DETAILED ACTION
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 1799.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 9/3/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9/3/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (CHINA 202111461798.6 12/02/2021) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Currently, no information disclosure statements have 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 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:
“a liquid feeding device” in claim 1;
“a stirring mechanism” in claim 1, at line 11;
“an eluting device” in claim 1; and
“an aeration system” in claim 1.
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 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.
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 1-5 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 1, at line 13, “the motor” lacks clear antecedent basis. Note, claim 1 previously recites “a motor” associated with the spiral stirring mechanism of the stirring device; however, this motor does not appear to be the same motor since the motor referenced in line 13 is associated with the decomposing device. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
As discussed above in the claim interpretation section, the claim limitations “a liquid feeding device” in claim 1; “an eluting device” in claim 1; and “an aeration system” in claim 1 invoke 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.
With respect to “a liquid feeding device”, the specification and drawings only reference an element (8) but fail to describe or show any structure corresponding to this language.
With respect to “an eluting device”, the specification and drawings only reference an element (19) but fail to describe or show any structure corresponding to this language.
With respect to “an aeration system”, the specification and drawings only reference an element (26) but fail to describe or show any structure corresponding to this language.
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.
Claims 2-5 are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim regarding any of the claim elements listed and discussed previously. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 are included in the rejection because they depend from rejected claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 205635404 and corresponding English language machine translation) in view of Li (CN 202022973444 and corresponding English language machine translation) and Zhang et al. (CN 108863614).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Cheng et al. discloses:
A composting device (Figs. 1-2), comprising a stirring device (2 and 3), a conveyor belt (third spiral conveyor belt)(¶[0027] of the translation) and a decomposing device (fermentation tank)(4), wherein the stirring device, the conveyor belt and the decomposing device are connected successively, wherein
the stirring device (Fig. 1) comprises a cylinder block (tank)(1,2); a stirring mechanism (10, 11) and a humidity sensor (¶[0014] of the translation) are arranged in the cylinder block, the stirring mechanism is connected to a motor (Fig. 1), a liquid feeding device (15 and 5) communicated with the cylinder block is arranged on the cylinder block, a first discharge port (lower end of tank (3)) is formed at a lower portion of the cylinder block, and the first discharge port is arranged at a first end of the conveyor belt;
the decomposing device (Fig. 2) comprises a reaction tank (4); a stirring mechanism (12), a temperature sensor (¶[0014] of the translation) are arranged in the reaction tank, the stirring mechanism is connected to a motor (Fig. 2), , the reaction tank is communicated with an aeration system through an oxygen supply port (18)(¶[0013] of the translation), and a feeding port (feed inlet with cover (14)) of the reaction tank is formed at a second end of the conveyor belt.
Claim 1 first differs by reciting that the cylinder block and the reaction tank are fixedly connected to supports.
The reference of Li discloses that it is known in the art to employ support legs (15) (Fig. 2) to support mixing/reaction tanks or vessels.
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 employ support structures on the tanks of the primary reference for the known and expected result of providing art recognized structures for supporting compost vessels.
Additionally, while the reference of Cheng et al. discloses stirring mechanisms (10, 11, 12), claim 1 differs by reciting the use of spiral stirring mechanisms.
The reference of Li discloses that the use of spiral stirring mechanisms (7) within a composting tank (1) is known in the art.
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 employ a spiral stirring device in the tanks of the primary reference for the known and expected result of providing an alternative means recognized in the art for mixing the contents of a compositing tank or vessel.
Claim 1 further differs by reciting that the reaction tank includes an oxygen sensor; a water filling port and an eluting device are arranged at an upper portion of the reaction tank; and a water draining port and a second discharge port are formed at a lower portion of the reaction tank.
The reference of Li discloses that it is known in the art to provide a compost or reaction tank of a composting device with an eluting device (Fig. 1)(2 and 28)(page 6 of the translation) at an upper portion and a water draining port (5) and a second discharge port (4) at a lower portion.
The reference of Zhang et al. discloses that it is known in the art to provide a compost or reaction tank of a compositing device with an oxygen sensor (page 6, second to last paragraph, of the translation) and a water filling port (5).
In view of these teachings 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 fermentation tank of the primary reference of Chang et al. with the additional components as suggested by the references of Li and Zhang et al. for the known and expected result of providing art recognized structures for the control the reaction conditions within and the flow of material into and out of a composting tank which allows for optimization of the reaction conditions within the composting tank.
With respect to claim 2, the reference of Cheng et al. disclose a gas release port (19). Additionally, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, the location of the temperature, humidity and oxygen sensors would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art while optimizing the operation of the system.
With respect to claim 3, the use of positioning structures between the system components would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art for the known and expected result of ensuring the structural integrity of the connections between the components within the composting system.
With respect to claim 4, the reference of Li discloses the use of a filter screen (6) and a sampling port (14) in the reaction tank (1). As a result, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the reaction tank of the modified primary reference with a filter screen for preventing the liquid outlet from clogging and a sampling port for the known and expected result of allowing the reaction to be monitored without fully opening the system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 205635404 and corresponding English language machine translation) in view of Li (CN 202022973444 and corresponding English language machine translation) and Zhang et al. (CN 108863614) taken further in view of Li et al. (CN 112898063 and corresponding machine translation).
The combination of the references of Cheng et al., Li and Zhang has been discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 5 differs by reciting that the reaction tank is double walled and insulated with a polyurethane insulation material.
The reference of Li et al. discloses that it is known in the art to insulation a reaction tank in a composting system with a layer of polyurethane insulation material (page 7, “Detailed Description”, 2nd paragraph, of the machine 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 fermentation tank of the modified primary reference with a layer of polyurethane insulation material for the known and expected result of increasing the length of time any desired temperatures within the tank can be maintained during the composting reaction.
Conclusion
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