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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 20-22) in the reply filed on February 02, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 50 and 57-60 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 02, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawing of “a position sensor (claim 22)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. Therefore, the phrase, “the present description relates to (line 1)” should be deleted.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 35, line 4, number “320” should be changed to – 302 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 3 recites, “a second plunger disposed in the second barrel and configured to displace the load into the perforated chamber prior to the primary barrel compressing the load within the perforated chamber”. It is unclear how can a primary barrel compress the load within the perforated chamber. It is a head of the plunger that compresses the load (see claim 1), not the barrel.
Additionally, the specification discloses that the first plunger displaces the load into the perforated chamber prior to the second plunger compressing the load within the perforated chamber (see fig. 6A-6D and 8A-8B), not the second plunger displaces the load into the perforated chamber prior to the primary barrel compressing the load within the perforated chamber.
Therefore, it is unclear how one would make the extraction system based on this claimed subject matter.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribas-Blanes (hereinafter “RB”) (US 2009/0025576 A1).
Regarding claim 1, RB discloses an extraction system for processing waste material (see “waste” in para. 1) to form a wet fraction (see “wet” in para. 4) comprising organics and a liquid-depleted fraction (paras. 1 and 4), comprising:
a barrel (2);
a plunger (16) received within the barrel (2) (fig. 6-7) and configured to displace axially within the barrel (figs. 6-7);
perforated chamber (1) having perforations (6) and being connected to a distal end of the barrel (2) (fig. 1), the perforated chamber being configured to receive a load of waste material (fig. 6) and a head (16) of the plunger during axial displacement into the perforated chamber to compress the load of waste material to cause wet material to be expelled out of the perforated chamber through the perforations and form the wet fraction (para. 46),
As set forth above, RB discloses the perforated chamber (1) having the perforations (6). RB does not expressly disclose the perforations being sized and configured to have a diameter between 20 mm and 40 mm and to provide a total open area between 10% and 40%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the perforations of RB with a diameter between 20 mm and 40 mm to provide a total open area between 10% and 40%, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine optimization and does not itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering and design practice, and one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would make a choice dependent on the type of waste material that is extracted.
Regarding claim 2, the system of claim 1, RB discloses wherein the barrel comprises a feed inlet (9) for receiving the load of waste material, and is configured such that the plunger (16) displaces the load through the barrel into the perforated chamber (see figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the system of claim 1, wherein the barrel is a primary barrel (2) and the plunger is a primary plunger (16), and wherein the system further comprises: a second barrel (12) oriented perpendicularly with respect to the primary barrel (2) (fig. 4) and configured to receive the load of waste material (fig. 6), the second barrel being in communication with the perforated chamber (1) (fig. 6); and the first plunger (16) displaces the load into the perforated chamber (1) (figs. 8-9) prior to a second plunger (15) of the second barrel (12) compressing the load within the perforated chamber (1) (see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, the system of claim 1, RB discloses RB discloses wherein the plunger (16) and the perforated chamber (10) are configured to compress the load axially to form a plug that forms part of the liquid depleted fraction (figs. 6, 8-10).
Regarding claim 6, the system of claim 1, wherein the plunger (16) and the perforated chamber (1) are configured to compress the load radially to form a tubular plug (see a rectangular tube shape 14 in figs. 6-7) that forms part of the liquid-depleted fraction (figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 7, the system of claim 1, wherein the diameter of the perforations is above 22 mm, 24 mm, 26 mm, 28 mm or 30 mm (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, the system of claim 1, wherein the total open area provided by the perforations is above 12%, 14%, 16%, 18% or 20% (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, the system of claim 1, wherein the perforated chamber includes no other openings for passage of the wet material that are smaller than the perforations having the diameter between 20 mm and 40 mm (see the rejection of claim 1 above and it is noted that all perforations of RB are the same size [fig. 2]).
Regarding claim 16, the system of claim 1, RB discloses wherein the system is configured to compress the load in the perforated chamber (1) to a target plug thickness (see the thickness of the plugs 14, 18 in figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 20, the system of claim 16, RB discloses the target plug thickness as shown in fig. 6. As to the target plug thickness is between 60 mm and 80 mm, it is a matter of design choice to select a target plug thickness is between 60 mm and 80 mm because applicant has not disclosed any benefits to the claimed target plug thickness (see para. 50 of the instant specification, which discloses that the target plug thickness can be up to 250mm) and one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would make a choice dependent on the type of waste material that is extracted.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RB in view of Bollegraaf (US 5,832,815).
Regarding claim 4, RB discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above, RB discloses a hopper (9), but RB does not disclose a pre-press assembly that is configured to radially compress the load of waste material and to form part of the barrel prior to axial displacement of the plunger to compress the load in the perforated chamber.
Bollegraaf can be applied to teach a pressing system comprising a pre-press assembly (13 and 15) at a bottom of a hopper (4), the pre-press assembly configured to radially compress a load of waste material and to form part of a barrel prior to an axial displacement of a plunger (3) to compress the load (see col. 3, lines 15-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a bottom of the hopper of RB with a pre-press assembly, as taught by Bollegraaf, to minimize wear on the plunger (col. 1, lines 33-35).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RB in view of Dufour (US 5,146,848).
Regarding claim 13, The system of claim 1, RB discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above, RB discloses the perforated chamber (1) is defined by side walls (13, 15), a backing plate (8), and the head of the plunger (16) (fig. 6). RB does not expressly disclose the sidewalls are perforated and the backing plate and/or the head of the plunger are also perforated.
Dufour discloses an extraction system for processing waste material discloses a perforated chamber (fig. 4) is defined by perforated side walls (72), a perforated backing plate (112), and a perforated head of a plunger (136) (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sidewalls, the backing plate, and the head of the plunger RB with perforated/holes, as taught by Dufour, to improve drainage of the liquid.
Regarding claim 14, the system of claim 13, modified RB discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. As to the perforations in the perforated side walls are smaller than the perforations in the backing plate and/or the head of the plunger, the applicant has not disclosed that the specific size of the perforations in the sidewalls smaller than the perforations in the backing plate and/or the head of the plunger solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the perforations in the sidewalls smaller than the perforations in the backing plate and/or the head of the plunger because such selection or determination would be the result of routine optimization and does not itself warrant patentability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 21, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “a control assembly configured to control the system based at least in part on the target plug thickness”, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 would be allowable in virtue of its dependence upon claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show extraction systems (US 6,360,655 and US 2,705,916).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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 L 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights