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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 7 have been amended. Claims 2 and 4-5 have been canceled. Claims 11-16 have been added. Claims 1, 3 and 6-16 remain pending.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation "said circuit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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, 3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Huettlin (DE 19528584).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4), comprising the following successive steps for each batch:
- feeding in one of the batches into a fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2) defined by a reactor (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5, see Fig. 1 “cold mold fluidized bed”) and obtaining a fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2),
- the granules of the fed in batch being initially at rest in the fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2, “static bed”), starting a fluidization and obtaining at least one fluidized bed (Paragraph 0039 lines 2-4) in the fluidization chamber, the fluidization being obtained by at least one ascending stream of fluid (Paragraph 0021 lines 7-11, see arrow in Fig. 1) passing through the fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-5) and putting at least a fraction of the granules of the fed in batch in suspension (Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5), the fluidized bed being charged via the triboelectric effect (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-9),
- modification of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 6-10) and feeding out at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2) from the fluidizing chamber and obtaining a fed out batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2), and
- passage of the fed out batch through one or a plurality of electric fields suitable for separating the fed out batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-7) into at least a first mixture rich in granules of the first material and a second mixture rich in granules of the second material (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2),
wherein the modification of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 6-10) comprises a reduction of the flow-rate of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2, “after one hour of fluidization”) making the granules from the fluidized bed fall onto a receiving surface of the reactor (Fig. 1 see lower surface of “cold mold fluidized bed” receiving granules),
wherein the reactor defines at least one circuit for the stream of fluid (Fig. 1 stream of fluid passing through “cold mold fluidized bed”), the reactor including at least one blower (Fig. 1 see blower “风机”) for obtaining the stream of fluid in the circuit (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4).
Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching wherein the reactor is rotatably mounted relative to a frame between at least a first position occupied during the fluidization and a second position occupied during the feeding out and in which the receiving surface is more inclined relative to the frame than in the first position, the feeding out comprising a displacement of at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch, by gravity, along the receiving surface toward the outside of the fluidization.
Huettlin (DE 19528584) teaches method for processing, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Page 1 lines 1-3), wherein the reactor (Fig. 3 #12) is rotatably mounted relative to a frame (Figs. 3-4 #12 rotatably mounted about #48 relative to frame #15) between at least a first position occupied during the fluidization (Fig. 3 see position of #12 during fluidization) and a second position occupied during the feeding out (Fig. 4 see position of #12 during feeding out) and in which the receiving surface (Fig. 3 #55) is more inclined relative to the frame than in the first position (Fig. 4 #55 is more inclined relative to #15 than in Fig. 3), the feeding out comprising a displacement of at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch, by gravity (Fig. 4 see #58 feeding out by gravity through #50), along the receiving surface toward the outside of the fluidization (Fig. 4 see #58 feeding out along surface #55 toward outside of fluidization).
Huettlin (DE 19528584) explains that the container is connected to the base part via a hinge, so that the container can be tilted for emptying (Page 4 lines 40-41). Huettlin (DE 19528584) states that ideal flow and thus treatment conditions can be created in this fluidized bed apparatus regardless of the size thereof (Page 3 lines 1-7).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the reactor is rotatably mounted relative to a frame between at least a first position occupied during the fluidization and a second position occupied during the feeding out and in which the receiving surface is more inclined relative to the frame than in the first position, the feeding out comprising a displacement of at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch, by gravity, along the receiving surface toward the outside of the fluidization as taught by Huettlin (DE 19528584) in order to empty out the material within the reactor after the fluidization has ended.
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein after the reduction of the flow-rate of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2, “after one hour of fluidization”, Paragraph 0039 lines 2-4, fluidization takes place at “2.5 times the initial fluidizing gas speed for one hour”), the stream of fluid has a non-zero residual flow-rate in the fluidization chamber after the feeding out of the fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 2-4, air at “initial fluidizing gas speed” when fluidization is not taking place).
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to any of claim 1, wherein, the fluidization being obtained under given conditions, the granules of the fed in batch are maintained in the form of said fluidized bed for a predetermined period (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4), the granules of the first material taking an electrical charge greater than 90% of a maximum electrical charge that can be obtained under the given conditions (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4, “full bipolar charging”).
Regarding claim 10, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches an installation for the separation, by batches, of a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4), the installation comprising:
- a reactor (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5, see Fig. 1 “cold mold fluidized bed”) defining a fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2) intended to receive one of the batches in order to obtain a fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2), the reactor being suitable for creating a fluidized bed in the fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4), the granules of the fed in batch being initially at rest in the fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2), the reactor being suitable for producing at least one ascending stream of fluid (Paragraph 0021 lines 7-11, see arrow in Fig. 1) passing through the fed in batch and putting at least a fraction of the granules of the fed in batch in suspension so as to obtain the fluidized bed (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-5), the fluidized bed being charged via the triboelectric effect (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-9), the reactor being suitable for modifying the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 6-10) and for feeding out at least 90% by mass from the fed in batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2) outside the fluidization chamber so as to obtain a fed out batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2), and
- a separation unit (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-2, see Fig. 2 “electrostatic field separation device”) suitable for creating at least one or a plurality of electric field(s) (Paragraph 0037 lines 4-8), the installation being suitable for passing the fed out batch into the electric field(s) (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2) and for separating the fed out batch between at least a first mixture rich in granules of the first material and a second mixture rich in granules of the second material (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Huettlin (DE 19528584) and further in view of Whittle (US 4208134).
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to any of claim 1, wherein the reactor comprises a shell (see Fig. 1 shell of “cold mold fluidized bed”) defining:
- an inlet (see Fig. 1 opening at top of “cold mold fluidized bed”) for the feeding in, the inlet (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2), and
- an outlet (see Fig. 1 opening at top of “cold mold fluidized bed”) for the feeding out of at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2).
Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the inlet being opened for the feeding in and then closed after the feeding in, and the outlet being opened for the feeding out and then closed after the feeding out.
Whittle (US 4208134) teaches a method for mixing, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 6-10) wherein the reactor comprises a shell (Fig. 1 #4) defining: an inlet (Fig. 1 #14) being opened for the feeding in and then closed after the feeding in (Col. 2 lines 50-55), and an outlet (Fig. 2 #18) being opened for the feeding out and then closed after the feeding out (Col. 2 line 65-Col. 3 line 3).
Whittle (US 4208134) explains that the closure member at the inlet is moved to an open position such that material is fed by gravity into the reactor, and moved to the closed position to supply the next batch of material above the closure member (Col. 3 lines 19-30), and explains that after a predetermined time, the closure member in the outlet chute is moved from its closed position to an open position to discharge the batch of material (Col. 3 lines 38-48). Whittle (US 4208134) states that large quantities of material may be easily and quickly processed (Col. 3 lines 51-59).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include the inlet being opened for the feeding in and then closed after the feeding in, and the outlet being opened for the feeding out and then closed after the feeding out as taught by Whittle (US 4208134) in order to supply and remove batches of material easily and quickly.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Huettlin (DE 19528584) and further in view of Carta et al. (US 3493109).
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the method according to claim 1, wherein said circuit forms a loop.
Carta et al. (US 3493109) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 17-25), wherein said circuit (Fig. 1 circuit through #1, 2, 3, 23) forms a loop (Fig. 1 stream of fluid through #1, 2, 3, 23).
Carta et al. (US 3493109) explains that the gaseous fluid circulating in the ducts is separated from the outside atmosphere and therefore it can be different from the air and maintained at a strictly controlled temperature and moisture, and additionally this type of structure avoids scattering into the atmosphere of the extremely fine particles (Col. 5 lines 57-69).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein said circuit forms a loop as taught by Carta et al. (US 3493109) in order to maintain the gaseous fluid at a strictly controlled temperature and moisture and avoid scattering of extremely fine particles into the atmosphere.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of in view of Huettlin (DE 19528584), Fricke (US 4767506) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the method according to any of claim 1, wherein the stream fluid is at a temperature comprised between 45 degrees C and 75 degrees C.
Fricke (US 4767506) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 10-13, Col. 2 lines 33-42), wherein the stream fluid is at a temperature comprised between 45 degrees C and 75 degrees C (Col. 2 lines 45-46).
Fricke (US 4767506) explains that the preferred temperature for the triboelectric charging treatment is 30 degrees C to 80 degrees C for preparing a milled crude potash salt for electrostatic separation (Col. 2 lines 33-46).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the stream fluid is at a temperature comprised between 45 degrees C and 75 degrees C as taught by Fricke (US 4767506) in order to provide a preferred temperature for the triboelectric charging treatment, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Huettlin (DE 19528584) and further in view of Sommen (US 2021/00094047).
Regarding claim 11, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks explicitly teaching the method according to claim 1, wherein the reactor comprises a homogenization chamber for homogenizing the stream of fluid. Yang et al. (CN 111822151) appears to show a homogenization chamber at the bottom of the reactor (see Fig. 1, lower portion of ‘cold mold fluidized bed’).
Sommen (US 2021/00094047) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-5)), wherein the reactor (Fig. 1 #14) comprises a homogenization chamber (Fig. 1 #40) for homogenizing the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0109 lines 1-3).
Sommen (US 2021/00094047) explains that the air divider is suitable for distributing the air circulating in the air inlet duct in order to form an air flow having a homogeneous intensity over the entire section of the inner space (Paragraph 0110 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the reactor comprises a homogenization chamber for homogenizing the stream of fluid as taught by Sommen (US 2021/00094047) in order to distribute air flow with a homogenous intensity in the reactor.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of Huettlin (DE 19528584) and further in view of Arms (US 1806779).
Regarding claim 12, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the method according to claim 1, wherein the reactor comprises a recuperator and a sheath connecting the recuperator to the blower.
Arms (US 1806779) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Page 1 lines 1-11, 24-33), wherein the reactor (Fig. 1 ‘A’) comprises a recuperator (Fig. 1 ‘C’’) and a sheath (Fig. 1 ‘C2’) connecting the recuperator to the blower (Fig. 1 ‘C2’ connects ‘C’’ to ‘B’).
Arms (US 1806779) explains that a first material may be separated from the air flow and discharged into a trap and the air flow may be directed to the intake side of the fan (Page 1 lines 56-62), and explains that no material laden air gets out into the room in which the system is operating (Page 1 lines 74-76).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the reactor comprises a recuperator and a sheath connecting the recuperator to the blower as taught by Arms (US 1806779) in order to recirculate the air and prevent material laden air from being discharged into the room or environment.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of She et al. (US 9889450).
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4), comprising the following successive steps for each batch:
- feeding in one of the batches into a fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2) defined by a reactor (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5, see Fig. 1 “cold mold fluidized bed”) and obtaining a fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2),
- the granules of the fed in batch being initially at rest in the fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-2, “static bed”), starting a fluidization and obtaining at least one fluidized bed (Paragraph 0039 lines 2-4) in the fluidization chamber, the fluidization being obtained by at least one ascending stream of fluid (Paragraph 0021 lines 7-11, see arrow in Fig. 1) passing through the fed in batch (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-5) and putting at least a fraction of the granules of the fed in batch in suspension (Paragraph 0039 lines 2-5), the fluidized bed being charged via the triboelectric effect (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-9),
- modification of the stream of fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 6-10) and feeding out at least 90% by mass of the fed in batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2) from the fluidizing chamber and obtaining a fed out batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2), and
- passage of the fed out batch through one or a plurality of electric fields suitable for separating the fed out batch (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-7) into at least a first mixture rich in granules of the first material and a second mixture rich in granules of the second material (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2).
Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching wherein the modification of the stream of fluid comprises an increase in the flow-rate of the stream of fluid, the feeding out comprising an ejection of at least 90% by mass of the fluidized bed out of the fluidization chamber caused by the increase in the flow-rate. Yang et al. (CN 111822151) explains that all of the fluidized particles are removed from the reactor and placed in an electrostatic field sorting device for separation, but does not explain how the particles are removed (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2).
She et al. (US 9889450) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 6-9), wherein the modification of the stream of fluid comprises an increase in the flow-rate of the stream of fluid (Col. 7 lines 42-48), the feeding out comprising an ejection of at least 90% by mass of the fluidized bed (Col. 7 lines 29-55) out of the fluidization chamber (Fig. 3 #212) caused by the increase in the flow-rate (Col. 7 lines 42-48).
She et al. (US 9889450) explains that the flow rate may be adjusted to selectively eject a specific size, shape, and/or density of the particles of powder through the outlet (Col. 7 lines 42-48).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the modification of the stream of fluid comprises an increase in the flow-rate of the stream of fluid, the feeding out comprising an ejection of at least 90% by mass of the fluidized bed out of the fluidization chamber caused by the increase in the flow-rate as taught by She et al. (US 9889450) in order to selectively eject particles of a specific size, shape, and/or density from the fluidization chamber.
Regarding claim 14, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the feeding out comprises an ejection of all the fluidized bed out of the fluidization chamber (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2).
Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching wherein the feeding out comprises an ejection of all the fluidized bed out of the fluidization chamber caused by the increase in the flow-rate. Yang et al. (CN 111822151) explains that all of the fluidized particles are removed from the reactor and placed in an electrostatic field sorting device for separation, but does not explain how the particles are removed (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2).
She et al. (US 9889450) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 6-9), wherein the feeding out comprises an ejection of particles in the fluidized bed (Col. 7 lines 29-55) out of the fluidization chamber (Fig. 3 #212) caused by the increase in the flow-rate (Col. 7 lines 42-48).
She et al. (US 9889450) explains that the flow rate may be adjusted to selectively eject a specific size, shape, and/or density of the particles of powder through the outlet (Col. 7 lines 42-48).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein the feeding out comprises an ejection of all the fluidized bed out of the fluidization chamber caused by the increase in the flow-rate as taught by She et al. (US 9889450) in order to eject all particles from the fluidization chamber for further processing.
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the reactor defines at least one circuit for the stream of fluid (Fig. 1 stream of fluid passing through “cold mold fluidized bed”), and wherein said ejection of at least 90% by mass of the fluidized bed out of the fluidization chamber is via an outlet in said circuit (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0040 lines 1-2).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111822151) in view of She et al. (US 9889450) and further in view of Carta et al. (US 3493109).
Regarding claim 16, Yang et al. (CN 111822151) lacks teaching the method according to claim 13, wherein said circuit forms a loop.
Carta et al. (US 3493109) teaches a method for separating, by batches, a mixture comprising granules of at least a first material and of a second material (Col. 1 lines 17-25), wherein said circuit (Fig. 1 circuit through #1, 2, 3, 23) forms a loop (Fig. 1 see loop of fluid through #1, 2, 3, 23).
Carta et al. (US 3493109) explains that the gaseous fluid circulating in the ducts is separated from the outside atmosphere and therefore it can be different from the air and maintained at a strictly controlled temperature and moisture, and additionally this type of structure avoids scattering into the atmosphere of the extremely fine particles (Col. 5 lines 57-69).
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 Yang et al. (CN 111822151) to include wherein said circuit forms a loop as taught by Carta et al. (US 3493109) in order to maintain the gaseous fluid at a strictly controlled temperature and moisture and avoid scattering of extremely fine particles into the atmosphere.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Huettlin discloses tilting of a fluidization chamber and does not teach tilting of a reactor comprising a fluid circuit and a blower, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to tiltably mount the entire reactor, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Yang teaches a reactor which defines a fluidization chamber, wherein the reactor defines a circuit for the stream of fluid, and the reactor including a blower for obtaining the stream of fluid in the circuit. Huettlin teaches the benefits of rotatably mounting the reactor relative to a frame for emptying the material within the reactor.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Yang et al. explains that all of the fluidized particles are removed from the reactor and placed in an electrostatic field sorting device for separation, but does not explain how the particles are removed (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-2), She explains that particles of specific size, density, etc. may be fed out of a fluidized bed by controlling the flow rate within the fluidized bed (Col. 7 lines 42-48). Yang teaches removing at least 90% of the particles as Yang removes all of the particles, and She teaches a mechanism for removing the fluidized particles from the reactor. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the discharging mechanism taught by She would allow the particles in Yang to be removed from the reactor and placed in a downstream sorting device for separation.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the loop as taught by Carta is not compatible with She’s teaching, the Examiner would like to clarify that the particles in Carta are able to exit the circuit as they are discharged on either side of #13, 14 while still providing a loop for the stream of fluid.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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