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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 5/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/30/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 5/3/2022 and 7/11/2023 have been considered and made of record.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a squeezing-diluting-unpacking module” in claim 1;
“at least one settling module” in claim 1; and
“a thickening/dewatering module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiljan et al. (US 5,377,917).
The reference of Wiljan et al. discloses:
An apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2) for pretreatment of organic waste from the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste and/or from food industries, upstream of an anaerobic digester, the apparatus comprising:
- a squeezing-diluting-unpacking module (11, 12, 13) configured to receive an input waste stream of packaged waste (11) and a dilution fluid (process water)(50), to lacerate packaging of the packaged waste, and to output a coarser non-digestible stream (28) and a comparatively dirty and comparatively liquid slurry (24) (Note: As discussed previously, the claim element is considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) and the structure of Wiljan et al. is considered a functional equivalent to that of the instant disclosure),
- at least one settling module (14, 18, 19, 20) connected to receive the comparatively dirty and comparatively liquid slurry (24) and configured to allow inerts in the comparatively dirty and comparatively liquid slurry (24) to sediment and to output a finer inerts stream (21) and a comparatively refined slurry (lightweight substances)(col. 7, lines 28-34) (Note: As discussed previously, the claim element is considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) and the structure of Wiljan et al. is considered a functional equivalent to that of the instant disclosure),
- a thickening/dewatering module (35) connected to receive the comparatively refined slurry (lightweight substances) and configured to separate and output a liquid stream (36) and a comparatively dewatered slurry (38) wherein the comparatively dewatered slurry (38) is output to the anaerobic digester (43) and the liquid stream (36) is connected to supply liquid making up at least part of the dilution fluid (process water)(50) received at squeezing-diluting-unpacking module (11, 12, 13)(Figs. 1 and 2) (Note: As discussed previously, the claim element is considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) and the structure of Wiljan et al. is considered a functional equivalent to that of the instant disclosure).
With respect to claim 4, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the apparatus disclosed by the reference of Wiljan et al. is considered to be structurally capable of providing the operating conditions required of claim 4. Note: Statements on intended use do not carry patentable weight in apparatus-type claims if the structure is the same and capable of providing the same intended conditions.
With respect to claim 11, the plant includes an anaerobic digester (43) is provided downstream of the thickening/dewatering module (35).
With respect to claim 13, the plant includes a buffering unit (39) arranged between thickening/dewatering module (35) and the anaerobic digester (43), the buffer unit (39) comprising a tank storing comparatively dewater slurry (38) and a pump (44) selectively pumping the comparatively dewatered slurry (38) through at least one grinder (45) to the downstream anaerobic digester (43).
With respect to claim 14, the buffer unit (39) lacks any recirculation of the comparatively dewatered slurry (38) through a sand trap.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiljan et al. (US 5,377,917) in view of Gray et al. (US 7,410,583).
The reference of Wiljan et al. has been discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 11.
With respect to claims 5-10, the reference of Wiljan et al. does not disclose the specific features of claims 5-10.
The reference of Gray et al. discloses the following:
With respect to the settling module of claims 5 and 6, the reference of Gray et al. discloses a device for a similar anaerobic digestion system comprising a settling module that includes an elongate basin, the basin including at least one chamber, a worm screw extending on the bottom thereof and a motor operable to drive rotation of the worm screw at a comparatively low speed for collecting the inerts that sediment from the comparatively dirty slurry (Figs. 1-3) and the bottom portion of the elongate basin of the settling module is divided into at least two chambers, each chamber having tapered walls, and the worm screw is a first worm screw extending on the bottom of one respective chamber and one or more other worm screws respectively extend on the bottom of the other respective ones of the chambers (Figs. 8 and 9).
With respect to claim 7, the reference of Gray et al. discloses the squeezing-diluting-unpacking module includes an upwardly conveying worm screw rotating at a comparatively high speed within a cylindrical filter enclosed by a nozzled manifold for inletting the dilution fluid (Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 8, the reference of Gray et al. discloses the thickening/dewatering module includes a solid separator that includes a case under pressure, a fine filter and a coaxially inner worm screw being arranged in case, the inner worm screw rotating at a comparatively low speed (Figs. 4 and 5).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the reference of Gray et al. discloses the squeezing-diluting-unpacking module, said at least one settling module, and said thickener/dewatering module are all included in a single structure, forming one and the same machine (Fig. 6); and the structure of said machine is formed from plural frames assembled together, wherein each of said squeezing-diluting-unpacking module, said at least one settling module, and said thickener/dewatering module has such a size as to allow shipment with a standard shipping container, or wherein the squeezing-diluting-unpacking module and the settling module together have such a size as to allow shipment with a standard shipping container (Fig. 6).
In view of the above teachings and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system disclosed in Wiljan et al. by incorporating the known machine structures disclosed by Gray et al. to affect pre-treatment as would have been conventional in the art as evidenced by the reference of Gray et al.
With respect to claim 12, the reference of Wiljan et al. discloses the treatment of the wastewater from the anaerobic digester (Fig. 1) but does not disclose a solid separator and/or returning of the liquid as process water.
The reference of Gray discloses that it is known in the art to provide a solid separator (63) in communication with an anaerobic digester (60) and return the separated liquid as process water (Fig. 1).
In view of these teachings and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plant of the primary reference with a solid separator and waster water treatment plant as is conventional in the art for treating and returning surplus water to the initial processing station as is conventional in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 3 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest an apparatus for pretreatment of organic waste, in the claimed environment or scope of claim, that includes a dry matter content sensor arranged between said squeezing-diluting-unpacking module and said at least one settling module and a controller configured to receive an output signal from the dry matter content sensor and to provide a control signal input to a control valve configured to meter the dilution fluid input to the squeezing-diluting-unpacking module.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references of Josse et al. (US 2016/0346788) and Grotebevelsborg (WO 2017/076514) are cited as organic waste processing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB