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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dorph (US 4,818,375).
Dorph (fig. 1-3) teaches a materials separator assembly and method comprising:
(re: claim 1) a conduit system
at least one linear section, the at least one linear section extending along a Z-axis in relation to the Y-axis comprising a length of opposing linear sidewalls defining a volume configured to receive a flow of mixed materials entering along a proximate end of the length, proceeding along the length, and exiting along a distal end of the length (fig. 1-2 showing slide surface 19a between sidewalls 19b, wherein linear section of slide surface can be regarded as extending along a Z-axis); and
one of the linear sidewalls defining an exposed body force slide surface within the linear section, the slide surface extending at an angle in at least one cross section of the Y and X axis other than normal to the Y-axis body forces, and other than normal to the X-axis (Id. with fig. 2 showing slide surface cross-section angled in relation to gravity force, Y-axis);
(re: claim 4) wherein the slide surface defines a length within the linear section that is greater than a width (Cf. fig. 1 and 2);
(re: claim 5) wherein the slide surface extends from a sidewall of the conduit (Id.);
(re: claim 6) wherein the slide surface terminates at another sidewall of the conduit (Id.);
(re: claim 7) wherein the slide surface terminates at an edge (Id.);
(re: claim 8) an expressway defined by another sidewall and exposed to the edge of the slide surface (fig. 1 showing bottom sidewall near outlet 91);
(re: claim 11) wherein the slide surface defines at least a portion of a sidewall of the linear section (fig. 2);
(re: claim 12) wherein the linear section is arranged at an angle in relation to the body forces (fig. 2);
(re: claim 23) wherein the opposing linear sidewalls are parallel to one another in at least one cross section (fig. 2).
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 of this title, 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 2-3, 9-10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorph (US 4,818,375) in view of Condolios (US 3,240,336) and legal precedent.
Dorph as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 2) a plurality of exposed body force slide surfaces within the linear section
(re: claim 3) wherein each of the slide surfaces within the linear section extend at the same angle in relation to the body forces;
(re: claim 9) wherein each of the plurality of slide surfaces defines a plate;
(re: claim 10) wherein each of the plates extends from a central member extending from a sidewall of the linear section;
(re: claim 24) a plurality of conduits, wherein each of the conduits are arranged parallel to one another in at least one cross section.
Condolios, however, teaches that it is well-known in the separating arts to combine a plurality of slide surfaces in a stacked manner to increase the separation capacity of the separating assembly (fig. 4 showing linear section extending from 23 to 24 comprising a plurality of conduit slide surfaces that extend from a central member 4; fig. 5 showing multiple conduit separator assemblies in parallel; col. 6, ln. 12-col. 7, ln. 50 teaching increased flow rates and thus separating capacity with parallel conduit separating assembly).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the number of slide surfaces or conduits and the type of supporting central member can be regarded as common design parameters controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the separating arts as the type and the desired amount of material to be separated as well as the desired quality of the separation controls variations in the specific device dimensions, features and/or separation steps. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from legal precedent as described above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Dorph for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections set forth above. In particular, figure 2 of Dorph as shown below teaches “the slide surface extending at an angle in at least one cross section of the Y and X axis other than normal to the Y-axis body forces”.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805. The Official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
February 22, 2026