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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (GERMANY 10 2020 119 628.8 07/24/2020) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 2/22/2023 and 6/20/2023 have been considered and made of record.
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 19-36 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 claim 19, the claim is devoid of the transitional phrase "comprising", "consisting essentially of" or "consisting of". The claim appears to use the transitional phrase “having”. In view of this claim language, the claim will be interpreted in the same manner as the transitional phrase “comprising”. Additionally the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 20, use of the language “in particular” is considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 21, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 22, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 23, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 24, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 25, use of the language “in particular” is considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 26, use of the language “preferably” is considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 27, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 28, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 29, use of the language “preferably” is considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 30, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 31, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 32, use of the language “preferably” is considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 33, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19. Additionally, in claim 33, “at least one supply line of the moistening device” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claims 32 and/or 33 fail to clearly state that the “at least one moistening device” includes “at least one supply line”. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 34, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 35, use of the language “preferably” and “in particular” are considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
In claim 36, use of the language “in particular” is considered indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 19.
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 19-22, 25, 26, 28-32 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hakemann et al. (EP 3015157 and corresponding English language machine translation).
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, having 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, in particular at least substantially horizontally oriented, grid structure (wooden grate)(4),
wherein
the at least one grid structure is formed by at least substantially rectangular crosswise and arranged on top of each other elongated, at least substantially horizontally aligned, grid elements in the form of wooden slats (page 6, 9th paragraph of the translation).
With respect to claim 20, the grid elements (4) are beam shaped (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 21, the at least one grid structure (4) is formed of at least two grid layers (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 22, the grid elements of Hakemann et al. cross one another at substantially right angles (Fig. 2). Note, the additional limitations of claim 22 are only presented in the alternative by use of the language “and/or”.
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). Note, since the claim language employs the indefinite language “preferably”, the claim is not considered to have to be limited to the language recited after the term “preferably”.
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).
With respect to claim 36, the at least one filter module is open at the top (Fig. 1).
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 23, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakemann et al. (EP 3015157 and corresponding English language machine translation).
The reference of Hakemann et al. has been discussed above with respect to claim 19.
With respect to claims 23, 24 and 27, while the reference Hakemann is silent with respect to the 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.
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) in view of Fukuyama (JP 4300621 and corresponding English language machine translation) and Birdwell (US 5,409,834).
The reference of Hakemann et al. 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 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) in view of Fukuyama (JP 4300621 and corresponding English language machine translation) and Birdwell (US 5,409,834) taken further in view of Liu et al. (CN 106799164 and corresponding English language machine translation).
The combination of the references of Hakemann et al., 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.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference of Koers (US 6,194,198) is cited as prior art which pertains to a biofilter device with two filter beds and sprayers for each filter bed.
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