Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/557,318

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE WASHING OF FEATHERS AND REMOVING OF EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
BELL, SPENCER E
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tessenderlo Group NV
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
413 granted / 648 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
698
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 648 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 9/24/25 is acknowledged. Claims 8-16 and 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/24/25. 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: “infeed device” in claim 1; “washing liquid system” in claim 1; “extracting system” in claims 1 and 2; “washing structure” in claims 1 and 3; “outfeed device” in claim 1; “flow system” in claim 2; “recycling system” in claim 4; “washing liquid solid separation system” in claim 4; and “excess washing liquid removal device” in claim 5. The limitation “extracting system” in claim 7 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in the alternate limitation that recites a slanted bottom surface of the sinking zone. 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 § 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. Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 8646139 granted to Meyerhoeffer et al. As to claim 1, Meyerhoeffer discloses a washing system suitable for continuous processing for the pre-treatment of keratinaceous material, the system comprising an infeed device for feeding the material to the system (see fig. 8, infeed of material 8300, while not explicitly disclosed an infeed device would be necessary to transport the material into the system); a washing space 8100 for washing the material with an aqueous washing liquid 8200; a washing liquid system for supplying and extracting the washing liquid (fig. 8, col. 3, ll. 8-10, liquid is supplied via a pump and pipe 8250; liquid is extracted via outlet 8800 and drum 11200 and pumped back to pipe 8250, see figs. 8, 10, 11 and col. 4, ll. 9-12, 24-25); wherein the washing space comprising a sinking zone wherein material with a higher density sinks (fig. 8, area in which sinking material 8370 is directed); an extracting system 8700 at the bottom of the sinking zone; at least one washing structure (paddle 8400) that sloshes and/or causes turbulence in the washing liquid; and an outfeed device for extracting the keratinaceous material from the washing system (fig. 14; col. 4, ll. 30-37). As to claim 2, Meyerhoeffer discloses a flow system 8900 (fig. 9) to impart a flow to the washing liquid in the sinking zone such that the material is kept in suspension and moved away from the extracting system. As to claim 3, Meyerhoeffer discloses a cleaning zone, the cleaning zone and sinking zone positioned such that the material first enters the sinking zone before entering the cleaning zone, wherein at least one washing structure is located in the cleaning zone (fig. 8, sinking zone may be any portion of tank 8100 since sinking may take place anywhere in the tank, cleaning zone may be any portion of tank 8100 since cleaning may occur wherever the material is within the cleaning liquid, material may enter the tank 8100 at a portion beside washing structure 8400 in a “sinking zone” and be moved to “cleaning zone” at paddle 8400 by liquid flow from manifold 8900). As to claim 4, Meyerhoeffer discloses that the washing liquid system further comprises a recycling system for reusing the washing liquid, the recycling system comprising a solid separation system (e.g. drum 11200; fig. 12; col. 4, ll. 9-27). As to claim 5, Meyerhoeffer discloses an excess washing liquid removal device (e.g. tube 11500, perforations 11300, tank 11400) for extracting excess washing liquid from the material after the material has been washed in the washing space (fig. 12; col. 4, ll. 9-27). As to claim 7, Meyerhoeffer discloses that a bottom surface of the sinking zone is slanted towards the extracting system 8700 and the extracting system comprises a cork screw extractor (figs. 8 and 9). 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. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8646139 granted to Meyerhoeffer et al. As to claim 6, Meyerhoeffer teaches that washing structure 8400 (fig. 8) is rotatably mounted on the washing system and at least partially submerges the material (col. 3, ll. 42-44). Meyerhoeffer does not teach in its embodiment of fig. 8 that the washing structure (paddle 8400) is cylindrically shaped and comprises one or more protrusions on the cylindrical surface. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to embody the paddle structure 8400 as a cylinder as claimed. Meyerhoeffer teaches in another exemplary embodiment that a paddle to submerge material may be embodied as a cylinder having protrusions on its surface (paddle 2200; fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 24-28). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of using the paddle of the fig. 2 embodiment in the system of fig. 8 since Meyerhoeffer teaches that it functions in substantially the same way and serves the same purpose and intended effect. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm. 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 Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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. /SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601096
LAUNDRY WASHING MACHINE COLOR COMPOSITION ANALYSIS DURING LOADING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595608
WASHING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593955
DISHWASHER DRYING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595616
WASHING MACHINE APPLIANCE AND STEAM-GENERATING FEATURES FOR THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589718
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR APPLYING A CLEANING LIQUID TO A VEHICLE PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+11.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 648 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month