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.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that claim 27 should depend from claim 26 rather than claim 19 since claim 26 recites “a supporting layer” and “the at least one support layer” in claim 26 should be “the supporting layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“at least one moistening device” in claim 32; and
“a control device” in claim 35.
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 § 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 is indefinite because the claim recites that the grid elements of the at least one grid structure “are connected to one another releasably” while claim 1 recites that “the grid elements are at least substantially unconnected to one another”. As a result, it is not clear if the grid structures are connected to one another or unconnected to one another. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 19-32 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakemann et al. (EP 3015157 and corresponding English language machine translation)(Ref. “O” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026) in view of Carlson (US 3,750,887)(Attached PTO-892).
With respect to claim 19, the reference of Hakemann et al. discloses:
A biofilter (Figs. 1-3) for biological purification of an exhaust gas stream containing impurities, comprising at least one filter module (filter)(50) through which the exhaust gas stream is to flow, the filter module having at least one filter layer (upper layer)(5) comprising an organic filter material (biomaterial, wood chips) (page 5 of the translation), and the at least one filter layer being supported by at least one grid structure (wooden grate)(4),
wherein
the at least one grid structure is formed by elongated, at least substantially horizontally aligned grid elements that are at least substantially rectangular crosswise and arranged at least substantially at right angles to one another on top of each other, wherein the grid elements are in the form of wooden slats (4) and wooden beams (4) (Fig. 3) (page 6, 9th paragraph of the translation).
Claim 19 differs by reciting that “the grid elements are at least substantially unconnected to one another”.
While the reference of Hakemann et al. discloses a wooden grid (4) with two to three layers of intersecting wooden slats with forms a wooden pallet, the reference is silent whether the slats are connected or unconnected.
The reference of Carlson discloses that when forming layers of pallet-like units it is known to provide them in an unconnected manner and states that stacking them upon one another provides frictional engagement which substantially enhances stability of the stack of elements (Col. 4, lines 17-24).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the pallet-like elements of the primary reference of Hakemann et al. in an unconnected manner for the known and expected result of providing a manner recognized in the art for forming pallet-like structure for supporting a filter bed. The absence of fasteners would save time and money when assembling the structure.
With respect to claim 20, the grid elements are beam shaped (4) (Fig. 3) (page 6, 9th paragraph of the translation).
With respect to claim 21, the at least one grid structure (4) is formed of at least two grid layers (Figs. 2 and 3) (page 6, 9th paragraph of the translation).
With respect to claims 22-24 and 27, while the reference Hakemann is silent with respect to the size of the grid openings, volume occupied by the grid elements and/or the length of the grid elements and/or layer thickness of the grid structure, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal dimensions of the grid structure and elements through routine experimentation while considering the intend size of the biofilter and its specific use while maintaining the efficiency of the biofilter system.
With respect to claim 25, the at least one filter layer is designed as a bulk layer (5) of wood chips.
With respect to claim 26, the biofilter includes a supporting layer (51, 54) provided between the at least one filter layer (5) and the at least one grid structure (4) (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 28, the biofilter includes an inflow chamber (2, 3).
With respect to claim 29, the at least one filter layer has at least two filter layers (53 and 5) (Fig. 3).
With respect to claims 30 and 31, the biofilter includes a supporting framework (58) made of stainless steel (Fig. 2)(page 6, paragraphs 7 and 8, of the translation).
With respect to claim 32, the biofilter includes at least one moistening device with a spray nozzle (62)(Fig. 1) (Note: The instant specification discloses that a spray nozzle is a corresponding structure for the 35 USC 112(f) claim element).
With respect to claim 36, the at least one filter module is open at the top (Fig. 1).
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakemann et al. (EP 3015157 and corresponding English language machine translation)(Ref. “O” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026) in view of Carlson (US 3,750,887)(Attached PTO-892) taken further in view of Fukuyama (JP 4300621 and corresponding English language machine translation) (Ref. “N” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026) and Birdwell (US 5,409,834) (Ref. “A” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026).
The combination of the references of Hakemann et al. and Carlson has been discussed above with respect to claims 19 and 32.
While the reference of Hakemann et al. discloses the use of a moistening device with at least one nozzle (62), claims 33 and 34 differ by reciting that the filter module includes at least one lower layer and at least one upper layer and a supply line of the moistening device extends through the layers.
The reference of Fukuyama discloses that it is known in the art to provide a biofilter system with at least one lower filter layer (3) and at least one upper filter layer (4) wherein each filter layer includes a moistening device with nozzles (Fig and ¶[0008] of the translation).
In view of this teaching 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 biofilter system of the modified reference of Hakemann et al. with an additional filter layer for the known and expected result of providing improved efficiency when removing malodorous gas as evidenced by the reference of Fukuyama (¶[0012]-[0014] of the translation).
With respect to the path of the supply lines for the nozzles, the reference of Birdwell discloses (Fig. 1) that it is known in the art to pass the supply lines (riser pipe)(75) for the spray nozzles (55 and 85) through the filter beds (53 and 67) of the biofilter system.
In view of this teaching 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 system of the modified primary reference with a riser pipe that passed through the filter layers for the known and expected result of providing an alternative means recognized in the art for providing liquid to the spray nozzles while minimizing externally provided elements within the biofilter system.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakemann et al. (EP 3015157 and corresponding English language machine translation)(Ref. “O” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026), Carlson (US 3,750,887)(Attached PTO-892), Fukuyama (JP 4300621 and corresponding English language machine translation) (Ref. “N” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026) and Birdwell (US 5,409,834) (Ref. “A” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026) taken further in view of Liu et al. (CN 106799164 and corresponding English language machine translation) (Ref. “P” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026).
The combination of the references of Hakemann et al., Carlson, Fukuyama and Birdwell has been discussed above with respect to claim 33.
With respect to claim 35, while the reference of Hakemann et al. discloses the use of a controller to regulate the supply of spray fluid (page 3, 4th paragraph, of the translation), the reference does not disclose the use of a moisture sensor (Note: The instant specification discloses that a moisture sensor is a corresponding structure for the 35 USC 112(f) claim element).
The reference of Liu et al. discloses that the use of moisture sensors (page 5, 2nd paragraph, of the translation) are known in the art to monitor the moisture level of a biofilter layer.
In view of this teaching 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 system of the modified primary reference with a moisture sensor for the known and expected result of providing an art recognized means for monitoring the moisture of the filter layer and controlling the flow of spray liquid so as to maintain the filter layer at an optimal moisture level and maintain the efficiency of the biofilter system.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
The previous rejections of claims 19-36 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims and corresponding comments on page 8 of the response dated 7/10/2026. Note: New grounds of rejection have been made regarding claim 20 in view of amendments made to claim 1.
Prior Art Rejections
With respect to the prior art rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103 including the reference of Hakemann et al. (EP 3015157 and corresponding English language machine translation)(Ref. “O” PTO-892 dated 1/14/2026), Applicants advance the following comments (pages 8-9 of the response dated 7/10/2026):
Hakemann fails to disclose or suggest grid elements as recited in amended independent claim 19. Specifically, Hakemann fails to disclose or suggest elongated, at least substantially horizontally aligned grid elements that are at least substantially rectangular crosswise and arranged at least substantially at right angles to one another and on top of each other, wherein the grid elements are in the form of wooden slats and wooden beams, and wherein the grid elements are at least substantially unconnected to one another. For example, the layers of wooden slats in Hakemann are connected to each other.
While the rejection previous rejections including Hakemann et al. alone have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 19, new grounds of rejection have been made over the combination of the references of Hakemann et al. and Carlson (US 3,750,887). As stated in 35 USC 103 rejection above, the reference of Hakemann et al. is considered to disclose or suggest elongated, at least substantially horizontally aligned grid elements that are at least substantially rectangular crosswise and arranged at least substantially at right angles to one another and on top of each other, wherein the grid elements are in the form of wooden slats and wooden beams. While the reference of Hakemann et al. appears to be silent whether the grid elements are connected or unconnected, the newly cited reference of Carlson clearly discloses or suggests that it is known in the art to provide a biofilter support structure wherein the grid elements can be unconnected are discussed in the updated prior art rejection of record in response to the amendments to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference of Hay (US 3,496,101) (Attached PTO-892) is cited as prior art which pertains to a biofilter device that include a grid structure formed of wooden grid elements 41 and 51.
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 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
Prosecution Insights