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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
“membrane changing machine” which reads on a mobile frame comprising rolling wheels and baffle discs (see paragraphs [0059]-[0069] of the printed publication) and known functional equivalents
“pile turning machine” which reads on a tractor having rotating blades and a bucket (see paragraphs [0071]-[0079] of the printed publication) and known functional equivalents
“condensate collecting system” which reads on a trough and conveying channels (see paragraphs [0082]-[0085] of the printed publication) and known functional equivalents
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, it is unclear if the limitation “a semipermeable membrane” in line 12 of claim 9 refers back to the “semipermeable membrane” first recited in independent claim 1. It is unclear if the membrane of claim 9 is the same or different than the membrane of claim 1, and therefore it is unclear how many membranes are required and where they are positioned relative to each other.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing buckles" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing holes" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing buckles" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing holes" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing buckles" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing holes" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing buckles" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing holes" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing buckles" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing holes" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing buckles" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the membrane fixing holes" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 20120064562) in view of Yan (CN 111675558)1 and Yang (CN 209456333)2.
With respect to claim 1, Allen discloses a continuous membrane-covered aerobic fermentation system comprising a fermentation trough (Figure 2:12) that is formed by a trough bottom, underground walls and above ground walls. The above ground walls are fixedly arranged on tops of respective underground walls, such that inner surfaces of the above ground walls are flush with inner surfaces of the underground walls. This is shown in Fig. 2. The fermentation trough is covered by a semipermeable membrane (Figure 2:14). Allen shows that a pile turning machine (Figure 4:64) is configured for direct turning and mixing of materials under the membrane without uncovering the membrane. The pile turning machine is configured to gradually shift and convey materials to different fixed positions. This is described in paragraphs [0036], [0043] and [0044]. Allen, however, does not appear to teach that the membrane cover is manipulated by a membrane changing machine.
Yan discloses a continuous membrane-covered aerobic fermentation system comprising a fermentation trough (Figure 1:1) comprising a rail (Figure 1:11) positioned directly above a wall section. Accordingly, the rail 11 is considered to be an “above wall” positioned over a “bottom wall”. A membrane changing machine (Figure 1:3) comprising a reciprocating device (Figure 1:31) is configured to move back and forth on the rail to lay down a covering membrane and perform a membrane uncovering operation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Allen system with a membrane changing machine. Yan teaches that manual operations for covering and uncovering an aerobic fermentation trough are time consuming and costly, and that it is instead useful to cover the trough using an automated means (“the membrane covering aerobic composting fermentation mostly adopts manual coating method, which wastes time and labour, mechanization, low automation degree, and has a certain danger”). Yan states that the disclosed machine for covering and uncovering the trough “is featured with simple operation, labour saving, high automation degree, wide application range, low investment and operation cost”.
As for the limitation “each above-ground wall of trough is thinner than corresponding underground wall of trough”, it is noted that the rail 11 of Yan is depicted as being thinner than the bottom wall it is disposed over. Furthermore, it is well established that mere changes in shape and size (here, the thickness of the above-ground wall relative to a corresponding underground wall) that do not affect device functionality, or do so in a highly predictable manner, are considered to be prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 “Changes in Shape”.
Allen and Yan still differ from Applicant’s claimed invention because Allen does not appear to teach a condensate collecting system.
Yang discloses a continuous membrane-covered aerobic fermentation system comprising a fermentation trough (Figure 1:1) covered by a semipermeable membrane (Figure 1:3). A condensate collecting system comprising a guide rail (Figure 1:5) and drainage groove (Figure 1:4). The condensate collecting system is configured to continuously collect condensate on an inner surface of the semipermeable membrane.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Allen system with a condensate collecting system. Yang teaches that this would provide the effect of “reducing the water content of the compost fermentation, and ensur[ing] the production efficiency and quality of the compost”. Yang describes how continuous moisture removal in real time is necessary in covered aerobic systems due to the high temperatures and humidity generated during fermentation.
With respect to claim 2, Allen, Yan and Yang disclose the combination as described above. Yan further shows that a feeding area (Figure 2:12) is in communication with a fermentation area within the fermentation trough. Allen requires that the pile turning machine 64 operate within the fermentation area of the fermentation trough, and so it would have been obvious to ensure that the Allen trough includes an inlet and outlet that allow the pile turning machine to enter and exit the fermentation area. See Figs. 4 and 15.
With respect to claim 3, Allen, Yan and Yang disclose the combination as described above. Allen further teaches that a sectional ventilation device comprising an underground ventilation chamber (Figure 2:18) is provided in the fermentation area. Fans (Figure 1:42) deliver air to ducts located in the middle of the trough. It would have been obvious to group and organize fans and ducts as necessary, including in two or more groups. A mere duplication of parts (here, the number and grouping of fans and ventilation means) that produces a cumulative, minimal or otherwise predictable effect is considered to be prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 “Duplication of Parts”.
With respect to claim 9, Allen, Yan and Yang disclose the combination as described above. Yang further shows that the condensate collecting system includes a U-shaped diversion part having a bearing part at a bottom in order to form a gentle slope structure (Figure 3:52) to collect condensate from the semipermeable membrane. Connection means such as fixing buckles and fixing holes are considered to be well known in the art (see the guide wheel 21 of Yang). Conveying channels (Figure 3:4) are arranged to direct condensate flowing through the diversion part to a conveying means, such as a faucet.
With respect to claims 10 and 16, Allen, Yan and Yang disclose the combination as described above. Allen teaches a corresponding method of operation in which the fermentation trough is built and materials to be treated are staked in the feeding area. The materials are mixtures of feedstock and may be piled in different layers. See paragraph [0032]. The trough is covered by the membrane and forced aeration is provided using the ventilation device. See paragraph [0040]. The pile turning machine enters the trough to shift materials and form and re-form piles. Materials are added to the feeding area daily to gradually fill the trough, and the pile turning machine moves, piles and discharges the material. In view of Yan and Yang, it would have been obvious to create the walls of the Allen fermentation trough to accommodate the membrane changing machine and the pile turning machine. It would have been obvious to manipulate the membrane using Yan’s membrane changing machine and recover condensate using Yang’s condensate collecting system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not appear to teach the specific structures of the membrane changing machine, pile turning machine and condensate collecting system required by claims 4-8 and 11-15. Although many of the specific elements are individually known, there is no teaching or suggestion to arrange and order them to arrive at the claimed combinations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Berasi (US 20140113361) and Choi (US 20150299632) references teach the state of the art regarding fermentation systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-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, 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
1 See provided English translation
2 See provided English translation