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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 9th, 2024 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 at least one screen of the flip-flop type (Claim 2, Lines 2-3) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 33 (¶0054). 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. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the present abstract filed on
September 9th, 2024 contains reference number"()". It is suggested that the reference number"()” are removed. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: in multiple instances, different terms are used to refer to the same part, for example, Element 31 is described as “second screen”(¶0053), “second grinder”(¶0054), “first screen” (¶0054), “first oscillating sieve” (¶0054). Element 41 is also referred to as “fourth screen” (¶0058), “start screen” (¶0058), “fifth screen” (¶0062). As another example, Element 35 is referred to as “third screen” and “third grinder” in the same paragraph, ¶0054. Examiner encourages Applicant to be consistent with the nomenclature.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“System” (Claim 1, Line 1) should read --A system--
“Recycling system” (Claims 2-9, Lines 1) should read --A system--
“Method” (Claim 10, Line 1) should read --A method--
“Recycling system” (Claim 4, Line 1 and Claim 5, Line 1) should read --A system (1)--; if Applicant’s preference is to use reference numbers in the claims, Applicant should be consistent.
“the system (1) being characterized in that it also comprises” (Claim 1, Lines 14-15) should read --the system (1) further comprising--
“in which” (Claims 2-5 and 7, Lines 1 and Claim 8-9, Lines 2) should read -wherein--
“in which” (Claims 6, Line 2) should read --wherein--
“each comprise” (Claim 2, Line 3) should read --each comprises--
“the recycling system (1)” (Claim 10, Line 8) should read --“the system (1)”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “partially” in claim 1 (Line 5) is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fine fractions" in Line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " entirety of the fine fractions" in Line 19. It is unclear what it is meant by “the fine fractions” since only “the fine fraction” has been cited, thus rendering the claim indefinite since metes and bounds have not been established.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the grinding-sorting device" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the rejects" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the rejects output" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coarse part" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the waste" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the rejects part" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the waste” in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nantet et al. (FR2949361A1), hereinafter “Nantet”. For text citation of Nantet refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Nantet discloses a system (Fig. 1; ¶0001, Line 2; ¶0002) for recycling waste plaster originating from the general public intended to recover a fraction called final fraction comprising elements having a particle size less than or equal to a determined threshold dimension (intended use), the system (Fig. 1; ¶0001, Line 2; ¶0002) comprising: at least one waste preparation unit (Fig. 1, Elements 10-12 and 50), comprising at least one magnetic sorting device (Fig.1, Element 12; ¶0014, Lines 4-8) making it possible to at least partially separate metal elements from the rest of the waste (¶0014, Lines 4-8); at least one unit (Fig. 1, Elements 13-14) for grinding and sorting the waste (¶0014-¶0016) originating from the preparation unit (Fig. 1, Elements 10-12 and 50), comprising at least one grinding device (Fig. 1, Element 13) and at least one sorting device (Fig. 1, Element 14) having a mesh (Fig. 1; ¶0015-0016, “spaced bars”) less than or equal to the threshold dimension (Fig. 1; ¶0015-0016, “36 mm”), making it possible to separate the waste into a fine fraction (Fig. 1; ¶0015-0016 - ”the waste passing through the screen and introduced into the second rolling mill”) and a coarse fraction (Fig. 1; ¶0015-0016, “the largest items”) at least one recovery unit (Fig. 1; ¶0019 - “silo”) recovering at least a part of the fine fraction (Fig. 1; ¶0019, Lines 14-21) from the grinding and sorting unit (Fig. 1, Elements 13-14); the system (Fig. 1; ¶0001, Line 2; ¶0002) being characterized in that it also comprises at least one finalization unit (Fig.1, Elements 15-26) receiving at least a part of the coarse fraction (Fig. 1; ¶0016, by means of recirculation) originating from the grinding and sorting unit (Fig. 1, Element 13-14), the finalization unit (Fig.1, Elements 15-26) comprising at least one rolling mill (Fig. 1, Element 15) having a roll gap (¶0016, Lines 14-20) less than or equal to the threshold dimension (¶0016, Lines 14-20, “spaced about 5mm apart”) followed by at least one finalization sorting device (Fig. 1, Elements 24) having a mesh (Fig. 1, Element 24; ¶0019, Lines 5-7, “cuts”) less than or equal to the threshold dimension (¶0019, Lines 5-7, “4, 2, and 1 mm”) and feeding the recovery unit (Fig. 1; ¶0019, “silo”), the entirety of the fine fractions (Fig. 1; ¶0019, Lines 13-20) recovered by the recovery unit (Fig. 1; ¶0019, “silo”) corresponding to the final fraction (Fig. 1; ¶0019, Lines 13-20, “different particle size fractions of gypsum extracted”).
Regarding Claim 4, Nantet anticipates the recycling system as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Nantet further discloses in which the threshold dimension (¶0019, Lines 6-8) is less than or equal to 1.2 mm (¶0019, Lines 6-8).
Regarding Claim 5, Nantet anticipates the recycling system as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Nantet further discloses in which the threshold dimension (¶0019, Lines 6-8) is less than or equal to 1 mm (¶0019, Lines 6-8).
Regarding Claim 9, Nantet anticipates the recycling system as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Nantet further discloses in which the waste preparation unit (Fig. 1, Elements 10-12 and 50) comprises a table (Fig. 1, Element 50) for visually sorting waste (¶0013, Line 20 - ¶0014, Line 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Nantet discloses a method for recycling waste plaster (Fig. 1; ¶0004, Line 37 - ¶0005, Line 21) originating from the general public intended to recover a fraction called final fraction) comprising elements having a particle size less than or equal to a determined threshold dimension (intended use), by implementation of the system (Fig. 1; ¶0001, Line 2; ¶0002) according to claim 1 (as explained above), the method (Fig. 1; ¶0004, Line 37 - ¶0005, Line 21) comprising: determining the threshold dimension (Fig. 1; ¶0015-0016, “36 mm”; ¶0019, Lines 5-7, “4, 2, and 1 mm”); adjusting the grinding and sorting unit (Fig. 1, Elements 13-14; ¶0015-0016) as well as the finalization unit (Fig.1, Elements 15-26; ¶0015-0016) to the determined threshold dimension (Fig. 1; ¶0015-0016, “36 mm”; ¶0019, Lines 5-7, “4, 2, and 1 mm”); passing the waste into the recycling system (Fig. 1, Abstract; ¶0005-0020).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nantet in view of Horton et al. (US9440239B1), hereinafter "Horton".
Regarding Claim 2, Nantet anticipates the recycling system as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Nantet further discloses in which the grinding-sorting device (Fig. 1, Element 14) and the finalization sorting device (Fig. 1, Element 24) each comprise at least one screen (Fig. 1, Element 24).
However, Nantet fails to disclose a screen of the flip-flop type.
Nonetheless, Horton teaches a screen (see annotated Fig. 1 of Horton reproduced below) of the flip-flop type (Column 4, Line 60 -Column 5, Line 17).
Nantet and Horton are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material separation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Nantet of using a screen of the flip-flop type and substitute the at least one screen of the grinding-sorting device and the finalization sorting device with a flip-flop type screen to use the flexible mat sections, that are individually tensioned and relaxed, to break and loosen the adhesive bond between materials (Column 4, Line 60 - Column 5, Line 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
787
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Horton
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nantet in view of Macleod al. (WO9200152A1), hereinafter "Macleod".
Regarding Claim 3, Nantet anticipates the recycling system as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
While Nantet discloses in which the at least one rolling mill (Fig. 1, Element 15) of the finalization unit (Fig.1, Elements 15-26) comprises rollers (Fig. 1, Element 15), it fails to disclose smooth rollers.
Nonetheless, Macleod teaches smooth rollers (Fig. 1, Elements 2 and 6; Page 2, Lines 23-33).
Nantet and Macleod are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material separation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Macleod of using smooth rollers into the recycling system disclosed by Nantet to create consistent force and a wave-like separation motion (Page 12, Line 35 - Page 13, Line 2).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nantet in view of Unland et al. (DE102004050720A1), hereinafter "Unland". For text citation of Unland refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 6, Nantet anticipates the recycling system as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Nantet further teaches in which the grinding device (Fig. 1, Element 13) comprises at least one rejects outlet (¶0016, Lines 1-13).
Nantet fails to teach the at least one rejects outlet connected to the finalization unit, such that the finalization unit receives at the same time a coarse fraction from the sorting and grinding unit and rejects from the grinding device.
Nonetheless, Unland teaches at least one rejects outlet (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced below) connected to the finalization unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced below), such that the finalization unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced below) receives at the same time (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced below) a coarse fraction (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced below; ¶0009-0010) and rejects (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced below; ¶0009-0010).
Nantet and Unland are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material separation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Unland of having at least one rejects outlet connected to the finalization unit, such that the finalization unit receives at the same time a coarse fraction and rejects into the recycling system disclosed by Nantet to separate material which size is larger than or equal to the roll gap and feed them to a separate crushing device before feeding them back into the material flow to the rolling mill (¶0009-0010).
After modifications, the prior art combination of Nantet and Unland teaches the coarse fraction (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced below; Unland - ¶0009-0010; Nantet - ¶0015-0016) coming from the sorting and grinding unit (Nantet - Fig. 1, Elements 13-14; Nantet - ¶0015-0016) and the rejects (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced below; Unland - ¶0009-0010; Nantet - ¶0015-0016) coming from the grinding device (Nantet - Fig. 1, Element 13; Nantet - ¶0015-0016).
PNG
media_image2.png
733
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Unland
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art combination of Nantet and Unland renders the recycling system as claimed in Claim 6 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Nantet and Unland further teaches in which the finalization unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above) comprises at least two successive rolling mills (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above), the rejects output (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above) from the grinding device (Nantet - Fig. 1, Element 13) being connected to the finalization unit (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above) between the two rolling mills (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above), such that a first rolling mill (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above) receives exclusively the coarse part (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above; Unland - ¶0009-0010) from the sorting and grinding unit (Nantet - Fig. 1, Elements 13-14) and the second rolling mill (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above) receives a mixture (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above) comprising the waste passed by the first rolling mill (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above) and the rejects part (see annotated Fig. 1 of Unland reproduced above) from the grinding device (Nantet - Fig. 1, Element 13).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nantet in view of Choi (KR20180091466A), hereinafter "Choi". For text citation of Choi refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 8, Nantet anticipates the recycling system as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Nantet fails to teach in which the grinding device comprises at least one bladed grinder.
Nonetheless, Choi teaches in which a grinding device (Fig. 4, Element 15) comprises at least one bladed grinder (¶0046).
Nantet and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of grinding apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Choi of having at least one bladed grinder into the grinding device of the recycling system disclosed by Nantet to increase crushing efficiency (¶0048).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US2729397A & CN113634345A - Material separation system
CA2880625A1 & KR102022605B1 - Waste recycling method
JP5099668B2 - Recycling waste method with predetermined threshold dimension
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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 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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights