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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mechanism” when used in each of claim 22, 24 and 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 25 is 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 25, “the mist sorting mechanism” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim; to overcome this rejection, claim 25 would need to depend upon claim 24 for antecedent basis, rather than current dependency on claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al (US 2013/0230808).
Regarding claim 33, Suzuki teaches a separation and recovery device (title, abstract, [0002], Fig 15-17) for separating and recovering a solvent component from a water-based development waste liquid generated by developing a flexographic-printing original plate with a water-based developer containing at least a surfactant (surface active agent, [0033-0036,0059]), comprising: a waste-liquid heating mechanism for heating the water-based development waste liquid at a temperature that separates the water-based development waste liquid in a static state into two layers (settling tank 71 separates developing solution into high concentration layer 81 and low concentration layer 82 that may be separately removed, see Figs 15-17, [0095-0117], tank may be provided with temperature control mechanism [0095]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24, 26-32 and 35-36 allowed, claim 25 would be allowable if amended as suggested above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Considering claims 1-32 and 35-36, each of the independent claims are directed at least to a method or system for separating and recovering a solvent from a development waste liquid generated during development of a flexographic-printing original plate, comprising: a heating step/mechanism for heating the development waste liquid, an atomization step/chamber for atomizing the development waste liquid heated in the heating step into mists, and a recovery step/mechanism for recovering the mists formed by the atomization step atomizing.
Suzuki et al (US 2013/0230808)is regarded as the closest relevant prior art, Suzuki teaches a separation and recovery method and device (title, abstract, [0002], Fig 15-17) for separating and recovering a solvent component from a water-based development waste liquid generated by developing a flexographic-printing original plate with a water-based developer containing at least a surfactant (surface active agent, [0033-0036,0059]), comprising: a waste-liquid heating step/mechanism for heating the water-based development waste liquid at a temperature that separates the water-based development waste liquid in a static state into two layers (settling tank 71 separates developing solution into high concentration layer 81 and low concentration layer 82 that may be separately removed, see Figs 15-17, [0095-0117], tank may be provided with temperature control mechanism [0095]), however Suzuki does note teach an atomization step/chamber for atomizing the development waste liquid heated in the heating step into mists, and a recovery step/mechanism for recovering the mists formed by the atomization step atomizing.
Donnelly (US 6,159,345) teaches a solvent recovery system and method, Donnelly teaches contaminated solvent 12 is fed via line 22 and pump 62 to distillation tank 14, where a heater 28 provides heated oil to control temperature in tank 14, where vaporized solvent is condensed, in condenser 16, and clean solvent 18 recovered. However Donnelly does not teach an atomization step/chamber for atomizing the development waste liquid heated in the heating step into mists. There is not teaching or suggestion to modify the atomization chamber into Donnelly.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsumoto (US 4,599,294) teaches atomizer. Koboshi (US 5,004,522) teaches photographic waste treatment. Kurematsu (US 5,057,191) teaches photographic waste treatment. Komatsu (US 5,573,895) teaches photographic waste treatment. Nomura (US 2005/0069820) teaches photographic waste treatment. Ishikawa (US 6,949,331) teaches photographic waste treatment. Matuura (US 2007/0295595) teaches ultrasonic separation. Watanabe (US 2023/0305419) teaches photographic waste treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772