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 .
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, in the “a granular layer” clause “the bed” lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with recitation of “a table” or “a base” in the preceding claim clause.
In claim 5, “the opening” (singular) lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with “a series of openings” (plural) in claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2, as worded merely more specifically recites intended use of the recited sorter, without adding any positively recited structural features or limitations of apparatus claim 1, thus is not further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, recitation of “the bed” in line 7 of the claim is interpreted as being an obvious grammatical error, and hence is interpreted as referencing “the base” introduced in lines 5-6 of claim 1 in the claim clause of “granular layer being positioned on the base”.
In claim 5, recitation of “the opening” in line 1 is interpreted as being an obvious grammatical error and as referring back to the “series of openings” introduced in claim 1, line 5, hence interpreted as reciting a “series of openings (of the base) being narrower at the top of the base than at the bottom of the base.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Douglas et al patent 3,444,996 (Douglas).
For independent claim 1, Douglas discloses: A sorter for sorting a mixture having at least a first material with a first density from a second material with a second density different than the first density (column 1, lines 15-41 regarding a separator apparatus configured to separate dry materials-containing mixtures of different densities such that separated, i.e. “sorted”, materials of different densities are directed to be discharged through separate outlets), comprising, in combination:
a container adapted to receive the mixture (container or tank having a base 1 and having side walls as illustrated in figure 1, see column 1, lines 64-68);
a table forming a base of the container provided with a series of openings extending from a bottom of the base to a top of the base (deck 5 being porous, hence having holes extending therethrough from bottom to top surface of base, see fig 1 and column 2, lines 1-4) ;
a granular layer positioned on the bed (i.e. “base”) (bed 4 of sized granular material, see fig 1 and column 2, lines 4-8); and
an air supply line providing air to at least one of the openings (pipe 3’, fig 1 and column 2, lines 1-8 regarding air from such pipe or line passing through the pores or holes of the base deck);
wherein in operation the mixture is positioned above the granular layer (fig 1 and column 2, lines 18-27 regarding feed arrangement 7 for introducing the mixture of materials to be separated and including 1-3 hoppers with corresponding outlets, fig 1, illustrating feeding of the mixture above the granular layer), and
the air supply supplies air to the granular layer at a rate sufficient to allow sorting of the first material into a separate portion of the container from the second material (fig 1, column 1, lines 30-50, column 2, lines 42-48 and column 3, lines 8-24 regarding sorting or separating material fractions towards opposite ends of the bed or container, so as to be separately discharged across separating screens 8 and 9, respectively (also see column 2, lines 28-42 in this regard).
For claim 2, recitation of the 1st and 2nd materials both being plastic is deemed to not further limit the structure claimed in independent claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Also, Douglas does not limit the scope of the content of solid mixtures of materials of different densities which can be separated or sorted by the apparatus as disclosed at column 1, lines 15-40. Hence the Douglas apparatus is deemed to be inherently capable of separating mixtures of materials containing plastics of different densities.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) at Section 2114, part II, cites Case Law which has held that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. The MPEP states that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Hence claim 2 is deemed to also be anticipated by Douglas.
For claim 4, Douglas further discloses the sorter further comprising a scraper adapted to collect the first material after the first material has been sorted from the mixture (column 2, lines 14-17 “apparatus…to produce movement of the material on the deck, such movement may be effected by scrapers functioning in known manner”).
For claim 6, Douglas further discloses wherein the base cooperates with the container to hold the granular layer and the mixture (see column 2, lines 3-5 regarding “a bed 4 of sized granular material…formed on the deck 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al patent 3,444,996 (Douglas) in view of Muller et al patent 3,674,144 (Muller).
Claim 3 differs from Douglas by requiring wherein the granular layer is sand and the sand acts as a fluidized layer when air is supplied to the sand.
Muller teaches an apparatus for gravity separating dry granular materials using a porous base surface (Abstract), by fluidization with air introduced beneath materials being separated (column 1, lines 32-37). Muller teaches that certain mixtures of materials, such as released plastic or rubber insulation, will not flow, unless a further granular medium such as sand is added to the mixture, so as to then facilitate removing of the materials separated by screening (column 3, lines 32-38).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sorting and separating solid materials of different densities, to have modified the apparatus of Douglas, by incorporating granular sand into the granular layer of material overlying the deck of Douglas, as taught or suggested by Muller, so as to facilitate flow of and removing of materials by screening when they contain flow-resistant items such as plastic or rubber insulation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al patent 3,444,996 (Douglas) in view of Kayatz patent 3,892,044 (Kayatz).
Claim 5 differ from Douglas by reciting wherein the opening is narrower at the top of the base than at the bottom of the base, i.e. interpreted as reciting the series of openings of the base as being narrower at the top of the base than at the bottom of the base.
Kayatz teaches an apparatus for, in part, classifying and separating relatively finer and relatively coarser mixed solid material (Abstract and column 1, line 62-column 2, line 4 and column 2, lines 35-39). Such apparatus includes a screening grate 7, having apertures 10, i.e. “openings” which preferably flare downwardly and outwardly, hence being narrower at the top than the bottom, so as to be “self-cleaning”, and which support coarse and fine granular material on upper level 2, by underlying the upper level (all shown in figs. 1 and 2 and described in column 2, lines 35-57).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sorting and separating solid materials of different densities, to have modified the apparatus of Douglas, by designing the series of openings of the base to flare downwardly and outwardly, hence being narrower at the top than the bottom, as taught or suggested by Muller, so as to enable them to be self-cleaning and hence have less tendency to clog and require maintenance or replacement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A plurality of prior art references are cited, but not applied, regarding the state of the art with regard to specifically separating and sorting plastics utilizing containers having screens and granular material.
Additional prior art references are also cited regarding water treatment apparatus utilizing containers having at least one layer of granular material, positioned on perforated or porous base layers or screens and in which backwashing air supplied through the base layers or screens and delivered to the granular material. Such type of prior art literally teaches a substantial portion of the claimed structure although not being directed to sorting materials having different densities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
02/04/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773