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 without traverse of Group II, claims 12-20 in the reply filed on 05 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 December 2025.
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 12-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubke (US 20250002424) in view of O’Neill (US 20080064087).
With respect to claim 12, Lubke discloses a system for composting human remains comprising a vessel (Figure 13:101) for receiving the human remains (Figure 8:5), a bulking agent mixture, and a compost solution. Paragraphs [0016]-[0021] and [0116]-[0121] teach that various combinations of bulking and liquid components are added as a substrate (Figure 3:2) into the vessel with the human remains. A lid (Figure 13:102) is disposed on top of the vessel for closing the human remains in the vessel. This is described in paragraphs [0135]-[0139]. Paragraphs [0040] and [0139]-[0140] teach that an opening and an outlet are additionally provided to circulate air through the vessel (“ For ventilation (supply of air or pure oxygen) of the composting container 10, a fan is for example installed in the closure element 102 or in the casing 1013 of the receiving element 101. The fan can either supply air from the surroundings, or pure oxygen which is provided via a corresponding gas line”). See also paragraph [0022]. Although implied, Lubke does not appear to expressly teach that an air opening is located on a lower part of the vessel, and that the air inlet is in communication with an air outlet disposed in the vessel.
O’Neill discloses a composting vessel comprising an upper part (Figure 2B:510) and a lower part (Figure 2B:520). At least one opening (Figure 2B:560) is provided in the lower part of the vessel for receiving a stream of air. An outlet provided on a suction pipe (Figure 2B:530) permits air from the opening and unpleasant odors created in the vessel to be withdrawn from the vessel. This is taught in paragraphs [0049]-[0054].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the Lubke vessel includes at least one air opening in a lower part of the vessel and at least one air outlet. O’Neill shows that this is an effective configuration for promoting air flow evenly through the entire volume of biomass. This modification would have been especially relevant to the Lubke apparatus because Lubke directly discusses how it is necessary to deliver oxygen to microbes during the course of the decomposition process.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Lubke and O’Neill disclose the combination as described above. O’Neill further teaches that a pump (Figure 2A:70) and a tube (Figure 2A:60) are used to force air through the at least one opening of the vessel. Although Fig. 2A shows a reverse flow operation, O’Neill teaches that the same equipment is used in the Fig. 2B embodiment.
With respect to claim 15, Lubke and O’Neill disclose the combination as described above. Lubke further teaches in paragraph [0138] that a biofilter is arranged on the inside of the lid to bind odors. Paragraph [0117[ additionally mentions biochar as an odor absorption agent. O’Neill likewise discusses the use of a filter disposed in a gas outlet in paragraphs [0042] and [0047]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide the Lubke outlet with a charcoal filter to retard unpleasant odors in the vessel.
With respect to claim 18, Lubke and O’Neill disclose the combination as described above. Lubke states in paragraph [0086] that the vessel may be placed into a decorative shell.
With respect to claim 19, Lubke and O’Neill disclose the combination as described above. Lubke shows in Figs. 7 and 9 that selectively lockable wheels are disposed on each side of the vessel to allow the vessel to be moved to a desired location. Figs. 31-37 show a different kind of wheel assembly that allows the vessel and/or decorative shell to rotate and promote mixing.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubke (US 20250002424) in view of O’Neill (US 20080064087) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Hulls (US 20160102026) and Hallsten (US 6255102).
Lubke and O’Neill disclose the combination as described above. Lubke additionally teaches in paragraph [0138] that the vessel and lid may include a membrane or biofilter configured to prevent the escape of seepage water. It is unclear if this reads on the claimed nonpermeable membrane.
Hulls discloses a composting system comprising a vessel body and a lid. A tube (Figure 2:113,114) connects an opening of the vessel to a liner (Figure 2:112) and a gas permeable membrane (Figure 2:111) to enable aeration of the compostable material. This is taught in paragraph [0039].
Hallsten discloses a system in which compost is used as a biofilter. The compost (Figure 2:64) is supported within a vessel comprising a nonpermeable membrane (Figure 1:30). A tube (Figure 1:58) carrying air is in communication with an opening (Figure 1:60) formed in the nonpermeable membrane. This is taught in column 5, lines 49-65.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the Lubke system includes a nonpermeable membrane configured to prevent material in the vessel from leaking. Hulls and Hallsten both show how nonpermeable liners are typically used during composting operations to define a containment area, collect leachate, and facilitate material collection and cleanup when composting is completed. Hallsten specifically shows how an air delivery tube may communicate with an opening formed through the nonpermeable membrane. Because the Lubke vessel and lid are rotated during composting, it would have been obvious to extend the nonpermeable membrane across all vessel and lid surfaces.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubke (US 20250002424) in view of O’Neill (US 20080064087) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of McNelly (US 6627434).
Lubke and O’Neill disclose the combination as described above. Lubke further teaches in paragraph [0136] that a sealing member (Figure 31:109) locks the lid to the vessel. This sealing member, however, is not between the lid and the vessel.
McNelly discloses a compositing system comprising a vessel (Figure 3:20) and a lid (Figure 3:28), as well as aeration means (see Fig. 1). McNelly states in column 5, lines 47-57 that a sealing member (Figure 3:29) configured as a gasket is provided between the vessel and the lid.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to position a gasket or other similar sealing member between the Lubke lid and vessel. As taught by McNelly, a gasket will “complete the seal” when used in combination with other locking mechanisms. Gaskets are well known in the art as being useful since they are compressible and allow for "less-than-perfect" mating surfaces on machine parts where they can fill irregularities.
Conclusion
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