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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0235637A2 in view of DeWaard et al (US 10,919,815), further in view of EP 3431183 B1. EP0235637A2 discloses a system for treating liquid manure comprising a feed pump, cutting unit, conditioning tank and centrifuge. (See claim 12 of the English translation.) EP0235637A2 suggests in Paragraph [0015] that the slurry is mixed during the conditioning stage. The differences between the system disclosed by EP0235637A2, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that EP0235637A2 does not disclose an agitator for homogenizing the manure slurry and that the centrifuge is a decanter centrifuge, and the plurality of controllers and sensors as recited in applicant’s claim 1. It would be obvious to provide an agitator in the system of EP0235637A2 for homogenizing the manure slurry. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since EP0235637A2 suggests in Paragraph [0015] that the slurry should be mixed, with a further teaching in Paragraph [004] that manure slurries should be homogenized before application. It would be further obvious from DeWaard et al to provide a decanter centrifuge as the centrifuge in the system of EP0235637A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since DeWaard et al disclose the use of a centrifuge to separate manure into a liquid fraction and solid fraction (see col. 17, lines 56-61 and col. 20, lines 53 and 54), and teach at col. 17, lines 54 and 55 that a decanter centrifuge can result in nearly 60% total phosphorus removal. It would be even further obvious from EP 3431183 to include a control system comprising a plurality of controllers and sensors for controlling at least a flow rate of the manure slurry entering the decanter centrifuge and for controlling motorized components of the system including the manure pump, cutting apparatus, infeed pump and centrifuge in the system of EP0235637A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since EP 3431183 B1 suggests in Paragraph [0035] that a slurry flow rate to a centrifuge should be controlled, and teaches ion Paragraph [0015] that at least one computer is configured to use data to transmit control signals to operate the bowl, conveyor and pump according to the respective control schemes, and in Paragraph [0032] that sensors are included to sample a plethora of parameters, including flow rate. EP 3431183 B1 also teaches in Paragraph [0028] that computer 30 is configured to regulate slurry flow rate. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate from EP 3431183 B1 that the cutting device of EP0235637A2 could also be controlled by the control system, since EP 3431183 B1 suggests in Paragraph [0044] that the centrifuge includes accessory devices which are controlled.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, DeWaard et al teach in col. 17, lines 54 and 55 that employing a decanter centrifuge can result in nearly 60% total phosphorus removal.
Regarding claim 4, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable length of the fibers leaving the cutting apparatus of EP0235637A2.
Regarding claims 5-10 and 12-15, the limitations recited therein would be matters of routine design for one of ordinary skill in the art, since EP0235637A2 suggests in Paragraph [0044] that any devices associated with the centrifuge can be controlled by the computer, which would include the cutting device of EP0235637A2.
Regarding claim 11, rotary cutters and grinders are conventionally used for cutting.
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, 4 and 6 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. In claims 2 and 6, the recitation of “selected from the group comprising” is improper Markush terminology. In claim 4, “desired length” is indefinite since it would not be ascertainable as to whether a given length is “desired”.
KR20150112308A is made of record for disclosing a centrifugal separator for processing wastes including an injection pump.
KR 10-2015-0112308 is made of record for disclosing a device for treating manure including a centrifuge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736