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 .
Specification
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to as the form of claims is improper. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, as in the instant claims, each element or step should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Claim 10 should read “A
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 2-6 and 8-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 5 and 6 recite the limitation "it" or “its”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “said collectors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “The method”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Libralato (US 2020/0070209).
Libralato (fig. 1, 4) teaches a machine for separating wood-based materials (para. 20) from other materials comprising:
(re: base claim 1) feed means (near 16) which convey the materials on a conveyor belt (12) with which there is associated a detection unit (20) configured to detect the presence of materials of organic origin and/or metallic materials (17; para. 20, 32-35, 45 teaching detection unit capable of detecting material of organic origin, such as plastic materials, rubber or wood derivative and metal materials);
a plurality of compressed air nozzles (22), disposed downstream of an outlet end of said conveyor belt and configured to selectively push said materials downward (para. 37-39); and
a device (25) for blowing air toward the wood- based materials coming from said outlet end pushing them beyond a separation element (27) disposed downstream of said blowing device (para. 40-43),
wherein said blowing device comprises a collection zone, located between said separation element and said blowing device, for collecting the materials selected by said nozzles which are positioned in proximity of said blowing device and are configured to give said selected materials sufficient inertia to avoid the thrust of said blowing device (fig. 4 showing collection zone under ‘Z’ between said blowing device 25 and separation element 27; para. 36-46 teaching selectively use of said nozzles and blowing device for separating and collecting materials and that “inert” materials of a higher specific weight, such as stones and rocks, will fall downward).
Libralato further teaches
(re: claim 2) wherein said nozzles are positioned along a first collector located above said blowing device and aligned with said blowing device in a substantially vertical direction (fig. 4 showing nozzles 22 substantially aligned in a vertical direction with blower 25; para. 42 teaching that blower positioning as defined by distance “Y” between nozzles 22 and blower 25 is adjustable based on specific materials and desired separation thus a shorted “Y” distance can be regarded as substantially aligned);
(re: claim 3) wherein said first collector comprises a support along which said nozzles are aligned (fig. 2 showing “collector” including horizontal support for nozzles 22);
(re: claim 4) wherein said support is shaped so that said nozzles deliver compressed air in a direction inclined with respect to a longitudinal plane of said first collector (cf. fig. 2 and 4 showing inclined nozzles);
(re: claim 5) wherein each of said nozzles is fed by a valve (23) which works at a pressure higher than the pressure of the air blown by said blowing device (para. 37-40 teaching that an electro valve that is selectively activated for each nozzle and capable of working at a higher pressure than said blowing device).
(re: claim 10) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the device cited above (see e.g., para. 36-46 teaching selectively use of nozzles and blowing device for separating and collecting materials and that “inert” materials of a higher specific weight, such as stones and rocks, will fall downward).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libralato (US 2020/0070209) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (“Yamaguchi”)(US 2016/0332200) and Douglas et al. (“Douglas”)(US 2022/0106129).
Libralato as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 6)
(re: claim 7) wherein said additional nozzles are positioned along a second collector;
(re: claim 8) wherein said first and second collector
(re: claim 9) wherein said first and second collectors are positioned specularly with respect to a substantially vertical plane.
Yamaguchi, however, teaches that it is well-known in the sorting arts to configure multiple nozzle collectors in multiple directions to direct materials into specific collection zones (fig. 1 showing multiple collectors near 5a, 5b, 5c configured to direct selected materials into specific collection zones 20A, 20B, 20C; para. 57-71 teaching that configuration of nozzle collectors sorts selected material into specific collection zone; para. 85-86).
Douglas also teaches that it is well-known to configure multiple nozzle collections in multiple directions—including diverging directions—to sort materials into specific collection zones (fig. 13 and 14 showing nozzle collectors near 1306a,b positioned specularly to sort materials in divergent directions).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above, in legal precedent as described above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., nozzle collectors) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Libralato for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
February 3, 2026