DETAILED ACTION
This application incudes independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-13.
The claim set examined is labelled “Replacement Sheet” and is the claim set published in publication US 2024/0375123 A1.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-13 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 4-13 not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 1-3 are objected to because they utilize the transitional phrase “charactised in that” which is not in accordance with USPTO customary practice.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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) 1-3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zipperian (US 4,735,709) in view of Klein (US 2,947,525).
Regarding claim 1, Zipperian discloses a separator device comprising:a separation chamber (17) defined at its lower end by a fluidization fluid panel (14), and being defined on its sides by a tank wall (11); a lower outlet (28) provided at a lower end of the separator device and extending downwardly through a central region of the lower fluidization fluid panel (see Fig. 2) ;a launder (24) provided at an upper end of the separator device (see Fig. 1); a slurry inlet (20) for receiving incoming slurry into the separation chamber; characterised in that the separator device further comprises means (50) for supplying pre-sheared aerated fluidization fluid to the separation chamber above the fluidization fluid panel, said means including: i.) a sparger (42) provided above the fluidization fluid panel and, ii.) a shearing device (see col. 6, lines 1-10) selected from the group consisting of: a static inline mixer, a cavitation tube, a cavitation nozzle, and a chaos mixer; wherein the shearing device is configured for producing the pre- sheared aerated fluidization fluid by passing a mixture of combined fluidization fluid and gas through the shearing device (see col. 6, lines 1-15). Zipperian discloses all the limitations of the claim but it does not disclose that the sparger comprises a flexible perforated membrane. However, Klein discloses a similar device which includes sparger comprising a flexible perforated membrane (39) for the purpose of providing a mechanism to prevent solid matter from clogging or accumulating on the sparger. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Zipperian by having the sparger comprise a flexible perforated membrane, as disclosed by Klien, for the purpose of providing a mechanism to prevent solid matter from clogging or accumulating on the sparger.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 3, Zipperian discloses the sparger is configured as one of the group consisting of: a straight tube, a curved tube, a coil, a disc, a puck, a panel, and a plate (see Fig. 2). The sparger is fed at one of its ends with the pre-sheared aerated fluidization fluid (see Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zipperian (US 5,078,921) and Zipperian (US 4,394,258) disclose devices which include a separation chamber having a sparger supplying a sheared fluid above a fluidization panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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 at 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 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights