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 June 1st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claims 11-13 have been canceled. Claim 14 has been added. Claims 1-10 and 14 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the objections, 112(b) rejections, and 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 2nd, 2026.
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 and 14 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 preamble of claim 1 (lines 1-10) appears to claim two different statutory classes, an apparatus and a method of using. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claims 2-10 and 14 are rejected as they are dependent upon claim 1.
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 § 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 1-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (US 2020/0298246) in view of Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940).
Regarding claim 1, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches a method for collecting solid particles contained in a soup of organic matter (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5), the method implementing a device comprising:
a trommel (Fig. 2 #4) provided with openings (Fig. 2 #6) to form a screen that retains the solid particles and allows the 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. 3 #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),
the method comprising the following steps:
driving in rotation the trommel and the brush via the motorised means (Paragraph 0036 lines 18-22); and
introducing the organic matter into the trommel (Paragraph 0036 lines 1-6).
Gomez (US 2020/0298246) lacks teaching introducing the soup of organic matter into the trommel.
Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940) teaches method for collecting solid particles contained in a soup of organic matter (Col. 1 lines 14-17), comprising introducing the soup of organic matter into the trommel (Col. 3 lines 61-67).
Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940) explains that the pressed organic waste makes up a wet fraction (Col. 3 lines 61-67), and explains that certain biological treatments such as high-solids slurry and wet (low solids) anaerobic digestion require the waste to be reduced in size and homogenized (Col. 1 lines 45-48). Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940) further explains that in this system, the paddles disperse the wet fraction at least partially along the length of the screen and most of the organic fraction is thrown out through the perforations of the screen (Col. 2 lines 54-64). Finally, Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940) explains that the organic waste may be diluted before it is fed into the device (Col. 2 lines 64-67), in order to reach the target treatment efficiency to produce sufficiently clean separated contaminants and prevent solids build up in parts of the screen (Col. 6 lines 45-62).
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 introducing the soup of organic matter into the trommel as taught by Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940) in order to produce sufficiently clean separated contaminants and prevent build up in parts of the trommel.
Regarding claim 2, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the method 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 method 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 method 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 method 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 method 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 method according to claim 5, 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 method 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 method 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 10, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) lacks teaching the method 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 method 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.
Regarding claim 14, Gomez (US 2020/0298246) teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the unclogging roller (Fig. 2 #60) is mounted outside the trommel (Fig. 2 see #60 mounted outside #4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 1st, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grotebevelsborg (US 11033940).
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