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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-9, 12 in the reply filed on 3/24/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/24/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/2/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: steam generation device, moisture amount acquisition device and moisture adjustment device in claim 1; drying device in claim 3; separation device in claim 4; second steam generation device in claim 5.
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.
steam generation devices – exhaust gas boiler or combustion boiler or both [0015] and functional equivalents thereof;
moisture amount acquisition device – flow meter, thermometer, timer and control device [0032] or near-infrared microwave or capacitance moisture meter [0033] and functional equivalents thereof;
moisture adjustment device – water injection pipe [0031] and functional equivalents thereof;
drying device – no structure stated in Spec
separation device – screen having any mesh size [0029] and functional equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim limitation “drying device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant specification recites the term drying device in the Third Embodiment [0022-26] and again in [0071-72] but none of these paragraphs, nor the rest of the specification explicitly define what structure is referred to by the term “drying device”.
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 3 and claim 12 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 limitation “drying device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant specification recites the term drying device in the Third Embodiment [0022-26] and again in [0071-72] but none of these paragraphs, nor the rest of the specification explicitly define what structure is referred to by the term “drying device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
12. Regarding claim 12, the limitation “moisture amount acquisition device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As stated in the above interpretation, the device could be near-infrared microwave or capacitance moisture meter [Spec 0033], which would provide an output of the amount of moisture sensed. However, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear how such meters could also be configured to acquire the moisture amount based on a time or amount of temperature change as required by claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURIMOTO (JP 2009-119378) in view of ATSUTA (JP 2016/028800) both as supplied by applicant on the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, KURIMOTO discloses a system for organic waste (line 10) comprising:
A subcritical water treatment device 22 for solubilizing waste with steam injection (reformer for hydrolyzing waste)(0022);
A methane fermentation tank 23 (microbial reactor) with bacteria that perform fermentation in the aqueous solution including treated material C from the treatment device 22, the treated material C being in the form of a cake (containing at least a solid of the waste hydrolyzed) (0027-29);
A co-generation device 29 (steam generation device: boiler) that uses only the biogas produced in the fermenter to create steam used in the device 22 (0029);
And that an appropriate amount of water is added (moisture adjustment device: water pipe) to the waste C from the device 22 before entering the fermentation tank 23 (disposed between reformer and reactor), the amount being controlled to provide predetermined moisture contents (0028, 0034, 0015).
KURIMOTO discloses controlling and adjusting the amount of liquid contained in the waste exported from the treatment device 22, but does not explicitly disclose a moisture amount acquisition device for doing so.
However, ATSUTA discloses a system for treating organic matter containing waste comprising a hydrothermal treatment block 1100 (reformer for hydrolyzing) connected to a digestion block 1300 (reactor) in which the hydrothermal treatment block 1100 has sensors and a controller (moisture amount acquisition device) that receives signals from the tank 110 and controls the opening and closing of valves according to the signals and operation condition setting parameters to provide a sludge with the appropriate concentration (0023-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the moisture control of KURIMOTO to include the sensors and flow control taught by ATSUTA to acquire the sludge with the desired moisture content as taught by KURIMOTO because such it would allow for precise control over the contents of the tank (reformer) to make it possible to meet the parameters required for that process and further would allow for automating the moisture control of KURIMOTO to avoid user error. It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, KURIMOTO discloses the system contains a co-generation device 29 (steam generation device) but does not explicitly disclose the system contains a second steam generation device to meet demand of the reformer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a second duplicate co-generation device in the system in order to increase the amount of steam that could be created as well as to fully utilize the biogas and waste heat created throughout the system so that it operates at a high efficiency and further to provide a back-up in case of failure of the first device. Also it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art.. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 8-9, KURIMOTO discloses all of the positively recited structure of the claim 1 device. The claim 8-9 limitations do not recite any further structural limitations of the claimed system, and in the absence of such structure the device of KURIMOTO is considered capable of operating with the claimed time periods.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. Further, it has been held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). It is further noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 12, KURIMOTO discloses all of the positively recited structure of the claim 1 device. The claim 12 limitations do not recite any further structural limitations of the claimed system, and in the absence of such structure the device of modified KURIMOTO is considered capable of operating with the claimed data inputs as the controller of ATSUTA could be configured to receive any additional sensed data as desired by the specific process.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURIMOTO (JP 2009-119378) in view of ATSUTA (JP 2016/028800) and further in view of ITAKURA (JP 2011240253) all as supplied by applicant on the IDS.
Regarding claim 2, KURIMOTO discloses the steam is released from the treatment device 22 into the air (0027) but does not explicitly disclose a pipe connecting the reformer and reactor wherein the exhaust steam is supplied to heat the reactor. However, ITAKURA discloses a recycling system in organic waste treatment comprising hydrolysis apparatuses 4, 5 connected to a fermentation tank 14, in which the steam from the hydrolysis device is treated and supplied to the methane fermentation tank (heat retention steam pipe connecting reformer and reactor) (0014) and exhaust heat from other devices in the system is used to adjust the temperature of the methane fermentation (0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steam exhaust of KURIMOTO to be connected via a pipe to the fermentation tank in order to adjust the temperature thereof as taught by ITAKURA because it allows for a system that can be operated a low running costs without using fossil fuels by recycling waste heat to increase efficiency (0009).
Regarding claim 3, KURIMOTO discloses a concentrator 25 to separate water from the resulting sludge from fermentation (drying device) (0031) and that the steam is released from the treatment device 22 into the air (0027), but does not explicitly disclose a pipe connecting the reformer and drying device to send the exhaust steam to the drying device to dry the residue.
However, ITAKURA discloses a recycling system in organic waste treatment comprising hydrolysis apparatuses 4, 5 connected to a fermentation tank 14, and a dehydrator 19 for separating the residue after the fermentation into a liquid and solid (drying device) in which the solids are dried using exhaust heat from other devices in the system (0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steam exhaust of KURIMOTO to be connected via a pipe to the drying device for drying the residue solids as taught by ITAKURA because it allows for a system that can be operated a low running costs without using by recycling waste heat to increase efficiency (0009).
Regarding claim 6, KURIMOTO does not explicitly disclose the treatment device 22 (reformer) includes a plurality of reformers configured to perform at different timings. However, ITAKURA discloses a recycling system in organic waste treatment comprising hydrolysis apparatuses 4, 5 (plurality of reformers) connected to a fermentation tank 14, in which the hydrolysis apparatuses can be operated alternately (0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of KURIMOTO to have a plurality of treatment devices 22 (reformers) as taught by ITAKURA because it allows for each unit to operate for the lengthy intended time period while maximizing the amount processed by the system per day (0041).
Regarding claim 7, as stated above regarding claim 6, ITAKURA discloses a first and second hydrolysis apparatus 4, 5 (first, second reformers). Further, KURIMOTO discloses that the steam is released from the treatment device 22 into the air (0027), but neither explicitly disclose a pipe connecting the reformers to supply the exhaust steam from a first to a second reformer to heat it. However, ITAKURA discloses using exhaust steam and heat from other devices in the system when heat is needed (0046-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steam exhaust of KURIMOTO to be connected via a pipe to a subsequent device, such as second reformer, as taught by ITAKURA because such recycling of heat allows for a system that can be operated a low running costs without using by recycling waste heat to increase efficiency (0009).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 represent the state of the art of applicant’s invention in that they also disclose waste treatment systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE B HENKEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5505. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 11-7 EST, Alt. Fridays.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 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 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.
/DANIELLE B HENKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights