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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 86-87 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12, 14-15, 19-20 and 77-85 in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “providing the fines stream comprising: breakable material comprising glass” should be changed to “providing the fines stream including breakable material, wherein the breakable material having glass”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “providing a kinetic pulverizer comprising a pulverizing rotor” should be changed to “providing a kinetic pulverizer that including kinetic pulverizer a pulverizing rotor”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a pulverized material comprising a size-reduced fraction” should be changed to “a pulverized material that including a size-reduced fraction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10, 14-15, 19-20, 79 and 83-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muther (US7497394B2).
Regarding claim 1, Muther discloses a process for treating a fines stream in a material recover facility (MRF) (abstract, fig.1-7), comprising:
providing the fines stream comprising: breakable material comprising glass, ceramics, drywall, shingles, rocks and/or aggregates; and ductile material comprising plastics (col.1 lines 9-39 and figs.1-7);
providing a kinetic pulverizer comprising a pulverizing rotor assembly (fig.4: (28)) disposed within an interior chamber (fig.4: (28)), wherein the pulverizing rotor assembly is configured to rotate to form vortices (fig.4: (34)) that subject the fines stream to self-collisions within the interior chamber; subjecting the fines stream streams to a one-pass kinetic pulverization stage wherein the fines stream is fed into the kinetic pulverizer to produce a pulverized material comprising a size-reduced fraction derived from the breakable material and an oversized fraction derived from the ductile material; withdrawing the pulverized material from the kinetic pulverizer (col.5 lines 23-32); and
subjecting the pulverized material to separation to produce a size-reduced stream and an oversized stream (col.2 last 17 lines-col.3 line 23; col.5 last 8 lines-col.6 line 7).
Regarding claim 2, Muther discloses wherein the fines stream is one of: derived from municipal solid waste (MSW), source separated recyclables and a compost overs stream (col.1 lines 9-39).
Regarding claim 10, Muther discloses wherein the fines stream is not subjected to a drying stage upstream of the kinetic pulverization stage (fig.7: no drying stage).
Regarding claim 14, Muther discloses wherein the kinetic pulverization stage effects pathogen reduction on the fines stream via air stripping (col.5 lines 23-32).
Regarding claim 15, Muther discloses further comprising incorporating a friable additive into the fines stream such that the friable additive is size reduced and is homogenized with the breakable material to form part of the size-reduced fraction (col.1 lines 9-39).
Regarding claim 19, Muther discloses wherein the separation stage comprises screening (fig.7: table sorting device (16)).
Regarding claim 20, Muther discloses wherein the screening is performed using a trommel screen and/or a vibrating screen (fig.7: table sorting device (16)).
Regarding claim 79, Muther discloses wherein the fines stream is substantially composed of material having a maximum size of 2 inches or 4 inches (claim 3).
Regarding claims 83, Muther discloses comprising at least one of:
subjecting the fines stream to magnetic separation to remove ferrous metal therefrom and produce a metal depleted feed stream that is fed to the one-pass kinetic pulverization stage (fig.5: pretreatment using Fe separator; and as known in art to use a magnetic separator to separate ferrous metals from an input waste or ore stream); and
subjecting the pulverized material to a dust collection stage to recover a dust fraction therefrom and produce a dust reduced pulverized stream that is fed to the separation to produce the size-reduced stream and the oversized stream.
Regarding claims 84-85, claims 84-85 are depended from claim 83, and claim 83 is required either subjecting the fines stream to magnetic separation or subjecting the fines stream to magnetic separation; thus claims 84-85 are not required.
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.
Claims 8, 14 and 80-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muther (US7497394B2).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Muther does not explicitly discloses wherein the fines stream has a moisture content between 10% and 50% or between 15% and 40% upon entry into the kinetic pulverizer; and wherein at least one of: the kinetic pulverization stage effects water removal on the fines stream such that the water removal is between 5% and 8% in the kinetic pulverization stage; and the kinetic pulverization stage and the separation enable the size-reduced stream to have a moisture content that is 5% to 30% lower than that of the fines stream.
However, Muther disclose treating various waste products, and this waste is coming from different sources organic waste, municipal waste and recycling material, and obviously this waste having various moisture level;
Further, the air flow (34) of the pulverizing rotor assembly (fig.4: (28)) effects the water level or a moisture content in the stream;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the fines stream has a moisture content between 10% and 50% or between 15% and 40% upon entry into the kinetic pulverizer; and wherein at least one of: the kinetic pulverization stage effects water removal on the fines stream such that the water removal is between 5% and 8% in the kinetic pulverization stage; and the kinetic pulverization stage and the separation enable the size-reduced stream to have a moisture content that is 5% to 30% lower than that of the fines stream, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claims 80-82, Muther does not explicitly discloses wherein the fines stream comprises between 40% and 60% glass, and the size-reduced stream is composed of over 95%, 96%, 97%,98% or 99% glass; wherein the fines stream comprises between 50% and 70% organics, and the size-reduced stream is composed substantially of organics with at most 0.5-2% visible contaminants with a size above 4mm; and wherein the fines stream comprises compost overs and wherein the size-reduced stream is composed substantially of organics with at most 0.5-2% visible contaminants with a size above 4mm.
However, Muther disclose treating various waste products, and this waste is coming from different sources organic waste, municipal waste and recycling material that having glasses and organic material and obviously this waste having various percentage of glasses and organic material with different size;
Further, the pulverizing rotor assembly (fig.4: (28)) the size of the processed material;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the fines stream comprises between 40% and 60% glass, and the size-reduced stream is composed of over 95%, 96%, 97%,98% or 99% glass; wherein the fines stream comprises between 50% and 70% organics, and the size-reduced stream is composed substantially of organics with at most 0.5-2% visible contaminants with a size above 4mm; and wherein the fines stream comprises compost overs and wherein the size-reduced stream is composed substantially of organics with at most 0.5-2% visible contaminants with a size above 4mm, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Claims 77-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muther (US7497394B2) in view of Jaroslaw (CA3104554A1).
Regarding claims 77-78, Muther does not disclose monitoring at least one feed parameter of the fines stream and/or output parameter of the pulverized material, the oversized stream and/or the size-reduced stream; and adjusting the one-pass kinetic pulverization stage based on the feed parameter and/or the output parameter; and wherein at least one of:- the at least one feed parameter comprises feed rate of the fines stream and/or composition of the fines stream; - the at least one output parameter comprises size properties of the sized-reduced fraction in the pulverized stream, composition of the pulverized stream, flow rate of the oversized stream, flow rate of the sized-reduced stream, composition of the oversized stream, and/or composition of the sized-reduced stream; and- the adjusting of the one-pass kinetic pulverization stage comprises at least one of: adjusting the rotation speed; and adjusting the infeed rate of the fines stream.
Muther teaches a pulverizer (abstract), comprising:
a controller configured to:
monitoring at least one feed parameter of a stream and/or output parameter of pulverized material, an oversized stream and/or the size-reduced stream; and adjusting one-pass kinetic pulverization stage based on the feed parameter and/or the output parameter; and wherein at least one of:- the at least one feed parameter comprises feed rate of the stream and/or composition of the stream; - the at least one output parameter comprises size properties of the sized-reduced fraction in the pulverized stream, composition of the pulverized stream, flow rate of the oversized stream, flow rate of the sized-reduced stream, composition of the oversized stream, and/or composition of the sized-reduced stream; and- the adjusting of the one-pass kinetic pulverization stage comprises at least one of: adjusting the rotation speed; and adjusting the infeed rate of the stream (pages 48-page 50 line 2).
Both of the prior arts Muther and Jaroslaw are related to a method that using pulverizer;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulverizer of Muther by the configuration of the controller as taught by Jaroslaw, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having monitoring at least one feed parameter of the fines stream and/or output parameter of the pulverized material, the oversized stream and/or the size-reduced stream; and adjusting the one-pass kinetic pulverization stage based on the feed parameter and/or the output parameter; and wherein at least one of:- the at least one feed parameter comprises feed rate of the fines stream and/or composition of the fines stream; - the at least one output parameter comprises size properties of the sized-reduced fraction in the pulverized stream, composition of the pulverized stream, flow rate of the oversized stream, flow rate of the sized-reduced stream, composition of the oversized stream, and/or composition of the sized-reduced stream; and- the adjusting of the one-pass kinetic pulverization stage comprises at least one of: adjusting the rotation speed; and adjusting the infeed rate of the fines stream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights