DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/29/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt (US 5951947 A) in view of Ruan (CN 105621774 A) and Chung (KR 20120015974 A).
Regarding claim 45, Hunt discloses an apparatus for producing solid dry manure, comprising: a microwave radiation source (Fig. 1, 18) operably coupled to the first conveyor (Fig. 1, 20)
Hunt fails to disclose:
a solid manure separator operably coupled to a first conveyor; and
an infrared radiation source operably coupled to the first conveyor,
wherein the infrared radiation source is disposed between the solid manure separator and the microwave radiation source.
Ruan teaches a system for drying solid waste comprising a solid-liquid separator (Fig. 5, 4) operably coupled to a conveyor (Fig. 5, 3). After the solid waste is dewatered in the separator and transported on the conveyor, the waste is then sent to the dryer for drying.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hunt to include a solid manure separator operably coupled to a first conveyor (Hunt, 20), so that the dewatered manure can be easily stored (within bin 14 of Hunt) and transported along the first conveyor (Hunt, 20), without the manure sticking onto the surfaces. Moreover, dewatering the manure before irradiating it with microwaves speeds up the irradiation process. With the modification, the manure is dewatered using the solid-liquid separator (Ruan), deposited onto a conveyor (Ruan), and then deposited into the bin 14 of Hunt before continuing onward on the first conveyor (Hunt, 20).
Chung teaches a method for drying sludge (e.g., food waste, sewage) (see “Technical-Field”), comprising: an infrared radiation source (Fig. 3, 17) operably coupled to the first conveyor (2), wherein the infrared radiation source is disposed adjacent to and before the microwave radiation source (Fig. 3, 9) along the conveyance direction.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hunt to include an infrared radiation source operably coupled to the first conveyor, and placed adjacent to and before the microwave radiation source. With the modification, the infrared radiation source would be disposed between the solid manure separator (Ruan) and the microwave radiation source (Hunt).
The motivation to combine is to assist in drying the manure and killing the microbes in the manure. Infrared heating is ideal for heating and drying the surface of the manure since the radiation does not penetrate as deeply, whereas microwave heating penetrates more deeply and is better for drying the interior of the manure; therefore, having both infrared and microwave heating provides for more uniform drying of the manure. Moreover, incorporating the infrared heating would result in faster drying because it is an additional heating source.
Regarding claim 46, modified Hunt discloses wherein the solid manure separator (Ruan, 4) is operably coupled to the first conveyor (Hunt, 20) via a second conveyor (Ruan, 3).
Regarding claim 47, modified Hunt discloses wherein the first conveyor (Hunt, 20) is operably coupled to a hopper (Hunt, 14), and the second conveyor (Ruan, 3) is configured to dispose solid manure into the hopper (see rejection of claim 45).
Claim(s) 48, 52, 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt (US 5951947 A) in view of Ruan (CN 105621774 A) and Chung (KR 20120015974 A), as applied to claim 45, and further in view of Hammer (US 20080201978 A1).
Regarding claim 48, Hunt fails to disclose wherein the second conveyer is inclined such that the inclined end of the second conveyor is disposed above the hopper. However, Hammer teaches a drying device for drying manure, comprising a conveyer (Fig. 1, 7) inclined such that the inclined end of the conveyor is disposed above the hopper (Fig. 1, 8).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hunt wherein the second conveyer is inclined such that the inclined end of the second conveyor is disposed above the hopper. The motivation to combine is so that conveyors, hopper, microwave radiation source, and separator can be optimally arranged (e.g., for compactness) so that they can fit inside a room or space in a building. Moreover, the various components could be optimized in space so that personnel can easily operate, maintain, clean, and repair the various components.
Regarding claim 52, Hunt fails to disclose wherein the first conveyor is operably coupled to a third conveyor. However, Hammer teaches a drying device for drying manure, comprising a first conveyor (10A/ 10B) operably coupled to a third conveyor (12).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hunt wherein the first conveyor is operably coupled to a third conveyor so that the decontaminated waste can be transported down the assembly line for further processing, packaging, or shipping. With the modification, the decontaminated waste would fall from the first conveyor (Hunt, 20) into a storage bin/feeder (Hunt, 22 or Hammer, 17) before being conveyed on the third conveyor.
Regarding claim 53, modified Hunt discloses wherein the third conveyor (Hammer, 12) is inclined, the lower portion of the third conveyor is operably coupled to a feeder (Hunt, 22 or Hammer, 17), and the first conveyor (Hunt, 20) is configured to dispose solid dry manure produced using the microwave radiation source into the feeder.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding the arguments directed at the amendments to claim 45, please see the reference Chung teaching the infrared and microwave heating sources, and their relative placements.
The arguments directed at Liu are moot since Liu is no longer used in any of the rejections.
Response to the Affidavit
Regarding item 2 of the affidavit, the assertion is moot since the rejections have been updated to include the reference, Chung, to teach an infrared heater located adjacent to and upstream from the microwave heater.
Regarding items 4, 8-10, none of the three modes are recited in the claims; therefore, the results from the tests are given limited weight.
Regarding items 5, 6, 10, the Examiner explained, in the rejection of claim 45, that the infrared and microwave EM waves would penetrate the manure at different depths; therefore, there would be more uniform heating and faster drying when both types of heating are used than if only one type was used.
Regarding item 7, the claims are not recited in a way where the system can be made modular or scalable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 Hoang can be reached on 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762