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 .
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: “mechanism for pushing” in claim 7.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner will attempt to point out as many issues as possible but recommends working with an experienced U.S. practitioner to amend the claims appropriately.
Regarding claims 1-5, in claim 1, in preamble “wastes of polymeric, polymer compound and industrial-rubber materials” uses adjective “polymeric” without further nouns and therefore is confusing, applicant can consider reciting “polymer” instead to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 1-5, in claim 1, “the heat-transfer agent” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claims 1-5, in claim 1, “the melting temperature” is unclear as to what this is in reference to – the wastes? The heat transfer agent?
Regarding claims 1-5, in claim 1, the recitation “a weighed sample composed of waste” is unclear because in the preamble already is recited “waste” therefore this should use antecedent basis terminology such as “the waste”.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-9, the recitation in each claim “characterized in that” is unclear and should use “wherein” or “further comprising” for clarity.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “a separating layer” has unclear antecedence terminology to earlier recited recitation in claim 1 and should use “the”.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “a refining layer” has unclear antecedence terminology to earlier recited recitation in claim 1 and should use “the”.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “waste” is unclear because in the preamble already of claim 1 is recited “waste” therefore this should use antecedent basis terminology such as “the waste”.
Regarding claims 6-9, in claim 6, “The device for treating waste of polymer” has unclear antecedent basis, and should recite “A”.
Regarding claims 6-9, in claim 6, “including”, “with the internal space” are both non-standard transitional words and should be replaced with “comprising” or “wherein”.
Regarding claims 6-9, in claim 6, there are two separate periods “.” Before the last period of the claim, a claim may only have a single period, therefore these middle ones must be removed.
Regarding claims 6-9, in claim 6, “the heat-transfer agent melt” has unclear metes and bounds, additional the composition of this is unclear and must be explicitly recited what is meant by this claim terminology.
Regarding claims 6-9, in claim 6, “these rails” is narrative with use of “these” and should use standard language “the rails”.
Regarding claims 6-9, in claim 6, “are designed in an upward direction” uses narrative language “are designed” which is subjective and the metes and bounds are therefore unclear.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “it” has unclear metes and bounds and the claim must recite what is meant by this term.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “the containers” has antecedent basis and must recite “the at least one container” for antecedent basis.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meuser et al (US 4,925,532).
Regarding claim 6, Meuser teaches a system for thermal conversion, i.e. pyrolysis, of organic matter in waste filled containers (title, abstract), Meuser teaches the system is continuously operated for conversion in conversion assembly C of waste material W such as tires, wood, plastics, etc, through a heated fluid medium, such as a molten lead bath 1, contained in tank 2, having top surface 7/57 below end wall distal edges 6,6, hood 9 having sloping walls 10,10 each with lower edges are provided with heat tubes and radial fins 14 to deliver heat generated by burners 15 fired with vertical duct 16 and discharge conduit 17 (Fig 1-2, C4:L12-65), the waste material W is transported through the bath in open frame type container receptacles 24 to ensure continuous process, with walls 25-30, that is moved via delivery assembly D having conveyors 34 of conveyor members 35, i.e. guides, to traverse the tank, flanges 36 and guide rails 37,37 work with tank side walls 38, flanges 39,39 and guide rails 40,40 to ensure alignment (Figs 1-2, C5:L4-C6:L21), inlet and outlet shutters 53/54 are swingable doors that open and close to allow entry of containers (Figs 1-2, C7:l18-40); entrance and exit conveyor mechanisms 34 and 60 allow entrance of members 35 into tank edges 6,6 (Fig 1-2, C6:L44-C7:L18), drive means 59 controls advancement of containers (Fig 1-2, C7:L58-C8:L13).
Regarding claim 7, Meuser has taught entrance and exit conveyor mechanisms 34 and 60 allow entrance of members 35 into tank edges 6,6 (Fig 1-2, C6:L44-C7:L18), drive means 59 controls advancement of containers (Fig 1-2, C7:L58-C8:L13).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuser et al (US 4,925,532).
Regarding claim 9, Meuser teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Meuser does not explicitly teach the installation angle of the guides as claimed. However one having ordinary skill in the art upon consulting Fig 1 of Meuser appreciates that there is an inlet and outlet angle of the guides as see in Fig 1 to allow the containers to be immersed in the bath, and to determine an optimum angle from the general depiction set forth of Meuser would be routine skill without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 8 and 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuser et al (US 4,925,532) taken in combination with Riedewald (US 2016/0030987).
Regarding claim 8, Meuser teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Meuser does not explicitly teach the gravity slide and hopper as claimed.
However Riedewald teaches a process and use of system for recycling of waste composite polymers in a pyrolysis system (title, abstract), Riedewald teaches the system comprises feed charging vessel 30 with conveyor 31 into bath 7 comprised of pyrolysis liquid 7 (Fig 7 [0079-0081,0140-0144]), which at lower level comprises slide (see angled wall by “C”, Fig 7) to lower hopper D to solids exit drain 21 (see Fig 7, [0145-0146]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Meuser to include gravity slide and hopper to collect solid and remove them at the bottom of a liquid bath as taught by Riedewald to safely collect, accumulate and remove these heavy compounds.
Regarding claim 1, Meuser teaches a method of use of a system for thermal conversion, i.e. pyrolysis, of organic matter in waste filled containers (title, abstract), Meuser teaches the system is continuously operated for conversion in conversion assembly C of waste material W such as tires, wood, plastics, etc, through a heated fluid medium, such as a molten lead bath 1, contained in tank 2, having top surface 7/57 below end wall distal edges 6,6, hood 9 having sloping walls 10,10 each with lower edges are provided with heat tubes and radial fins 14 to deliver heat generated by burners 15 fired with vertical duct 16 and discharge conduit 17 (Fig 1-2, C4:L12-65), the waste material W is transported through the bath in open frame type container receptacles 24 to ensure continuous process, with walls 25-30, that is moved via delivery assembly D having conveyors 34 of conveyor members 35, i.e. guides, to traverse the tank, flanges 36 and guide rails 37,37 work with tank side walls 38, flanges 39,39 and guide rails 40,40 to ensure alignment (Figs 1-2, C5:L4-C6:L21), inlet and outlet shutters 53/54 are swingable doors that open and close to allow entry of containers (Figs 1-2, C7:l18-40); entrance and exit conveyor mechanisms 34 and 60 allow entrance of members 35 into tank edges 6,6 (Fig 1-2, C6:L44-C7:L18), drive means 59 controls advancement of containers (Fig 1-2, C7:L58-C8:L13).
However Meuser only teaches the liquid melt is lead, therefore is silent to the separating layer and refining layers as claimed.
However Riedewald teaches a process and use of system for recycling of waste composite polymers in a pyrolysis system (title, abstract), Riedewald teaches the system comprises feed charging vessel 30 with conveyor 31 into bath 7 comprised of pyrolysis liquid 7 (Fig 7 [0079-0081,0140-0144]), Riedewald teaches multiple different types of melt may be selected as the pyrolysis liquid [0079] separation/pyrolysis liquid (7) is a molten non-ferrous metal and selected from at least one of zinc, tin, aluminium, lead, copper or alloys thereof, [0080] separation/pyrolysis liquid (7) is a molten salt such as LiCl, KCl, KOH, NaOH, cyanides, nitrates, nitrites or combinations thereof, [0081] separation/pyrolysis liquid (7) is an organic liquid with a boiling point higher than 150° C, and the waste electronics and plastics are fed to the bath ([0138]), from Fig 3, 5 and 7, it can been seen as different layers in the bath, i.e. A/B/C/D that form by gravity [0145,0154-0165].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Meuser to include different layers in the liquid bath comprised of different materials including of zinc, tin, aluminium, lead, copper or alloys thereof, and separation/pyrolysis liquid a molten salt such as LiCl, KCl, KOH, NaOH, cyanides, nitrates, nitrites or combinations thereof as taught by Riedewald to achieve successful pyrolysis and gravity stratification as taught by Riedewald.
Regarding claims 2-3, Riedewald is silent to the ranges as claimed, however has taught the general conditions and therefore it would be obvious to find the optimum workable ranges.
Regarding claim 4, Riedewald as set forth above has taught use of potassium K and sodium Na in the melt.
Regarding claim 5, both Meuser and Riedewald have taught the wastes can include at least tires and plastics and waste electronics, i.e. polymer and composites.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stout (US 3,977,960) teaches molten bath pyrolysis. Harris (US 5,085,738) teaches molten bath pyrolysis. Dell’Orfano et al (US 6,051,110) teaches molten bath pyrolysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772