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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on April 29, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 have been amended. Claims 8, 18 and 19 have been cancelled. No new claim has been added. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 20-23 are pending. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 20-23 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amended claim 1 (claim 20 or claim 23) to recite the recitation of “a combustor to burn the third solid feces in the presence of oxygen” in the context of a solid feces treater as claimed.
Applicant argues that the claim 1 (claim 20 or claim 23) and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Michiyasu et al. (JP 2007-105605 A) alone or in a combination with other cited prior art(s), this is because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the amended features of the solid feces treater, “a combustor to burn the third solid feces in the presence of oxygen”. See Remarks, pages 7-10.
In response, the applicants’ arguments direct a newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot. Applicant's amendment necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified ground of rejections to claims 1-7, 9-17 and 20-23 are presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michiyasu et al. (JP 2007-105605 A, please refer to the attached English translation document, hereinafter “Michiyasu”), in view of Gold et al. (Faecal sludge as a solid industrial fuel: a pilot-scale study, IWA Publishing 2017, Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 07.2 | 2017, hereinafter “Gold”).
In regard to claims 1, 21 and 22, Michiyasu discloses a livestock excrement, such as cow, pig and chicken dungs, treater (i.e., a solid feces treater) (pages 2-5; see Fig. 1 of the original Japanese document) comprising:
(i) a dehydrator (2, Fig. 1, a hopper 2 having a drying stirrer 23 to reduce water content in the feces) to evaporate a liquid component from first solid feces to produce second solid feces, which meets the recitation “extracting, using the dehydrator, the liquid component from the first solid feces to produce the second solid feces” (claim 21);
(ii) a drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) to evaporate a liquid component of the second solid feces to produce third solid feces, which meets the recitation “evaporating, using the dryer, the liquid component of the second solid feces to produce the third solid feces” (claim 21); and
(iii) a carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) to burn the third solid feces which meets the recitation “burning, using the combustor, the third solid feces (claim 21).
But Michiyasu does not explicitly disclose: (I) the dryer comprises a first dry chamber into which the second solid feces are input, a first dry screw provided in the first dry chamber, a second dry chamber to discharge the third solid feces, and a second dry screw provided in the second dry chamber, and wherein the second dry screw has a thermal resistance higher than that of the first dry screw; and (II) a combustor to burn the third solid feces in the presence of oxygen.
Regarding (I), Michiyasu discloses the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) comprises a drying furnace cylinder (31, Fig. 1) and a screw conveyor (35, Fig. 1). Michiyasu discloses a hot gas is supplied to the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) through a hot gas supply passage (62, Fig. 1) in order to dry solid feces being transported therein, wherein the solid feces is transported from right to left direction (Fig. 1).
Choosing the first half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “a first dry chamber having a first dry screw”, and the remaining half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “a second dry chamber having a second dry screw” is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting a known portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “first” and “second” dry chamber in a known dryer.
In addition, since the feces contained in the first half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) comprise higher content of moisture than that of the feces contained in the second half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1), one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that higher temperature profile is created in the second half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) compared to the first half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1). Consequently, the feature of the second dry screw has a thermal resistance higher than that of the first dry screw is considered obvious practice to one skilled in the art depending on the temperature distribution (profile) along the horizontal axis of the drying furnace cylinder (31, Fig. 1).
The teachings of Michiyasu, set forth above, renders the recitation “inputting the second solid feces into the first dry chamber; and discharging the third solid feces from the second dry chamber” (claim 22) prima facie obvious.
Regarding the recitation of “the combustor is configured to pass heat generated by combustion of the third solid feces through the second dry chamber and the first dry chamber sequentially”, Michiyasu discloses a blower (82, Fig. 1) that supplies heat that resulted from the carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) to the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) (page 3, 4th paragraph from the bottom). The gas flow resulted from the carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) is transported as: 4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 65 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 83 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 61 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 62 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 82 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3 (drying furnace) (See the gas flow diagram in Fig. 1). Since the gas is transported countercurrent in the drying furnace (i.e., opposite to the direction of solid feces transport), the teachings of Michiyasu renders the recitation “the combustor is configured to pass heat generated by combustion of the third solid feces through the second dry chamber and the first dry chamber sequentially” prima facie obvious.
Regarding (II) a combustor to burn the third solid feces in the presence of oxygen, Gold discloses a process for making faecal sludge as a solid industrial fuel (Title; Abstract). Gold discloses the process comprises faecal sludge drying and subsequent step of faecal sludge combustion (pages 244-245; Fig. 1, the ventilation in Fig. 1 directs the combustion is conducted in the presence of air or oxygen).
It is noted that both the Michiyasu and Gold references direct a dehydrator for separating solid from a slurry mixture and subsequent step of combusting the dried sludge.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Michiyasu, in view of Gold, to provide the features of “a combustor to burn the third solid feces in the presence of oxygen”, this is because (1) Gold discloses a process for making faecal sludge as a solid industrial fuel, wherein the process comprises faecal sludge drying and subsequent step of faecal sludge combustion in the presence of air or oxygen (Gold, pages 244-245; Fig. 1), as set forth above, and (2) this involves application of a known features of combusting faecal sludge in the presence of oxygen to make a solid industrial fuel thereby improving a known livestock excrement treater with predictable results.
In regard to claim 23, Michiyasu discloses a livestock excrement, such as cow, pig and chicken dungs, treater (i.e., a solid feces treater) (pages 2-5; see Fig. 1 of the original Japanese document) comprising:
(i) a dehydrator (2, Fig. 1, a hopper 2 having a drying stirrer 23 to reduce water content in the feces) to evaporate a liquid component from first solid feces to produce second solid feces, which meets the recitation “extracting, using the dehydrator, the liquid component from the first solid feces to produce the second solid feces” (claim 21);
(ii) a drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) to evaporate a liquid component of the second solid feces to produce third solid feces, which meets the recitation “evaporating, using the dryer, the liquid component of the second solid feces to produce the third solid feces” (claim 21); and
(iii) a carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) to burn the third solid feces which meets the recitation “burning, using the combustor, the third solid feces (claim 21).
But Michiyasu does not explicitly disclose the combustor to burn the third solid feces in the presence of oxygen.
However, Gold discloses a process for making faecal sludge as a solid industrial fuel (Title; Abstract). Gold discloses the process comprises faecal sludge drying and subsequent step of faecal sludge combustion (pages 244-245; Fig. 1, the ventilation in Fig. 1 directs the combustion is conducted in the presence of air or oxygen).
It is noted that both the Michiyasu and Gold references direct a dehydrator for separating solid from a slurry mixture and subsequent step of combusting the dried sludge.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Michiyasu, in view of Gold, to provide the features of “a combustor to burn the third solid feces in the presence of oxygen”, this is because (1) Gold discloses a process for making faecal sludge as a solid industrial fuel, wherein the process comprises faecal sludge drying and subsequent step of faecal sludge combustion in the presence of air or oxygen (pages 244-245; Fig. 1), as set forth above, and (2) this involves application of a known features of combusting faecal sludge in the presence of oxygen to make a solid industrial fuel thereby improving a known livestock excrement treater with predictable results.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michiyasu, in view of Gold, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-0934578 B1, please refer to the attached English translation document, hereinafter “Choi”).
In regard to claim 2, Michiyasu discloses the dehydrator (2, Fig. 1) comprises a screw conveyor (21, Fig. 1) attached at the lowermost part of the hopper (2, Fig. 1) rotating around a rotating shaft 21a spirally around the rotating shaft 21a by the rotation of the motor 73 (page 3, 3rd paragraph from the top).
Michiyasu, in view of Gold, does not explicitly disclose the features of: the dehydrator comprises a dehydration element, the dehydration element comprising: a plurality of fixed discs and a plurality of moving discs, which are alternately arranged; and a dehydration screw penetrating the plurality of fixed discs and the plurality of moving discs, and wherein the plurality of moving discs are arranged to move such that a center of each of the plurality of moving discs rotates around a centerline on which centers of the plurality of fixed discs are arranged.
However, Choi discloses a screw-type dewatering device of the rotating ring having rotating structure that forms a frame and the body housing containing the screw; a solid-liquid separator in which solids are aggregated to dehydrate sludge in a large mass; a transfer screw installed in the solid-liquid separation and having a screw wing formed therein; a driving device to rotate the transfer screw; a spray device for washing foreign substances in the solid-liquid separator; and a control unit for controlling the operation of the screw-type dewatering device (page 1, Abstract).
Choi discloses the solid-liquid separator (2, Fig. 1) has one side coupled to the sludge inlet 11, the other side coupled to the cake outlet 12, and the dewatering unit 20 for separating the sludge from the solid. The dehydration portion 20 has three or more fastening shafts 21, and a plurality of ring-shaped fixing ring formed on the outer edge of the three or more fastening ribs 220 to be fitted to the fastening shaft 21 and a plurality of ring-shaped spacers (23) coupled to the fastening ribs (220) of the fixing ring(22) to form microgaps, and between the fixing ring (22) and the fixing ring (22). A plurality of ring-shaped flow rings 24 installed on the rotational track of the transfer screw 3 to prevent the microcaps from being blocked, and the flow ring 24 to flow on the rotational track of the transfer screw 3. It consists of a floating ring auxiliary drive device 25. The fixing ring 22 is fixed to the frame 14 and the frame 14 on the side of the sludge inlet 11 by the fastening shaft 21 (page 3, 1st paragraph from the bottom thru page 4, 1st paragraph from the top).
It is noted that both the Michiyasu and Choi references direct a dehydrator for separating solid from a slurry mixture.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, to provide the features of: the dehydrator comprises a dehydration element, the dehydration element comprising: a plurality of fixed discs and a plurality of moving discs, which are alternately arranged; and a dehydration screw penetrating the plurality of fixed discs and the plurality of moving discs, and wherein the plurality of moving discs are arranged to move such that a center of each of the plurality of moving discs rotates around a centerline on which centers of the plurality of fixed discs are arranged, this is because (1) Choi discloses the dehydrator comprises a dehydration element, the dehydration element comprising: a plurality of fixed discs and a plurality of moving discs (page 3, 1st paragraph from the bottom thru page 4, 1st paragraph from the top), as set forth above, and (2) this involves application of a known features of screw-type dewatering device to a dehydrator to improve a known livestock excrement treater with predictable results.
In regard to claims 3, 4 and 6, Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, as set forth above, renders the features of “the dehydrator comprises a dehydration element, the dehydration element comprising: a plurality of fixed discs and a plurality of moving discs, which are alternately arranged; and a dehydration screw penetrating the plurality of fixed discs and the plurality of moving discs, and wherein the plurality of moving discs are arranged to move such that a center of each of the plurality of moving discs rotates around a centerline on which centers of the plurality of fixed discs are arranged” obvious.
But Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, does not explicitly disclose specific embodiments of dehydration element recited in claims 3, 4 and 6.
However, it is reasonably interpreted that the specific embodiments of dehydration element recited in claims 3, 4 and 6 are considered as optimal design of the dehydration element that any person skilled in the art is enabled to conduct through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize dehydration element activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the dehydration operation (residence time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the dehydration element bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the feces feedstock.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dehydrator comprising a dehydration element as taught by Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, and prepare specific embodiments of dehydration element recited in claims 3, 4 and 6 of claimed invention, because the teachings of Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, addresses the features of “the dehydrator comprises a dehydration element, the dehydration element comprising: a plurality of fixed discs and a plurality of moving discs, which are alternately arranged; and a dehydration screw penetrating the plurality of fixed discs and the plurality of moving discs, and wherein the plurality of moving discs are arranged to move such that a center of each of the plurality of moving discs rotates around a centerline on which centers of the plurality of fixed discs are arranged” and the specific embodiments of dehydration element recited in claims 3, 4 and 6 are considered as optimal design of the dehydration element that any person skilled in the art is enabled to conduct through routine experimentation. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the claimed features in claims 3, 4 and/or 6 are unexpectedly good or criticality of using the claimed features can be shown.
In regard to claim 5, Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, discloses discharging and cutting of the solid feces using the plurality of fixed discs and the plurality of moving discs in the dehydrator, thereafter, transporting the dried solid feces to the combustor. The final shape of the solid feces, such as a pellet, is obvious variations depending on the shape of outlet at the discharging location. Therefore, in light of teachings from Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, the recitations recited in claim 5 is considered as a routine practice conducted by one skilled in the art.
In regard to claim 7, Choi discloses a presence of a back pressure plate (32, Fig. 1) in order to restrict the discharge of the cake C to apply pressure to the solid-liquid separator so that the sludge S is dehydrated (page 3, 5th paragraph from the top). The location of the second solid feces being discharged between the pressure element and the dehydration element is obvious in view of the embodiment shown in Fig. 1 of Fig. 2. The final shape of the solid feces, such as a flake shape, is obvious variations depending on the shape of outlet at the discharging location.
In regard to claims 9, 10, 11 and 14, as set forth above, Michiyasu renders the features of “a first dry chamber into which the second solid feces are input wherein a first dry screw provided in the first dry chamber, and a second dry chamber to discharge discharging the third solid feces, wherein a second dry screw provided in the second dry chamber” obvious.
But Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, does not explicitly disclose specific embodiments of dehydration element recited in claims 9, 10, 11 and 14.
However, it is reasonably interpreted that the specific embodiments of dryer recited in claims 9, 10, 11 and 14 are considered as optimal design of the dryer that any person skilled in the art is enabled to conduct through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize dryer activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the drying operation (residence time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the dryer bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the feces feedstock.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dryer as taught by Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, and prepare specific embodiments of dryer recited in claims 9, 10, 11 and 14 of claimed invention, because the teachings of Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Choi, addresses the features of “a first dry chamber into which the second solid feces are input wherein a first dry screw provided in the first dry chamber, and a second dry chamber to discharge discharging the third solid feces, wherein a second dry screw provided in the second dry chamber”, and the specific embodiments of dryer recited in claims 9, 10, 11 and 14 are considered as optimal design of the dryer that any person skilled in the art is enabled to conduct through routine experimentation. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the claimed features in claims 3, 4 and/or 6 are unexpectedly good or criticality of using the claimed features can be shown.
In regard to claim 12, as set forth above, Michiyasu discloses the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) comprises a drying furnace cylinder (31, Fig. 1) and a screw conveyor (35, Fig. 1). Choosing the first half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “a first dry chamber having a first dry screw”, and the remaining half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “a second dry chamber having a second dry screw” is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting a known portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “first” and “second” dry chamber in a known dryer.
In the same manner, choosing a quarter portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1), in sequence, as “a first dry chamber having a first dry screw”, “a second dry chamber having a second dry screw”, “a third dry chamber having a third dry screw”, and “a fourth dry chamber having a fourth dry screw”, respectively, is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting a known portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as first, scone, third and fourth dry chamber in a known dryer. The recitation recited in claim 12 is also considered prima facie obvious
In regard to claim 13, Michiyasu discloses a blower (82, Fig. 1) that supplies heat that was resulted from the carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) to the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) (page 3, 4th paragraph from the bottom).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michiyasu, in view of Gold, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukasa (JPH10-61930A, all citations from the attached English translation document; refer Figs. 1-3 of the original Japanese document).
In regard to claim 15, Michiyasu discloses the carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) to burn the third solid feces.
Michiyasu, in view of Gold, does not explicitly disclose the features of the combustor comprises: a combustion drum defining a combustion path therein; a first grid plate provided at a lower portion of the combustion drum; and an ignition element to combust combusting the third solid feces placed on the first grid plate.
However, Tsukasa discloses a waste incinerator comprising: (i) a first gas injection mechanism, injecting first secondary combustion gas against flame at the side of a drying belt grate; (ii) a second gas injection mechanism, injecting second secondary combustion gas against the exhaust gas stream of combustion, which is deviated by the first secondary combustion gas; and (iii) a third gas injection mechanism, injecting third secondary combustion gas against the exhaust gas stream of combustion, which is deviated by the second secondary combustion gas, while the ratio of amounts of injection of the first secondary combustion gas to the second secondary combustion gas to the third secondary combustion gas is adjusted so as to reduce the amount of carbon monoxide contained in the exhaust gas (page 1). Tsukasa discloses the combustor comprises: a combustion drum defining a combustion path therein (7, Fig. 1); a first grid plate (15, Fig. 2, a screen) provided at a lower portion of the combustion drum; and an ignition element to combust combusting the third solid feces placed on the first grid plate (page 5).
It is noted that both the Michiyasu and Tsukasa references direct a combustor for combusting waste material.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Tsukasa, to provide the features of the combustor comprises: a combustion drum defining a combustion path therein; a first grid plate provided at a lower portion of the combustion drum; and an ignition element to combust combusting the third solid feces placed on the first grid plate, this is because (1) Tsukasa discloses the combustor comprises: a combustion drum defining a combustion path therein (7, Fig. 1); a first grid plate provided at a lower portion of the combustion drum (15, Fig. 2); and an ignition element to combust combusting the third solid feces placed on the first grid plate (page 5), as set forth above, and (2) this involves application of a known features of combustor device to improve a known livestock excrement treater with predictable results.
In regard to claim 16, Tsukasa discloses an air supply means (9, Fig. 1) comprising air supply pipe (9a, Fig. 1) under the first grid plate (15, Fig. 2, a screen) disposed at a lower portion of the combustion drum (page 4).
In regard to claim 17, Tsukasa discloses a throttle portion (7a, Fig. 1) (i.e., an air compression area) that has a reduced width, and gas injection mechanism (1B and 1C, Fig. 1) beneath the throttle portion (7a, Fig. 1). Tsukasa discloses the combustor comprises: a combustion drum defining a combustion path therein (7, Fig. 1); a first grid plate (15, Fig. 2, a screen) provided at a lower portion of the combustion drum; and an ignition element to combust combusting the third solid feces placed on the first grid plate (page 5). Since the combustion drum defining a combustion path therein (7, Fig. 1) and comprises a first grid plate (15, Fig. 2, a screen), wherein the screen is expected to comprise multiple holes, this meets the recited recitation “the combustion drum further includes a plurality of second air holes disposed at an upper portion of the combustion drum”. Since there are cross section area changes between the plurality of first air holes and the plurality of second air holes, and according to the Bernoulli's principle in fluid mechanics, the configuration taught by Tsukasa renders the recitation “wherein the combustion path further includes an air compression area disposed between the plurality of first air holes and the plurality of second air holes, and wherein the combustion path has a reduced width in the air compression area” prima facie obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michiyasu, in view of Gold, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshiharu (JP 2005-211896 A, all citations from the attached English translation document; refer Fig. 1 of the original Japanese document).
In regard to claim 20, Michiyasu discloses a livestock excrement, such as cow, pig and chicken dungs, treater (i.e., a solid feces treater) (pages 2-5; Fig. 1 of the original Japanese document) comprising:
(i) a dehydrator (2, Fig. 1, a hopper 2 having a drying stirrer 23 to reduce water content in the feces) to evaporate a liquid component from first solid feces to produce second solid feces;
(ii) a drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) to evaporate a liquid component of the second solid feces to produce third solid feces; and
(iii) a carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) to burn the third solid feces.
But Michiyasu, in view of Gold, does not explicitly disclose the dryer comprises a first dry chamber into which the second solid feces are input, a first dry screw provided in the first dry chamber, a second dry chamber to discharge the third solid feces, and a second dry screw provided in the second dry chamber, and wherein the second dry screw has a thermal resistance higher than that of the first dry screw.
However, Michiyasu discloses the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) comprises a drying furnace cylinder (31, Fig. 1) and a screw conveyor (35, Fig. 1). Michiyasu discloses a hot gas is supplied to the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) through a hot gas supply passage (62, Fig. 1) in order to dry solid feces being transported therein, wherein the solid feces is transported from right to left direction (Fig. 1).
Choosing the first half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “a first dry chamber having a first dry screw”, and the remaining half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “a second dry chamber having a second dry screw” is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting a known portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) as “first” and “second” dry chamber in a known dryer.
In addition, since the feces contained in the first half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) comprise higher content of moisture than that of the feces contained in the second half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1), one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that higher temperature profile is created in the second half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) compared to the first half portion of the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1). Consequently, the feature of the second dry screw has a thermal resistance higher than that of the first dry screw is considered obvious practice to one skilled in the art depending on the temperature distribution (profile) along the horizontal axis of the drying furnace cylinder (31, Fig. 1).
Regarding the recitation of “the combustor is configured to pass heat generated by combustion of the third solid feces through the second dry chamber and the first dry chamber sequentially”, Michiyasu discloses a blower (82, Fig. 1) that supplies heat that resulted from the carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) to the drying furnace (i.e., a dryer) (3, Fig. 1) (page 3, 4th paragraph from the bottom). The gas flow resulted from the carbonization furnace (i.e., a combustor) (4, Fig. 1) is transported as: 4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 65 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 83 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 61 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 62 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 82 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3 (drying furnace) (See the gas flow diagram in Fig. 1). Since the gas is transported countercurrent direction (i.e., opposite to the direction of solid feces transport) in the drying furnace, the teachings of Michiyasu renders the recitation “the combustor is configured to pass heat generated by combustion of the third solid feces through the second dry chamber and the first dry chamber sequentially” prima facie obvious.
Michiyasu does not explicitly disclose the features of: a toilet bowl; a liquid feces treater to receive treatment apparatus receiving and treating liquid feces from the toilet bowl; a first solid feces treater to receive treatment apparatus receiving solid feces from the toilet bowl and water-treat the solid feces to produce first solid feces in a state of sludge.
However, Yoshiharu discloses a feces treatment system comprising storage tank (11, Fig. 1) connected to toilet bowl; a vacuum evaporation tank (12, Fig. 1) (i.e., a liquid feces treater to receive and treat liquid feces from the toilet bowl); an incinerator (14, Fig. 1) and an aggregator (21, Fig. 1) (pages 2-3).
It is noted that both the Michiyasu and Yoshiharu references direct a feces treatment system.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Michiyasu, in view of Gold, and further in view of Yoshiharu, to provide the features of: a toilet bowl; a liquid feces treater to receive treatment apparatus receiving and treating liquid feces from the toilet bowl; a first solid feces treater to receive treatment apparatus receiving solid feces from the toilet bowl and water-treat the solid feces to produce first solid feces in a state of sludge, this is because (1) Yoshiharu discloses a feces treatment system comprising storage tank (11, Fig. 1) connected to toilet bowl; a vacuum evaporation tank (12, Fig. 1) (i.e., a liquid feces treater to receive and treat liquid feces from the toilet bowl); an incinerator (14, Fig. 1) and an aggregator (21, Fig. 1) (pages 2-3), and (2) this involves application of a known features of feces treatment system to improve a known livestock excrement treater with predictable results.
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 YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights