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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 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 28-31, 34-43 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 4,783,254) in view of Pickens et al. (“Pickens”)(US 2,723,750) and SHG (DE 102005018758)(with text citations to English translation attached hereto).
Shah (fig. 1-7) teaches a centrifugal force separator and method for separating a material, the method comprising-
(re: certain elements of claims 28, 35) introducing a separating medium into the centrifugal force separator in such a way that a vortex with an air core is generated inside the centrifugal force separator, and
introducing the material to be separated into the centrifugal force separator via at least one forced conveying device through an inlet arranged centrally at a front side of the centrifugal force separator (fig. 1-3 showing introducing material into central feed inlet near 6 that are conveyed by gravity forces into centrifugal separator 1, wherein separating medium is fed via input 7 to create a vortex core; col. 2, ln. 50-col. 4, ln. 50 teaching separation medium includes particles and liquids);
the apparatus comprising:
(re: certain elements claim 36) a centrifugal force separator (1) having an inlet for the material (near 6) to be separated for introducing the material to be separated and a separating medium inlet (near 7) for introducing the separating medium, and
at least one forced conveying device connected to the inlet for the material to be separated (fig. 1-2 showing pipe 6 that uses gravity forces to convey material into separator).
Shah further teaches-
(re: claim 38) wherein the centrifugal force separator has a housing with a front side at which an inlet for the material to be separated is provided (fig. 1, 2 near 6),
wherein the forced conveying device is coupled to the front side in such a way that the material to be separated is forcibly conveyable through the inlet for the material to be separated (Id. using gravity forces);
(re: claim 39) wherein the forced conveying device has an outlet area from which the material to be separated is forcibly conveyable into the housing (fig. 1, 2 showing bottom outlet of pipe 6 located within separator);
(re: claim 40) wherein the outlet area is formed at a free end of the forced conveying device, wherein the forced conveying device is arranged such that the outlet area is present at the inlet for the material to be separated or in the housing (Id.);
(re: claim 41) comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein the outlet area has an outlet opening at a front side at the free end of the forced conveying device; and/or
wherein the outlet area has an outlet opening at a sheath surface of the forced conveying device; and/or
wherein the outlet area is inside the housing (Id.).
(re: claim 47) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Shah as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 28, 35 and 36) detecting an impermissible internal pressure of the centrifugal force separator by a safety device,
wherein the safety device is coupled to a drive unit of the forced conveying device in such a way that if an impermissible internal pressure of the centrifugal force separator and/or an operating fault of the forced conveying device are detected, an operating stop of the drive unit is set;
(re: claim 34) wherein the material to be separated is moistened before being introduced into the centrifugal force separator;
(re: claims 29-31, 37) at least one of the following features:
wherein the forced conveying device is a screw conveyor or a spiral conveyor; and/or
wherein the forced conveying device comprises a drive unit; and/or
wherein the forced conveying device is connected to a receiver tank comprising a discharge bottom or a stirring unit;
(re: claim 42) wherein the forced conveying device is displaceably arranged relative to the housing such that a position of the outlet area inside the housing is adjustable along the longitudinal axis;
(re: claim 43) wherein the forced conveying device has a longitudinal axis passing through the inlet for the material to be separated, wherein the forced conveying device is displaceable along the longitudinal axis relative to the housing.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, Shah may be regarded as not teaching a forced conveying device.
SHG, however, teaches that it is well-known in the centrifugal separator arts to integrate a a forced conveying device to control input for centrifugal separator as well as safety device to optimize the flow of the particles to be separated via said forced conveying device (fig. 1 showing centrifugal separator 1 including a drive unit near 2, 3 for a forced conveying element 5; p. 3, 5-6 teaching use of safety pressure sensor 23 for detecting pressure in the centrifugal separator and use of various valves and connected pumps to control flow, i.e., stop flow, of the particles in the forced conveyor device based on sensor data).
Pickens further teaches that it is well-known in the separating arts that an adjustable forced conveying element may be more effective at feeding material into the top portion of a centrifugal separator (fig. 3 showing spiral conveyor near 18 connected to feeding tank near 15 for feeding material; col. 1, ln. 48-72 teaching use of smaller drive means for conveying element and that forced conveying element allows the feeding of coarser particles and less wear on the separator walls; col. 2, ln. 58-col. 3, ln. 48 teaching that feed tube is slidable adjustable and spiral conveyor, hydraulic force—i.e., moistened material-- or other mechanical force conveying means can be seen as equivalents or as more effective at feeding certain material for centrifugal separation and that separating medium can include medium solids and water that produces fluid of desired specific gravity of separation).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements (e.g., forced conveying means) according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shah for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 32-33 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah, SHG and Pickens (“Shah et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of DeBruin et al. (“DeBruin”)(US 2023/0078550) and legal precedent.
Shah et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 32) wherein the material to be separated comprises plastics;
(re: claim 33) wherein the proportion of plastics in the material to be separated is at least 5 wt. %;
(re: claim 44) wherein the apparatus comprises at least one further forced conveying device connected to the inlet for the material to be separated;
(re: claim 45) wherein the forced conveying devices each have a longitudinal axis, the longitudinal axes being arranged at an angle to each other;
(re: claim 46) wherein the angle between the longitudinal axes of the forced conveying devices is between 10 and 120.
DeBruin, however, teaches that centrifugal separation is highly effective in separating different types of plastics and allows separation by different weight percentages (fig. 2; para. 28, 45-48, 123, 125) and, moreover, that the method is applicable to “chip-like” plastic particles, i.e., plastic waste that has been comminuted (para. 29).
Further, the claimed features relating to the adjustability, relative angle or the duplication of known elements as well as the % separation can be regarded as common design parameters/variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the separating arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and in legal precedent as described above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shah et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections set forth above. In particular, SHG expressly teaches the use of a forced conveying device as well as a safety pressure sensor to control the flow rate of particles to be separated in a centrifugal separator. Consequently, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply 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 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
March 3, 2026