DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 03/30/2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are pending in the application. Claims 11-12 have been withdrawn and claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13-14 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.9-13 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that Harada et al., alone or in combination, fails to teach the amended claim 1 limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13-14 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 upper part" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6-10 and 13-14 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “according to measurement results” in the last line. It is unclear as to, one, if “to measurement results” is the measurement result of claim 1 (i.e., there is no “the” between “to” and “measurement”), two, how plural “results” can be obtained from a singular measurement result (i.e., ammonia concentration of the exhaust gas in claim 1), and three, whether or not the control device configured to measure “at least one of pH, temperature, an ammonia concentration, a NO concentration, a N02 concentration, a dissolved oxygen concentration, an electrical conductivity and a water level of the treat water in the water tank” is directly tied into the “measurement results” parameter.
Claim 8 recites “measurement results” in lines 4, 6, and 8. It is unclear as to how plural “results” can be obtained from a singular measurement result (i.e., ammonia concentration of the exhaust gas in claim 1) and if the measurement results are the same as different as the measurement result of claim 1.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected for their dependence thereon.
Claim 10 recites “according to the measurement results” in the last line. It is unclear as to, one, how plural “results” can be obtained from a singular measurement result (i.e., ammonia concentration of the exhaust gas in claim 1), and two, whether or not the “sensor measuring the odor of the exhaust gas” is directly tied into the “measurement results” parameter.
Claim 13 recites “a measurement result” in the last line. It is unclear as to whether or not the measurement result is the ammonia concentration measurement result of the exhaust gas in claim 1, or if the measurement result is “(1) a temperature of the odorous gas supplied to the deodorant tank, or (2) an internal pressure of the deodorant tank”.
Claim 14 recites “measurement results” in the last line. It is unclear as to how plural “results” can be obtained from a singular measurement result (i.e., ammonia concentration of the exhaust gas in claim 1). It is also unclear as to whether the measurement results are the same as different as the measurement result of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-6, 9-10 and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the structural limitations of the present claim. The closest prior art to the claimed invention (Harada - of record) is set forth above but does not teach or suggest “a third blower configured to supply the outside air to an upper part of the deodorizing tank to dilute the exhaust gas, wherein the control device is configured to operate in a second control mode in which an inverter of the third blower is controlled to increase the airflow rate, when a measurement result of the ammonia concentration exceeds a set value.
Harada teaches a first blower (blower 19, Fig. 3) arranged in a path of the exhaust pipe for blowing the odorous gas (blower 19 is in fluid connection to odor gas inlet 50a, Fig. 3), where the control device (22, Fig. 3) is responsible for controlling the blower (signal Cbr, Fig. 3), to which secondary reference Nakahama is brought to teach another blower with a different function.
Nakahama teaches a fresh air introduction pipe via fan F (Fig. 1) that introduces outside air (thus diluting the air within the deodorization tank) to a lower part of the deodorization tank (1, Fig. 1, where Applicant’s “lower” part of the deodorization tank is where the incoming odorous gas is directly supplied to, equivalent to Nakahama’s upper part), but the fresh air is only introduced when the odorous gas from the conduit (conduit of valve 2, Fig. 1) is closed/sealed off (“After the supply of offensive odor gas to the carrier-filled biological deodorizing device is stopped and the deodorizing ability of the biological deodorizing device is restored by introducing air”, p.3, 1st paragraph of English translation) in order to “restore the deodorizing ability of the biological deodorization tower” (p.5, 4th to last paragraph of English translation).
This means that the fresh air/third blower is incapable of supplying outside air to the upper/exhaust/non-odorous gas portion of the tank. Furthermore, the microorganisms responsible for deodorizing the incoming odorous gas are incapable of deodorizing in this restoration step/state, because there is no incoming odorous gas, making modification untenable (i.e., claim 1’s third blower is directed to when the apparatus is actively deodorizing the incoming odorous gas).
Qiu teaches a desulfurization and denitration system (Fig. 1) utilizing an ammonia dilution fan by adding in dilution air to the ammonia adsorption tower (A-D, Fig. 1) to decrease the ammonia concentration (recorded by the system, p.3, 1st paragraph of English translation) and prevent an explosion accident (p.10, 1st and 2nd paragraphs of English translation). However, the fan is not located at a position where it is capable of supplying the outside air to the upper part/treated exhaust gas portion of the deodorizing tank, making modification impossible.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights