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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The applicant’s priority to foreign application EP22150418.6 filed on January 6th, 2022 has been accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 3rd 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 46-48 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 21 “drier” should be dryer; in claim 46 “mill.” should be “mill,” 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 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: “sieving unit” “sieving means” “drying unit” “screening unit” “unit capable of beating” and “separating means.” “Sieving unit” is interpreted as multiple sieving means. Sieving means is interpreted as a grate with openings. “Drying unit” is interpreted as a drum dryer “Unit capable of beating” is interpreted as a hammer mill. “Separating means” is interpreted as an air classifier.
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
Claims 18-48 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.
Regarding claims 18, 36-37, 40-41 and 46 the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 41 is also rendered indefinite for reciting “obtained according to anyone of the previous claims.” It is unclear what claims claim 41 depends from.
The term “substantially” in claim 18 and 43 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.
The term “optionally” in claims 18, 37, 42 and 46 and “preferably” in claims 18, 30-31, 43 and 46 render these claims indefinite. It is unclear whether these features are limitations or not.
Claim 31 is rendered indefinite for reciting “the at least one baffle.” There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 31 will be interpreted as if it were dependent on claim 30.
Claims 19-29, 32-35, 38-39, and 44-45 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andersen et al. (US 9205460) hereafter Andersen.
With regards to claim 46, Andersen discloses a system for processing moist synthetic turf product in a continuous manner to provide individual components of synthetic turf product (Abstract), said system comprising a feeding and a downsizing section an infill separation section and a turf and backing separation section, said feeding and downsizing section is in fluid communication with the infill separation section and the turf and backing separation section (Fig. 2), wherein the feeding and downsizing section comprises an inlet (arrow near shedder A_1) for moist artificial turf product which is connected to downsizing unit such as a shredder (shredder A_1), the outlet of the downsizing unit is connected to a drying unit the outlet of the drying unit is connected to a first sieving unit which has two outlets, a first outlet which is connected to the infill separation section (Col. 5, L53-55), and a second outlet which is connected to a second downsizing unit (Shredder A_2) capable of downsizing components to at most 50 mm in the largest dimension (Col. 9, L50-53), the outlet of the second downsizing unit is connected to a material hopper, through a first screening unit, having openings of 4 to 8 mm (Drum screen B_2), said first screening unit has two outlets, a first outlet, a retentate, and a second outlet, a filtrate, where the first outlet is connected to the material hopper, which is continuously supplying the retentate fraction to a third downsizing unit (Cutting Mill D_1) the outlet of the third downsizing unit is connected to the turf and backing separation section and the second outlet, the filtrate, is connected to the infill separation section (Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 47, Andersen discloses all the elements of claim 46 as outlined above. Andersen does not directly disclose wherein the drum screen has openings of 6 mm. However, this is a simple change in size and is therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on project parameters and final product needs.
With regards to claim 48, Andersen discloses all the elements of claim 46 as outlined above. Andersen, further discloses wherein the first screening unit is a drum screen (Drum screen B_1).
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.
Claim(s) 18-29 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen.
With regards to claim 18, Andersen discloses a method for processing a synthetic turf product and for re-covering components thereof (Abstract), said method comprising a feeding and a downsizing section an infill separation section and a turf and backing separation section, said feeding and downsizing section is in fluid communication with the infill separation section and the turf and backing separation section, and wherein the feeding and downsizing section comprises the following steps: feeding a moist artificial turf product to the feeding and downsizing section (generally indicated by arrow near A_1 in Fig. 2), downsizing (via shredder A_1) the moist artificial synthetic turf product into a downsized turf material, preferably to no more than 120 by 120 mm (Col. 8, L65-67) and feeding the downsized turf material to a drying unit, drying the downsized turf material in the drying unit (Col. 5, L53-55) separating the dried material by screening in a first sieving unit (drum screen B_1) into at least a first fraction (4_1) substantially comprising an infill material (Col. 9, L59-60)which is fed to the infill separation section and a second fraction (3) substantially comprising grass fiber and backing components, downsizing the second fraction (via second shredder A_2) substantially comprising grass fiber and backing components to at most 50 mm in the largest dimension in a downsizing unit (Col. 9, L50-53) and feeding the further downsized fraction or if present, the large fraction, to a material hopper continuously supplying the fraction and further processing the first fraction and the small fraction, in the infill separation section (via sieving means S_1).
Andersen does not directly disclose drying the turf material to a moisture content of no more than 5% w/w. However, Andersen discloses that the process is a dry process. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate moisture content in order to keep the material from sticking to and clogging the different sieves and screens.
With regards to claim 19-20, Andersen discloses all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. Andersen does not directly disclose wherein the drying of the downsized turf material in the dryer is to a moisture content of no more than 3% w/w 1% w/w. However, Andersen discloses that the process is a dry process. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate moisture content in order to keep the material from sticking to and clogging the different sieves and screens.
With regards to claim 21, Andersen discloses all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. Andersen does not directly disclose wherein the drying unit is a drum dryer.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that drum dryers are known in the art and therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the dyer disclosed be a drum dryer based on space and cost constraints
With regards to claim 22, Andersen discloses all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. Andersen does not directly disclose wherein the drum screen has openings of 6 mm. However, this is a simple change in size and is therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on project parameters and final product needs.
With regards to claim 23-28, Andersen discloses all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. Andersen does not directly disclose the length of the drying unit. However, this is a simple change in size. is therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on cost and throughput constraints. Andersen does not directly disclose the temperature of the drier, the feed rate of the downsized turf material and the speed of the drum dryer . However, this is considered routine optimization and is therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to maximize throughput.
With regards to claim 29, Andersen discloses all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. Andersen further discloses wherein the infill separation section comprises the following steps feeding the first fraction obtained in step and the small fraction obtained to a main sieving unit having three sieving means, a first sieving means, a second sieving means having openings of 0.5 to 1.5 mm and wherein the first sieving means is a grate type sieving means having perforations wherein the longest dimension of the perforations is 3 to 6 mm, thereby providing four fractions, an upper fraction, a first and second intermediate fraction and a lower fraction, wherein the first intermediate fraction is further processed for rubber recovery and the second intermediate fraction is further processed for sand recovery (Col. 9, L61-Col. 10, L3).
Andersen does not directly disclose a third sieving means having openings of 0.1 to .6 mm. However, this is a simple duplication of parts and therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on the sizes needed.
With regards to claim 43, Andersen discloses all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. Andersen, further discloses wherein the turf and backing separation section comprises the steps of separating the large fraction downsized further to at most 35 mm in the largest dimension, by specific gravity (E_1) and size by providing an airflow directed upwards in a second separator configured to cause a swirling motion whereby a second lighter fraction is entrained upwards in the air flow and a second heavy fraction is allowed to fall downwards; where the second lighter fraction substantially comprises grass fiber components, and second heavy fraction substantially comprises a mixture of backing material and grass fiber feeding the second lighter fraction substantially comprising grass fiber components to a second screening unit (E-2), having openings of 1 to 3 mm in the shortest dimension, to provide a final small fraction comprising backing and grass fiber waste and a final large fraction comprising turf, and recovering the final large fraction comprising turf (fraction 14)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-42 and 44-45 would be allowable once the 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are overcome and claims 30,36, and 39 be rewritten independent form.
Claim 30 would be allowable for disclosing “wherein one or more of the sieving means is provided with at least one baffle.”
There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art that would it render obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a baffle to sieving means (a grate with holes).
Claim 36 and 39 would be allowable for disclosing the specific arrangement of sieving means and separating means. Although Andersen has separating means (C_1, C_2) and sieving means (C-3), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art that would it render obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention of the specific configuration recited by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm EST.
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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653