Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/119,080

DISPOSITIF DE COLLECTE DE PARTICULES SOLIDES CONTENUES DANS UNE SOUPE DE MATIRES ORGANIQUES

Non-Final OA §101§102§103§112
Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Examiner
DEVINE, MOLLY K
Art Unit
3653
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Green Creative
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
145 granted / 216 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
258
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 216 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Objections Claims 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 13, “An use” should read “A use” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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 12-13 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 12 recites the limitation "the packaging". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites a use of the device for collecting solid particles contained in a soup of organic matter without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP § 2173.05(q). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a use of a device for collecting solid particles contained in a soup of organic matter without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, wherein “use” claims as such do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP § 2173.05(q). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomez (US 2020/0298246). Regarding claim 1, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches a device for collecting solid particles contained in a soup of organic matter (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5), the device comprising: a trommel (Fig. 2 #4) provided with openings (Fig. 2 #6) to form a screen that retains solid particles and allows organic matter to pass through (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-8); a rotary brush (Fig. 2 #7) mounted in the trommel (Fig. 2 #7 mounted in #4) for brushing an inner surface of said trommel (Fig. 2 see #7 brushing inner surface of #4, Paragraph 0035 lines 7-8); motorised means (Fig. 2 #12, Paragraph 0036 lines 18-20) arranged to drive the trommel and the brush in rotation (Paragraph 0036 lines 18-22); a rolling cylinder (Fig. 2 #20) mounted in the trommel (Fig. 2 #20 mounted in #4) and arranged so that an outer surface of the rolling cylinder bears against the inner surface of the trommel (Fig. 2 see outer surface of #20 bearing against inner surface of #4) so as to force the organic matter to pass through the openings in the trommel (Paragraph 0037 lines 4-15). Regarding claim 2, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the brush (Fig. 2 #7) extends along an axis parallel to a longitudinal axis of the trommel (Fig. 2 see axis of #7 extends along axis parallel to axis of #4). Regarding claim 3, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the rolling cylinder (Fig. 2 #20) extends along an axis parallel to a longitudinal axis of the trommel (Fig. 2 see axis of #20 extends along axis parallel to axis of #4). Regarding claim 4, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the device according to claim 1, comprising unclogging means (Fig. 2 #60) arranged to at least partially unblock the openings (Fig. 2 #6) in the trommel during the rotation of said trommel (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-4). Regarding claim 5, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the device according to claim 4, wherein the unclogging means (Fig. 2 #60) comprise an unclogging roller (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-4, “wheel”) provided with teeth (Fig. 9 #67) which are intended to engage at least partially in the openings (Fig. 2 #6) of the trommel during the rotation of said trommel (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-4). Regarding claim 6, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the device according to claim 5, wherein the teeth (Fig. 9 #67) of the unclogging roller (Fig. 2 #60) have a height greater than a thickness of the trommel (Paragraph 0040 lines 9-12). Regarding claim 7, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the device according to claim 5 or 6, wherein the unclogging roller (Fig. 2 #60) is mounted outside the trommel (Fig. 2 see #60 mounted outside #4). Regarding claim 8, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the device according to claim 1, comprising means for introducing the soup of organic matter into the trommel (Paragraph 0036 lines 1-6), the introduction means comprising a tube (Fig. 8 see tube formed around #43) having a first end that opens to the outside of the trommel (Fig. 8 see first end of tube formed around #43 opening to #41 “loading opening” outside of #4) and a second end that opens to the inside of the trommel (Fig. 5 see second end of tube formed around #43 that opens to inside of #4). Regarding claim 9, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the device according to claim 8, wherein the first end of the tube (Fig. 8 first end of tube formed around #43 in #40) is provided with means for connection to a source of a soup of organic matter (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-7). Regarding claim 11, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches a method for collecting solid particles contained in an soup of organic matter (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5), comprising introducing the soup of organic matter into the trommel (Fig. 2 #4, Paragraph 0036 lines 1-6) of the device according to claim 1 (see claim 1). Regarding claim 12, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches a packaging treatment plant (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5), comprising a device for collecting the organic matter adhering to the packaging in the form of a soup (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-3), and the device according to claim 1 for collecting the solid particles contained in the soup (see claim 1). Regarding claim 13, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches an use of the device according to claim 1 (see claim 1, Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5) for collecting solid particles contained in an soup of organic matter (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-14). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (US 2020/0298246) in view of Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940). Regarding claim 10, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) lacks teaching the device according to claim 8, wherein the second end of the tube is provided with a deflector arranged to direct the soup of organic matter towards the rolling cylinder. Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940) teaches device for collecting solid particles contained in a soup of organic matter (Col. 1 lines 14-17) wherein the second end of the tube (Fig. 1 second end of #12) is provided with a deflector (Fig. 1 second end of #12 provided at angle to axis of #1, therefore deflecting the travel of material) arranged to direct the soup of organic matter towards the rolling cylinder (Fig. 1 second end of #12 arranged to direct material toward #6). Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940) explains that the roller picks up the globs of organic waste as it enters through a feed opening at the first end of the screen and directs the globs outwards against perforated lateral walls of the cylindrical screen (Col. 5 lines 13-17). 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 Gomez (US 2020/0298246) to include wherein the second end of the tube is provided with a deflector arranged to direct the soup of organic matter towards the rolling cylinder as taught by Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940) in order to direct the material towards the trommel screen to undergo separation. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 07, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600581
SORTING METHOD AND DEVICE FOR SORTING PLATE-SHAPED OBJECTS, PREFERABLY GLASS PANEL CUT PIECES, METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PRODUCING GLASS PANEL CUT PIECES WITH A SORTING DEVICE OF THIS TYPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599914
CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF MULTIPLE SORTING FACILITIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599935
OPTIMIZATION OF SORTATION ORDER RECEPTACLE FILLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582997
DEVICE FOR MANIPULATING MAGNETIC BEADS AND ASSAY METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583017
CLASSIFICATION DEVICE AND SHOT PROCESSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 216 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month