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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination can be made without serous burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of Group I and Group II are drawn into different classes and each invention requires a different field of search. Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements, which introduces additional search and examination burden. Applicants’ arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive in so far as the searches are not co-extensive and additional search would of necessity be required for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-15 will be examined on the merits and claims 16-19 are withdrawn.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extract device" toward the end of claim . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the at least one extraction device”
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-15 are rejected.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jude et al (PG-PUB US 2020/0316660) in view of Harkess et al (PG-PUB US 2010/0301147) and Merrow et al (PB-PUB US 2021/0161179).
Regarding claim 1, Jude et al disclose a disinfecting apparatus using ozone (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a conveyor assembly 142 in a sealed body 141 for transporting material between an opening 131 for receiving the material and an exit area 145 for discharging the treated material (i.e., a transport line … an intake area and a discharge area …, … a conveying system …, … a tunnel … sealing part …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0020], & [0023] – [0024]); and
(2) ozone injectors for injecting ozone to the material on the conveyor 142 (i.e., an ozone injecting device …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0022] & [0028]).
Jude does not teach a heating device for heating the material. However, Harkess et al disclose a disinfecting apparatus using ozone (ABSTRACT). Harkess teaches that the apparatus comprises a conveying assembly 24/45/50 for transporting material, an ozone generating device 108 for supplying ozone to the material on the conveying assembly, and a heating chamber 16 and/or a heating system 53 for heating the material on the conveying assembly (i.e., a heating device …, Figures 2 & 7, paragraphs [0036] – [0037], [0040], & [0070]). Harkess further indicates that supplying heat with a heating system can further remove bacteria and virus on the material (paragraphs [0021] & [0037]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a heating device as suggested by Harkess in order to further remove bacterial and virus within the device of Jude.
Jude teaches that an exhaust system having an exhaust fan and an ozone destruct system is provided to exhaust ozone-free gas (paragraph [0022]), but Jude/Harkess does not teach to reinject/recirculate the exhaust gas to the system. However, Merrow et al disclose a disinfecting apparatus using ozone (ABSTRACT). Merrow teaches that the apparatus comprises a conveyor in a conveyor tube 20 for transporting the material, an ozone generator 10 for supplying ozone to disinfect the material on the conveyor, and an exhaust fan with an ozone destructor to evacuate the catalyzed ozone and to recirculate the gas as conditioned air to the system (Figure 1, paragraphs [0028], [0031], & [0055]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to recirculate the evacuated and catalyzed ozone from the exhaust vent to another area of the system as suggested by Merrow in order to supply condition air to the device of Jude/Harkess
Regarding claim 2, Jude teaches that the exhaust system having an exhaust fan and an ozone destruct system is provided to exhaust ozone-free gas and ozone is injected to the hopper/entry (paragraphs [0022] & [0028]). Merrow teaches that the exhaust fan with the ozone destructor is provided at the exhaust vent to evacuate the catalyzed ozone and to recirculate the gas as conditioned air to the system (Figure 1, paragraphs [0028], [0031], & [0055]).
Regarding claim 3, Jude teaches safety interlock within the system (paragraph [0028]). Merrow teaches that the hopper includes interlocking seal to create an air tight seal (paragraph [0064]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include an air interlocking seal at the hopper as suggested by Merrow in order to create an air tight seal within the device of Jude/Harkess/Merrow.
Regarding claim 4, Merrow teaches that the hopper includes interlocking seal to create an air tight seal (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, the cited limitation is material worked upon the device, which does not limit the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 6, Jude teaches a shredder 130 provided upstream of the opening 131 and the exit area 145 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0023] - [0024]). Harkess teaches blades 6 for shredding (Figure 2, paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Jude teaches a shredder 130 (Figure 1, paragraph [0023]). Harkess teaches blades 6 for shredding (Figure 2, paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Jude teaches that ozone injectors may be provided at the hopper (Figure 1, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Jude teaches a hopper 120 provided upstream of the shredder 130 and that ozone injectors may be provided at the hopper (Figure 1, paragraphs [0020] & [0028]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Jude teaches that ozone injectors may be provided at the hopper 120, the shredder 130, and at various positions within the treatment chamber 140 (Figure 1, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Harkess teaches that at least the conveyor 45 is inclined (Figures 2 & 7).
Regarding claim 13, Harkess teaches a plurality of conveyors 24, 45, and 50 (Figures 2 & 7, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 14, Harkess teaches that the conveyors 24, 45, and 50 are offset each other with a certain gap therebetween for transporting the material (Figures 2 & 7, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Harkess teaches a plurality of microwave sources with guides for heating the material (Figure 2, paragraph [0036]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795