 - gap s 308) ; w herein the stationary portion includes an air inlet port 310 that is adapted to create and maintain a zone of positive pressure within said gap (figure 3 - stationary portion 306 with air inlet 310 ; page 38 , lines 11-34) C laim 13 : the zone of positive pressure is maintained during at least the operation of the batch centrifugal concentrator to thereby mitigate the ingress and accumulation of debris on the sealing surfaces and thereby greatly increase the mean time between failures for the seal assembly (page 37 , lines 19-28) . Claim 14: wherein an air distributor is included and provides the incoming flow of air to maintain the positive pressure in the air gap (figure 3 - item 302 would distribute the air from the inlet 310) . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the rotary bowl of Peacocke et al. with the recited seal assembly for the purposes and advantages disclosed at pages 37-38: The outer surfaces of the fluid supply pipe and the outlet pipe(s) can be sealed against the inner surfaces of the two ends of the tube 216 and optionally against the inner surface of collector outlet 262 by means of a seal assembly including labyrinth seals, as shown in Figure 3 . The labyrinth seals 306 have an inlet for receiving fluid feed pipe 304 and a circular recess for receiving an end of tubular shaft 302 (equivalent to tube 216 in Figure 1) of a drum 224 which is in fluid communication with the first chamber in the drum. Fluid enters the seal through fluid feed pipe 304 in direction F as shown in Figure 3. Whilst the fluid feed pipe 304 and labyrinth seal 306 do not rotate when the apparatus is in use, bearings within the labyrinth seal (not shown) allow the end of the tubular shaft 302 to rotate inside the labyrinth seal. The labyrinth seal contains tortuous paths 308 (typically less than 1mm in width) which prevent leakage of the fluid from the seal. The use of labyrinth seals means that if the air feed pressure is greater than the fluid pressure being processed, then the fluid cannot push past the labyrinth seal and leak out. The labyrinth seal therefore provides a means for connecting a static, non-rotating fluid feed pipe to the rotating tubular shaft and drum, whilst preventing leaking of the fluid. The labyrinth seals can similarly be used to connect outlet pipes to the drum. The labyrinth seals 306 also comprise air inlets 310 which are in fluid communication with center of the seal by means of the paths 308. Air can be drawn into the labyrinth seal through the air inlets, either as a result of the pressure of the fluid passing through the seal, or by using an external pressured air source to inject pressured air into air inlet 310. When the air pressure inside the labyrinth seal is sufficient, the drum shaft 302 will be suspended, taking the weight of the drum off the bearings in the seal. This means that the labyrinth seal is virtually friction free and therefore lasts longer compared to conventional seals, which easily degrade when the input fluid contains particulate matter, such as sand and/or grit. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims , otherwise new issue(s) may be raised. Conclusion Applicant's arguments filed 17 MAR 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Curiously, Applicant relies almost exclusively on functional language such as “configured to” and the like in the claims in an attempt to define over the prior art. Such attempt failed as explained in section (16) above since the claim language couched in these phrases are utterly devoid of structure and PEACOCKE et al. and the other applied references disclose all of the recited structure appearing in the amended claims . Other than the claims deemed allowable, the examiner observes that no structure was added to the pending claims. Applicant provides no evidence that the flow channels in PEACOCKE et al. cannot, under all circumstances, feed a fluid at some unspecified velocity to clear the channels of substances (solids) that may create blockage, especially when the PEACOCKE et al. centrifuge addresses this issue at col. 7, lines 41-58 . Since all of the claimed structure is disclosed in the prior art applied above and such structure is quite capable of performing the associated functions, recited with little specificity, (such as words of miniscule to no specificity including: mitigate adverse effects, feeding at a velocity, to maintain a clearing fluid flowrate, etc.) the prior art rejections are maintained and made final . The arguments appearing in the penultimate paragraph on page 12 of the response related to the upright cylindrical bore is considered to be speculative attorney's argument unsupported by objective technical evidence on the issue (and appears to contradict the disclosure of PEACOCKE et al. appearing at col. 7, lines 41-58 related to “blockages”). Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze , 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Pearson , 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). Per Rule 1.116(b)(3): “ An amendment touching the merits of the application or patent under reexamination may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented. ” Thus, an amendment after final lacking such showing will be denied entry. A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION. ANY RESPONSE FILED AFTER THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL REJECTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MPEP 714.12 AND 714.13. NOTE : The examiner of record follows the interview after-final policy set forth in MPEP 713.09 : Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview [agenda] should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration . Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. (emphasis added) The agenda will be made of record per PTO policy. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “ that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution ” . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1139 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM . 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 . New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “ that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution ” . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1700 . 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. /CHARLES COOLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774 DATED: 2 APRIL 2026