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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 13, the claim state the limitation ‘substantially’ is indefinite. The limitation makes it unclear what the metes and bounds of claim in regards to what ‘substantially’ encompass. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims will be examined as the working temperature being below 800oC.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said step of magnetic separation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said step of cooling" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferretti (WO 2017/141203 A1) (provided in the IDS dated 2/22/2024) in view of Sprenger et al (USP 5,529,703).
Regarding claim 1, Ferretti discloses a process for the recovery of raw material from waste products (page 4, lines 14-16), comprising at least the phases of: supply of at least one skein to be treated derived from waste products and composed of at least a harmonic steel fraction and a non-ferrous fraction (page 4, lines 17-18); pre-treatment of said skein to be treated to separate said harmonic steel fraction from said non-ferrous fraction to obtain at least one treated skein (page 4, line 22); heat treatment of said pre-treated skein to obtain at least one treated skein, said phase of heat treatment comprising a step of inductive exposure of said pre-treated skein to at least one time-varying magnetic field for the induction of eddy electric currents in said pre-treated skein, said step of inductive exposure being adapted to raise the temperature of said pre-treated skein to at least one working temperature (page 5, lines 1-7); post-treatment of said treated skein to obtain steel reusable as raw material (page 8, lines 18-19); characterized by the fact that said phase of pre-treatment comprises at least one step of mechanical separation of said harmonic steel fraction from said non-ferrous fraction (page 4, line 22; shredding material), but Ferretti does not disclose said working temperature is substantially below 800 °C. Sprenger teaches said working temperature is substantially below 800 °C (col. 12, lines 40-53) for the purpose of having the items reach a desired threshold temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Ferretti, as taught by Sprenger, for the purpose of having the items reach a desired threshold temperature.
Regarding claim 2, Ferretti in view of Sprenger does not explicitly disclose said working temperature is comprised between 450 °C and 650 °C. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to applying heat to materials because Applicant has not disclosed that specific temperature provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Sprenger, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either working temperature because both temperatures would perform the same function of applying heat to materials for the purpose of preparing materials for separation.
Regarding claim 3, Ferretti discloses said non-ferrous fraction comprises at least one part made of polymeric material and at least one part made of textile fibers (page 4, line 27).
Regarding claim 4, Ferretti discloses said phase of mechanical separation is carried out through shredding means (page 4, line 22; shredding material).
Regarding claim 7, Ferretti discloses step of inductive exposure is carried out inside at least one electromagnetic induction furnace provided with induction heating means of said pre- treated skein (page 5, lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 8, Ferretti discloses said phase of heat treatment comprises at least the steps of: - heating said pre-treated skein, said step of heating being adapted to raise the temperature of said pre-treated skein to said working temperature; - maintaining the working temperature of said pre-treated skein; - cooling said previously heated pre-treated skein to said working temperature (page 6, lines 22-32 and page 7, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 9, Ferretti discloses step of cooling lasts longer than said step of maintaining (page 7, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 10, Ferretti discloses said phase of post-treatment comprises a phase of compaction of said treated skein carried out by hydro-pneumatic or hydraulic compaction means (page 8, lines 26-28).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferretti/Sprenger in view of Simon et al (US Pub 2001/0048039 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ferretti does not disclose the claim limitations. Simon teaches said phase of pre-treatment comprises at least one step of magnetic separation of said harmonic steel fraction from said non-ferrous fraction carried out through magnetic attraction means adapted to separate at least in part said non-ferrous fraction from said harmonic steel fraction (paragraph 0015) for the purpose of separating materials to be sold for recycling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Ferretti, as taught by Simon, for the purpose of separating materials to be sold for recycling.
Regarding claim 6, Ferretti does not disclose the claim limitations. Simon teaches said step of magnetic separation is carried out subsequently to said step of mechanical separation (paragraphs 0013-0015) for the purpose of separating materials to be sold for recycling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Ferretti, as taught by Simon, for the purpose of separating materials to be sold for recycling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights