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 Objections
Claims 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “ejection area” should read “ejection area.”
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.
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 § 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 1-10 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 term “mainly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mainly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the waste inlet area" and “the first ejection area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “where it comprises at least one radial expulsion paddle” wherein it is unclear what “it” is referring to.
The term “substantially” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the loading device" and “the inlet area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “interposed between them” wherein it is unclear what “them” is referring to.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the thrust". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 8-10 are rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) in view of Janich (US 4515686).
Regarding claim 1, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation device (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-10) comprising a centrifugal separation chamber (Fig. 1 #6) extending mainly in a direction of crossing of waste V (Fig. 1 #6 extending along direction of waste flow arrow) and internally divided into two sub-chambers (Fig. 1 chamber within #6, chamber within #7) nested together around a centrifuge axis central (Fig. 1 chamber within #6 and chamber within #7 around axis of #10) parallel to the crossing direction V (Fig. 1 axis of #10 parallel to arrow indicating direction of waste flow), wherein:
- the sub-chambers (Fig. 1 chamber within #6, chamber within #7) are separated by a filter (Fig. 1 #7);
- a radially internal sub-chamber (Fig. 1 chamber within #7) of the sub-chambers contains a vane shaft (Fig. 1 #10) rotating around said centrifugal axis (Fig. 1 #10 rotating around axis of #10);
- the shaft (Fig. 1 #10) comprises a plurality of centrifugal vanes (Fig. 1 #11);
- in the internal sub-chamber, there is an entrance area (Fig. 1 #5) for the waste to be separated (Fig. 1 #3, 4 feed waste to #5);
- in the internal sub-chamber, there is a first expulsion area (Fig. 1 area of #13) of the waste fraction retained by the filter in the internal sub-chamber (Fig. 1 waste fraction retained by #7 is discharged at area of #13);
- in an external sub-chamber (Fig. 1 chamber within #6) of the sub-chambers, there is a second outlet area (Fig. 1 area of #15) of the waste fraction passed through the filter (Fig. 1 waste fraction passed through #7 is discharged at area of #14).
Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching wherein the device comprises means for injecting forced air into the internal subchamber.
Janich (US 4515686) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation device (Col. 1 lines 6-17), wherein the device comprises means for injecting forced air (Fig. 3 #18) into the internal subchamber (Fig. 3 #18 injects air into #1.
Janich (US 4515686) explains that the forced air may serve as temperature control, humidification or dehumidification of the material during separation (Col. 2 lines 46-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include wherein the device comprises means for injecting forced air into the internal subchamber as taught by Janich (US 4515686) in order to provide temperature control or humidity control over the waste fraction during separation.
Regarding claim 2, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching the separation device according to claim 1 where, with reference to said crossing direction, the injection means comprise at least one injection area located between the waste inlet area and the first ejection area
Janich (US 4515686) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation device (Col. 1 lines 6-17), where, with reference to said crossing direction (Fig. 3 direction parallel to #33) , the injection means (Fig. 3 #18) comprise at least one injection area (Fig. 3 area of #18) located between the waste inlet area and the first ejection area (Fig. 3 area of #18 located between area of #3 and area of #32)
Janich (US 4515686) explains that the forced air may serve as temperature control, humidification or dehumidification of both the fine and the coarse material during separation (Col. 2 lines 46-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include where, with reference to said crossing direction, the injection means comprise at least one injection area located between the waste inlet area and the first ejection area as taught by Janich (US 4515686) in order to provide temperature control or humidity control over the waste fraction during separation
Regarding claim 3, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching the separation device according to claim 1, wherein the means for injecting forced air comprise means for recirculating forced air.
Janich (US 4515686) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation device (Col. 1 lines 6-17), wherein the means for injecting forced air (Fig. 3 #18) comprise means for recirculating forced air (Fig. 3 #40, 42, 43, 44).
Janich (US 4515686) explains that the forced air may serve as temperature control, humidification or dehumidification of both the fine and the coarse material during separation (Col. 2 lines 46-55). Janich (US 4515686) further explains that by using a circulating air separator, the volume of the exiting air stream remains unchanged, resulting in a substantial improvement in the rate of production and enabling the resulting circulating air separator to accept a greater input (Col. 2 lines 35-45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include wherein the means for injecting forced air comprise means for recirculating forced air as taught by Janich (US 4515686) in order to provide temperature control or humidity control over the waste fraction during separation and in order to improve the rate of production of the separation.
Regarding claim 4, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) teaches the separation device according to claim 3, wherein:
- a portion of the shaft (Fig. 1 #10) extends into said expulsion area (Fig. 1 portion of #10 extends into area of #13).
Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching wherein:
- a portion of the shaft extends into said expulsion area, where it comprises at least one radial expulsion paddle, facing in a radial direction to at least one forced air drawing opening,
- duct means configured to convey the forced air from the forced air drawing opening to the injection area.
Janich (US 4515686) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation device (Col. 1 lines 6-17), wherein:
- a portion of the shaft (Fig. 3 #31) extends into said expulsion area (Fig. 3 area of #32), where it comprises at least one radial expulsion paddle (Fig. 3 #32), facing in a radial direction to at least one forced air drawing opening (Fig. 3 #32 facing opening of #40),
- duct means (Fig. 3 #43, 44) configured to convey the forced air from the forced air drawing opening to the injection area (Fig. 3 #43, 44 configured to convey forced air from opening of #40 to #18).
Janich (US 4515686) explains that the forced air may serve as temperature control, humidification or dehumidification of both the fine and the coarse material during separation (Col. 2 lines 46-55). Janich (US 4515686) further explains that by using a circulating air separator, the volume of the exiting air stream remains unchanged, resulting in a substantial improvement in the rate of production and enabling the resulting circulating air separator to accept a greater input (Col. 2 lines 35-45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include wherein a portion of the shaft extends into said expulsion area, where it comprises at least one radial expulsion paddle, facing in a radial direction to at least one forced air drawing opening, - duct means configured to convey the forced air from the forced air drawing opening to the injection area as taught by Janich (US 4515686) in order to provide temperature control or humidity control over the waste fraction during separation and in order to improve the rate of production of the separation.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) in view of Janich (US 4515686) and further in view of Maynard (US 2015/0101964).
Regarding claim 6, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation plant (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-10), further comprising a separation device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), a loading portion (Fig. 1 #3, 4) downstream of the loading device (Fig. 1 #3, 4 downstream of #2).
Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching a shredder operatively interposed between them to shred the waste coming from the loading portion and feed the inlet area of the separation device with the shredded waste.
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation plant (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-9) comprising a shredder (Paragraph 0028 lines 7-10) operatively interposed between them (Paragraph 0028 lines 7-10, “grinder” between loading portion of “grinder” and #20) to shred the waste coming from the loading portion (Paragraph 0028 lines 7-10) and feed the inlet area (Fig. 5 #20) of the separation device with the shredded waste (Paragraph 0028 lines 7-13).
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) explains that the material is collected from a grinder and enters a circulated air stream of a closed system (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-3), and the separator is able to achieve desired separations with a small footprint and high degree of adjustment to accommodate different sized materials (Paragraph 0029 lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include a shredder operatively interposed between them to shred the waste coming from the loading portion and feed the inlet area of the separation device with the shredded waste as taught by Maynard (US 2015/0101964) in order to feed the material into a closed system with a small footprint and high degree of adjustability.
Regarding claim 7, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching the plant according to claim 6, further comprising a means for boosting the thrust configured to generate a thrust boost of the shredded waste leaving the shredder.
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation plant (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-9), further comprising a means for boosting the thrust (Fig. 5 #58) configured to generate a thrust boost of the shredded waste leaving the shredder (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-13).
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) explains that the material is collected from a grinder and enters a circulated air stream of a closed system (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-3), and the separator is able to achieve desired separations with a small footprint and high degree of adjustment to accommodate different sized materials (Paragraph 0029 lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include a means for boosting the thrust configured to generate a thrust boost of the shredded waste leaving the shredder as taught by Maynard (US 2015/0101964) in order to feed the material into a closed system with a small footprint and high degree of adjustability.
Regarding claim 8, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching the plant according to claim 7, wherein the thrust boost means comprise means for introducing forced air into the shredder.
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation plant (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-9), wherein the thrust boost means (Fig. 5 #58) comprise means for introducing forced air into the shredder (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-13).
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) explains that the material is collected from a grinder and enters a circulated air stream of a closed system (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-3), and the separator is able to achieve desired separations with a small footprint and high degree of adjustment to accommodate different sized materials (Paragraph 0029 lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include wherein the thrust boost means comprise means for introducing forced air into the shredder as taught by Maynard (US 2015/0101964) in order to feed the material into a closed system with a small footprint and high degree of adjustability.
Regarding claim 9, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching the plant according to claim 8, wherein the means for introducing forced air into the shredder draws forced air from the separation device.
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation plant (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-9), wherein the means for introducing forced air (Fig. 5 #58) into the shredder draws forced air from the separation device (Fig. 5 #58 draws forced air from #90 via #64, 72).
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) explains that the material is collected from a grinder and enters a circulated air stream of a closed system (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-3), and the separator is able to achieve desired separations with a small footprint and high degree of adjustment to accommodate different sized materials (Paragraph 0029 lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include wherein the means for introducing forced air into the shredder draws forced air from the separation device as taught by Maynard (US 2015/0101964) in order to feed the material into a closed system with a small footprint and high degree of adjustability.
Regarding claim 10, Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) lacks teaching the plant according to claim 9, wherein the means for introducing forced air into the shredder comprise at least one drawing of forced air from the means for introducing forced air into the internal sub-chamber.
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) teaches an undifferentiated waste separation plant (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-9), wherein the means for introducing forced air (Fig. 5 #58) into the shredder comprise at least one drawing of forced air from the means for introducing forced air (Fig. 5 #58 draws forced air from #90 via #64, 72, air is introduced to #90 via #92) into the internal sub-chamber (Fig. 5 chamber of #90).
Maynard (US 2015/0101964) explains that the material is collected from a grinder and enters a circulated air stream of a closed system (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-3), and the separator is able to achieve desired separations with a small footprint and high degree of adjustment to accommodate different sized materials (Paragraph 0029 lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderbeken (US 2019/0381520) to include wherein the means for introducing forced air into the shredder comprise at least one drawing of forced air from the means for introducing forced air into the internal sub-chamber as taught by Maynard (US 2015/0101964) in order to feed the material into a closed system with a small footprint and high degree of adjustability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 recites “wherein said at least one expulsion paddle faces radially both to at least one outlet opening of the waste retained by the filter, and to the drawing opening”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 5, was not seen in the searched prior art. The prior art commonly showed expulsion paddles facing an outlet opening of waste retained by the filter (see Oude Grotebevelsborg (US 11180391)) as well as expulsion paddles radially facing a drawing opening, but the combination of these features was not seen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights