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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12-06-2023 a cknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 03-15-2021 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IT102021000003026 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 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: “means for selective conveyance” in claim 35. 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. Claims 20-38 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 20 is rejected because it recites the phrase s "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 20 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said at least one padded product ” in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said down ” in line 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said initial padded product ” in line 7 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said first separation chamber ” in line 14-15 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ the aspirated down ” in line 16 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said second separation chamber ” in line s 4-5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said optional separation chamber ” in line 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said down suction ” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 is rejected because it recite s limitation “the step ” in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ the contain ” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 is rejected because it recite s limitation “said at least one first collection container ” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 8 is rejected because it recites the phrases "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 28 is rejected because it recite s limitation “said cutting ” in line 8 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said first separation chamber ” in line 15 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 29 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said second chamber ” in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 30 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said second separation chamber ” in line s 1-2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 33 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said cutting ” in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 34 is rejected because it recites the phrases "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 34 is rejected because it recites limitations “means for selective conveyance” is vague and indefinite since it does not have any specific structure as disclosed in the specification. Claim 36 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ said mechanical agitators ” in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ the optional second separation chamber ” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 is rejected because it recite s limitation “ the hood ” in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 is rejected because it recites the phrases "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim. In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. 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) 20-21, 23-28, and 33-38 is/are rejected , to the degree of definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Oka et al. (2023/0347383) . Regarding claim 20, Oka discloses a method for recovering down from products padded with down (fig 1, para 0025) , such as items of clothing, comforters, pillows and the like, comprising a step of feeding at least one product padded with down in input to a conveyance line, and further comprising the steps of: cutting adapted to shred said at least one padded product (member 10) , so as to obtain a shredded material in which said down (member 2) is mixed with debris of other components of said initial padded product, such as fabric, stitching threads, zip fasteners, buttons and the like (member 3) , said shredded material being subsequently caused to advance along said conveyance line (members 30 to 40) ; mechanical agitation of said shredded material inside at least one first separation chamber (member 21) along the conveyance line, said mechanical agitation being adapted to separate at least part of said down from said shredded material (para 0041) ; suction of the separated down (para 0054) , said suction being performed at said first separation chamber and upstream (member 61) and/or downstream (member 23) of the first separation chamber; collection of the aspirated down in at least one down collection container (member 40) . Regarding claim 21, Oka discloses a second step of mechanical agitation of said shredded material inside at least one second separation chamber (member 50) , in order to separate down from the shredded material that arrives from said first separation chamber, said suction being applied also to said second separation chamber (para 0037) . Regarding claim 23, Oka discloses said down suction is applied also during said cutting step, at a cutting station arranged upstream of said first separation chamber (para 0039) . Regarding claim 24, Oka discloses said down collection step provides for conveying into distinct collection containers (member 40) the down aspirated upstream of said first separation chamber and the down aspirated in at least said first and/or said second separation chamber (para 0052) . Regarding claim 25, Oka discloses the step of transferring the content of said at least one first collection container to a point of the conveyance line upstream of said first separation chamber (fig 1, para 0057) or of said second separation chamber. Regarding claim 26, Oka discloses said cutting step comprises a first, guillotine cutting step (i.e. longitudinal direction) followed by a second, rotary cutting step (transverse direction, para 0039) . Regarding claim 27, Oka discloses said mechanical agitation step is performed in said first and/or said second chamber by means of at least one beating roller which has a substantially horizontal rotation axis (members 25-26) . Regarding claim 28, Oka discloses a n apparatus for recovering down from padded products, such as items of clothing, comforters, pillows or the like, which comprises an inlet for feeding products padded with down, a conveyance line, and at least one outlet for collecting the down recovered from the padded products fed at the inlet (fig 1, member 12) , said apparatus further comprising, along said conveyance line: at least one cutting station (member 10) adapted to receive from the inlet said padded products, to cut them and to release a shredded material onto said conveyance line as a consequence of said cutting; downstream of said at least one cutting station, at least one first separation chamber (member 21) provided with at least one mechanical agitator (members 25-26) for said shredded material, said at least one mechanical agitator being adapted to separate at least part of said down from said shredded material; said apparatus further comprising: suction means (para 0054) which are connected to suction ports arranged along said conveyance line, at said first separation chamber and upstream ( member 61 ) and/or downstream (member 23) of the first separation chamber along the conveyance line, in order to aspirate the down separated from said shredded material and convey it toward at least one collection container (para 0046 to 0047) . Regarding claim 33, Oka discloses said at least one cutting station is connected to said suction means, so as to aspirate any down that has been separated as a consequence of said cutting (fig 1) . Regarding claim 34, Oka discloses said at least one cutting station comprises a preliminary cutting station, preferably of the guillotine type (i.e. longitudinal direction) , and a rotary cutting station ( transverse direction) downstream of said preliminary cutting station, said suction means being connected to said rotary cutting station (para 0039) . Regarding claim 35, Oka discloses means for selective conveyance of the down aspirated by virtue of the suction means, said conveyance means (member 30) being configured to convey separately, into respective collection containers, the down aspirated upstream and downstream of a given point of the conveyance line. Regarding claim 36, Oka discloses said mechanical agitators comprise beating rollers which have a substantially horizontal rotation axis (para 0041) . Regarding claim 37, Oka discloses said first separation chamber comprises a step cleaner, which is closed in an upper region by a respective hood (member 23) which is coupled to at least one respective port connected to said suction means. Regarding claim 38, Oka discloses said first separation chamber or the optional second separation chamber comprises a spiked roller, which has a substantially horizontal rotation axis and is surmounted by a respective hood which is coupled to at least one respective port connected to said suction means, said hood defining, between said at least one respective port and the volume occupied by said spiked roller, a closed free space in which the down separated from said shredded material is released by means of the rotation of said spiked roller, said spiked roller preferably comprising longitudinal blades between which said spikes are interposed (members 25-26, para 0047) . 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 ( 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 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) 22 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka et al. (2023/0347383) as applied to claim s 21 and 28 above, and further in view of Fisher (5,316,150) . Regarding claim 22, Oka teaches all limitations of the claim except the shredded material is caused to fall by gravity into said second separation chamber or into a third separation chamber downstream of said second separation chamber along said conveyance line, so that during the fall said shredded material strikes against obstacle surfaces provided inside said second or third separation chamber, releasing additional down, said suction being applied also to said optional third separation chamber. Fisher teaches a method having a step of the shredded material is caused to fall by gravity into said second separation chamber (member 25) or into a third separation chamber (member 41) downstream of said second separation chamber along said conveyance line, so that during the fall said shredded material strikes against obstacle surfaces provided inside said second or third separation chamber, releasing additional down (figs 1-3) , said suction being applied also to said optional third separation chamber (col 4) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the method of Oka by adding more of chambers, as taught by Fisher, in order to collect as much as down material. Regarding claim 29, Oka teaches all limitations of the claim except downstream of said first separation chamber along said conveyance line, at least one second separation chamber which is adapted to receive, via the conveyance line, the shredded material that arrives from the first separation chamber, said second chamber being connected to at least one respective suction port in order to aspirate, by virtue of said suction means, additional down from said shredded material that arrives from the first separation chamber. Fisher teaches an apparatus having downstream of said first separation chamber (member 15) along said conveyance line, at least one second separation chamber (member 25) which is adapted to receive, via the conveyance line, the shredded material that arrives from the first separation chamber, said second chamber being connected to at least one respective suction port in order to aspirate, by virtue of said suction means, additional down from said shredded material that arrives from the first separation chamber (col 4) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the apparatus of Oka by adding more of chambers, as taught by Fisher, in order to collect as much as down material. Regarding claim 30, the modified apparatus Oka-Fisher discloses said second separation chamber comprises a second mechanical agitator for the shredded material (Oka, members 25-26 and Fisher, col 4) . Regarding claim 31, the modified apparatus Oka-Fisher teaches all limitations of the claim and Fisher further teaches downstream of said second separation chamber (member 25) , a third separation chamber (member 42) in which the shredded material that arrives from said second separation chamber is caused to fall by gravity against obstacle surfaces which are internal to said third separation chamber, so that during the fall said shredded material strikes against said obstacle surfaces, releasing additional down, said third separation chamber being connected to said suction means and comprising an exit for the outflow of the residues of said shredded material that have fallen by gravity (col 4) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the apparatus of Oka by adding more of chambers, as taught by Fisher, in order to collect as much as down material. Regarding claim 32, the modified apparatus Oka-Fisher discloses said obstacle surfaces are substantially inclined toward said exit, said third separation chamber further comprising at least one third mechanical agitator ( Oka, members 25-26 and Fisher, col 4) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0476 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7am-3pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4888 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3732 /BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732