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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “(106a, 106b)” has been used to designate both impellers and the paddle wheel on page 8, paragraph 0040 line 2 and paragraph 0041 lines 1 and 3 of the specification.
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 sedimentation containers from Claim 4 line 3 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.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of this examination, the language “a low-friction slide conveyor” from Claim 7 starting on line 1 will be interpreted as a slide chute as stated in the specification page 6 paragraph 0031.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 are 9 are objected to because they each recite “A system of claim 1” which is inconsistent with the other dependent claims which recite “The system of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim starts with “The method of Claim 1” when Claim 1 is not a method claim. This is interpreted to be merely a typo and that Claims 12-20 are meant to say “the method of Claim 11”. Appropriate correction is required, as not applying correction would result in a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claims 12-20.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how the paddle wheel is able to cause stratification based on specific gravities. Conventional paddle wheels are known to cause agitation of a material stream that is flowing along it. But it cannot be ascertained how a common paddle wheel, when left idle, is able to create separated streams based on specific gravity, as they are known to only turn in the direction of the stream’s flow. When the paddle wheel is being driven, for example by a motor, it is possible to cause some separation. For example, individual paddles on the wheel can scoop material out of the flow to deposit it prior to reentering the stream flow. But as the claims currently stands, this seems more plausible if it was separation based on volume, as larger objects would be more likely to get scooped by a paddle. It is uncertain how mass, therefore density and specific gravity, can be incorporated as a determining factor in separation by a paddle wheel. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as though the agitation by the paddle wheel merely aids the process of separation by specific gravity which is actually performed by the impellers.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how many paddle wheels exist within the multi-unit linear arrangement. It is unclear based on the wording of the claim, particularly where it says “a multi-unit linear arrangement, each unit configured with a top and bottom, where a paddle wheel…”, whether multiple paddle wheels are applied to each unit or if a single paddle wheel is applied to the whole multi-unit linear arrangement. The drawings appear to make distinct that there is a singular paddle wheel, but the specification makes it further uncertain through pluralizing paddle wheels multiple times. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as though a single paddle wheel is applied to the whole multi-unit linear arrangement.
The term “light and heavy materials” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light and heavy materials” 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. It cannot be ascertained what exact weight would distinct light materials from heavier materials. It is recommended by the examiner to use terminology such as “materials of a first and second weight, wherein the first weight is lighter than the second weight” or to use the same comparative language of “lighter” and “heavier” as in later claims as those give comparison against each other and removes indefiniteness.
Claims 2-13 and 15-20 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
The terms “heavy components” and “lighter components” in Claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “heavy components” and “lighter components” are 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. It cannot be ascertained what exact weight defines a “lighter component” as opposed to a “heavy component”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sedimentation containers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “near” in Claim 4 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. It cannot be ascertained if the first outlet unit is considered “near” the final impeller by simply being attached to the same body or if there is a required distance to be “near” each other. For the purpose of this examination, “near” will be interpreted as being attached to the same body that the final impeller is attached.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the media" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the rectangular units" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “heavy materials” in Claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “heavy materials” are 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. It cannot be ascertained what exact weight defines a “heavy material” as opposed to a light material.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how the paddle wheel is able to cause stratification based on specific gravities. Conventional paddle wheels are known to cause agitation of a material stream that is flowing along it. But it cannot be ascertained how a common paddle wheel, when left idle, is able to create separated streams based on specific gravity, as they are known to only turn in the direction of the stream’s flow. When the paddle wheel is being driven, for example by a motor, it is possible to cause some separation. For example, individual paddles on the wheel can scoop material out of the flow to deposit it prior to reentering the stream flow. But as the claims currently stands, this seems more plausible if it was separation based on volume, as larger objects would be more likely to get scooped by a paddle. It is uncertain how mass, therefore density and specific gravity, can be incorporated as a determining factor in separation by a paddle wheel. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as though the agitation by the paddle wheel merely aids the process of separation by specific gravity which is actually performed by the impellers.
The term “light and heavy materials” in Claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light and heavy materials” 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. It cannot be ascertained what exact weight would distinct light materials from heavier materials. It is recommended by the examiner to use terminology such as “materials of a first and second weight, wherein the first weight is lighter than the second weight”.
The terms “heavy components” and “lighter components” in Claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “heavy components” and “lighter components” are 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. It cannot be ascertained what exact weight defines a “lighter component” as opposed to a “heavy component”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sedimentation containers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “near” in Claim 14 line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. It cannot be ascertained if the first outlet unit is considered “near” the final impeller by simply being attached to the same body or if there is a required distance to be “near” each other.
The terms “heavy materials” in Claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “heavy materials” are 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. It cannot be ascertained what exact weight defines a “heavy material” as opposed to a light material.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the described…process" in Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Previero (US 20190351427 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Previero teaches a system for separating materials in a waste stream comprising:
A multi-unit linear arrangement, each unit configured with a top and bottom section (units such as inlet port 30, container 2, discharge channel 25 are each shown in Figure 1 to have a top and bottom section), where a paddle wheel is vertically oriented to agitate the waste stream, causing stratification based on specific gravities (paddle wheel 9) and
Previero does not directly teach the pair of impellers creating a horizontal shear force. However, Previero does teach at least two impellers having opposing rotational directions (paragraph 0040). The opposing rotation of the at least two impellers would create a horizontal shear force resulting in distinct discharge of light and heavy materials through dedicated outlets.
Regarding Claim 3, Previero further teaches wherein the impellers are arranged in a linear sequence (impellers 8 shown in Figures 3 and 4), with each impeller rotating in a direction opposite to the preceding one, creating alternating shear forces that disrupt particle alignment and promote the separation of materials based on specific gravities (described in paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 4, Previero further teaches wherein a first outlet unit is positioned near the final impeller to discharge lighter components of the materials (outlet port 5 is attached to the same body, container 2, that the final impeller is attached to as well, outlet port 5 described in paragraph 0048), and a second outlet unit is positioned below the sedimentation containers to discharge heavier components (outlet valve gate device 11, described in paragraph 0061).
Regarding Claim 8, Previero further teaches wherein the paddle wheel and impellers are independently controlled to rotate at different speeds, with the rotational speeds being dynamically adjusted based on the specific characteristics of the waste stream (described in paragraph 0040 and 0048).
Regarding Claim 10, Previero further teaches wherein the waste material is ferrous slag, incinerator bottom ash, or automobile shredder residue fines (paragraph 0003 describes their system using plastics from industrial waste that includes PET, PVC, PP and PS, at least some of these plastics can be found in automobile shredder residue).
Regarding Claim 11, Previero further teaches a method of separating materials in a waste stream comprising:
feeding the waste stream into a system comprising a multi-unit linear arrangement with each unit configured with a top and bottom section (units such as inlet port 30, container 2, discharge channel 25 are each shown in Figure 1 to have a top and bottom section);
Previero does not directly teach the pair of impellers creating a horizontal shear force. However, Previero does teach at least two impellers having opposing rotational directions (paragraph 0040). The opposing rotation of the at least two impellers would create a horizontal shear force resulting in distinct discharge of light and heavy materials through dedicated outlets.
Regarding Claim 11, Previero does not teach receiving vertically agitating the waste stream using a paddle wheel to cause stratification based on specific gravities. However, Previero does teach outputting material using a paddlewheel (9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a second paddle wheel such that it receives the waste stream and agitates it prior to further separation with the impellers. This would assist the impellers ability to separate materials. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the agitating by the paddlewheel without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the agitating by the paddlewheel would produce the predictable results of separating a waste stream and outputting separated material in different places.
Regarding Claim 12, Previero further teaches the vertical rotation of the paddle wheel creates an upward and downward flow of media within each unit, enhancing stratification by forcing heavy components to settle in the lower sections of the unit, while lighter components remain suspended and are subsequently removed through a conveyor (when applied to the inlet unit and controlled as described in paragraph 0048, the paddle wheel would have to create a similar effect of upward and downward flow, which would enhance the stratification performed by impellers 8 and removed through valve, or conveyor, 11).
Regarding Claim 13, Previero further teaches wherein the horizontal shear forces are applied by arranging the impellers in a linear sequence (impellers 8 shown in Figures 3 and 4), with each impeller rotating in a direction opposite to the preceding one, creating alternating shear forces that disrupt particle alignment and promote the separation of materials based on specific gravities (described in paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 14, Previero further teaches the method comprising the step of discharging the separated materials, wherein lighter components are discharged through a first outlet unit positioned near the final impeller (outlet port 5 is attached to the same body, container 2, that the final impeller is attached to as well, outlet port 5 described in paragraph 0048), and heavier components are discharged through a second outlet unit positioned below the sedimentation containers (outlet valve gate device 11, positioned below the bottom container 2, described in paragraph 0061).
Regarding Claim 18, Previero further teaches dynamically adjusting the rotational speeds of the paddle wheel and impellers independently, based on the specific characteristics of the waste stream, to optimize the separation process (described in paragraph 0040 and 0048).
Regarding Claim 20, Previero further teaches wherein the waste material is ferrous slag, incinerator bottom ash, or automobile shredder residue fines, and the method involves separating these materials based on their specific gravities using the described system and process. (paragraph 0003 describes their system using plastics from industrial waste that includes PET, PVC, PP and PS, at least some of these plastics can be found in automobile shredder residue).
Claim 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Previero (US 20190351427 A1) in view of Adaniya (US 20170205749 A1).
Previero teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above. Previero further teaches an inlet unit equipped with a low-friction slide conveyor (inlet port 30 would be optimal to have low-friction to better convey the waste stream to the main body of the system). They do not teach the infeed chute having a coating to reduce coefficient of friction.
Adaniya teaches a conveyance guide unit comprising:
An ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW-PFE) coating to reduce coefficient of friction (paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 7, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the coating of Adaniya to the infeed chute on the system of Previero to allow better flow of the waste stream travelling into the inlet. The result would reduce the coefficient of friction in the inlet and prevent sticky particles from adhering to the surface, thereby maintaining a consistent flow of materials into the system. One of ordinary skill could apply the coating of Adaniya to the system of Previero without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the coating of Adaniya to the system of Previero would produce the predictable results of conveying the waste stream from the input to the paddlewheel and impellers.
Regarding Claim 17, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the coating of Adaniya to the infeed chute on the system of Previero to allow better flow of the waste stream travelling into the inlet. The result would reduce the coefficient of friction in the inlet and prevent sticky particles from adhering to the surface, thereby maintaining a consistent flow of materials into the system. One of ordinary skill could apply the coating of Adaniya to the system of Previero without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the coating of Adaniya to the system of Previero would produce the predictable results of conveying the waste stream from the input to the paddlewheel and impellers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be potentially 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 closest prior art: the system of Previero (US 20190351427 A1) does not teach “the paddle wheel rotates vertically within each unit… enhancing stratification by forcing heavy components to settle in the lower sections of the unit”.
Claim 5 would be potentially 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 closest prior art: the system of Previero (US 20190351427 A1) does not teach “the multi-unit linear arrangement consists of rectangular units with a conical lower section, filled with a separation media to a predetermined level”.
Claim 6 would be potentially 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 closest prior art: the system of Previero (US 20190351427 A1) does not teach “an air-over-water pulsating chamber integrated with each unit, capable of generating controlled upward and downward flows within the media.”
Claim 9 would be potentially 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 closest prior art: the system of Previero (US 20190351427 A1) does not teach “the rectangular units are equipped with automated discharge devices”.
Claim 15 would be potentially 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 closest prior art: the method of Previero (US 20190351427 A1) does not teach “the multi-unit linear arrangement consists of rectangular units with a conical lower section…with a separation media to a predetermined level”.
Claim 16 would be potentially 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 closest prior art: the method of Previero (US 20190351427 A1) does not teach “an air-over-water pulsating chamber integrated with each unit, capable of generating controlled upward and downward flows within the media.”
Claim 19 would be potentially 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 closest prior art: the method of Previero (US 20190351427 A1) does not teach “removing heavy materials from the lower sections of the rectangular units”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chance (US 1988371 A) for a device that separates materials of specific gravities using a chute, a paddle wheel and impellers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655