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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (GERMANY 10 2020 123 246.2 09/05/2020) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 3/6/2023; 1/9/2025 and 9/4/2025 have been considered and made of record.
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 conveying unit” in claim 1;
“a conveying element” in claim 1;
“a control device” in claim 1;
“a heating device” in claim 2;
“a holding portion” in claim 9;
“a sliding portion” in claim 9;
“at least one heating device” in claim 30; and
“at least one pressure generation unit” in claim 31.
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 1-32 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.
With respect to claim 1, the claim limitation “a control 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. Review of the specification and drawings only identify element (106) as “a control device”. Nothing in the originally filed disclosure identifies any corresponding structure to the claim 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.
Note: Claims 2-32 are included in this rejection because they depend from indefinite claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, at line 2, “the composting chamber” is considered indefinite because claim 1 recites both the at least one initial chamber and the at least one subsequent chamber “comprise a composting chamber”. It is not clear which “composting chamber” is being referenced, especially, since the claim recites “the dried organic material being able to be supplied via the conveying unit of the composting chamber”. Review of claim 1 indicates that the initial chamber includes the conveying unit; however, claim 2 identifies the subsequent chamber as the composting chamber which does not have a conveying unit. As a result, the metes and bounds of claim 2 cannot be clearly determined. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
With respect to claim 21, “the bottom wall” lacks antecedent basis. Note: Claim 21 depends from claim 1 rather than claim 19 or 20. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
With respect to claim 22, “the wall arrangement” lacks antecedent basis. Note: Claim 21 depends from claim 1 rather than claim 19 or 20. Also, use of the exemplary language “jacket-like” is considered indefinite because it is not clear if the claim is limited to a “jacket” or not. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
With respect to claim 29, “the channel” lacks antecedent basis. Note: Claim 29 depends from claim 1 rather than claim 28. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
With respect to claim 32, “the wall arrangement” lacks antecedent basis. Note: Claims 31 and 32 depend from claim 1 rather than claim 30. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claims 1-32 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 “a control device” recited in claim 1. 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.
Note: Claims 2-32 are also rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 16, 17, 19, 22-25 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR-19990009208 and corresponding English language machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Lee discloses:
Composting apparatus (Figs. 1-4) for providing compost material from organic material, comprising
- at least one initial chamber (stabilizer)(2) and at least one subsequent chamber (main fermentation tank)(15),
wherein the at least one initial chamber and the at least one subsequent chamber comprise a composting chamber (main fermentation tank)(15) in which organic material is convertible to compost material,
wherein the at least one initial chamber (stabilizer)(2) comprises an introduction opening (inlet) (4) and a discharge opening (passage) (16) and organic material is introducible into the at least one initial chamber through the introduction opening,
wherein the at least one subsequent chamber (main fermentation tank) (15) comprises an introduction opening (passage) (16),
- a conveying unit (stirrer)(6, 7, 8) on at least one initial chamber, having at least one conveying element (7) for the organic material, said conveying element being arranged in said initial chamber; and
- a control device (24) for actuating the conveying unit, wherein the organic material is conveyable by means of the conveying unit through the discharge opening for transfer to the at least one subsequent chamber (page 3, ¶3, to page 4, ¶1, of the machine translation).
With respect to “a conveying unit”; “a conveying element”; and “a control device”, which are considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) as discusses previously, the structures of the reference of Lee are considered to be the same or equivalents thereof for the following reasons:
The conveying unit (66) of the instant application includes a mixing elements (110), a shaft (102) and drive device (100) while the reference discloses mixing elements (7), a shaft (6) and a drive device (8).
The control device (106) of the instant application is merely shown a box in the figures and does not include any additional corresponding structure. As a result, the controller (24) of Lee is considered to meet this structure.
With respect to claim 2, the stabilizer (2) of the reference of Lee is structurally capable of being used as a drying chamber (page 3, ¶2-4, of the machine translation) and includes a heater (heater rod)(10).
With respect to claim 3, both the stabilizer (2) and main fermentation tank (15) include conveying units (stirrers ) (7, 7a).
With respect to claims 4, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the stabilizer (2) is structurally capable of being used as a composter and the main fermentation tank (15) is structurally capable of being used as a removal container.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, the apparatus of Lee includes a sensor device (14) and the controller (24) is connected to the sensor (14) and stirrer (7, 7a) (page 3, ¶2-4, of the machine translation).
With respect to claim 7, the conveying unit of Lee includes a drive device (10) and a shaft (6) and at least one conveying element (7).
With respect to claim 8, the axis of rotation of the shaft is an axis of the stabilizer (2).
With respect to claim 9, as shown in Fig. 2, the conveying element (7) includes a holding portion and a sliding portion which is the same or an equivalent structure to that conveying element of the instant disclosure.
With respect to claim 16, the initial chamber (2) is arranged above the subsequent chamber (15) wherein the material is transferrable under the influence of gravity.
With respect to claim 17, the subsequent chamber (15) projects beyond an outer contour of the initial chamber (15)(Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 19, the at least one initial chamber (2) comprises a wall arrangement having a bottom wall on which the organic material rests (Figs. 2 and 4).
With respect to claim 22, the at least one initial chamber (2) is cylindrical (Figs. 1, 2 and 4) and includes a jacket (9) and opposite end walls.
With respect to claim 23, the axis of the cylindrical initial chamber (2) is parallel with a contact plane of the apparatus (Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
With respect to claims 24 and 25, the discharge opening is formed in the side wall (Figs. 2 and 4) and extends parallel with the axis.
With respect to claims 28 and 29, the passage (16) of Lee meets the structure of the recited “channel”.
With respect to claim 30, the reference of Lee discloses that the initial chamber includes a heater (10).
With respect to claim 31, the reference of Lee discloses a ventilation system that includes at least one pressure generation unit (ring blower) (11) and at least one air guide part (ventilation)(13, 13a).
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 10, 12-15, 18, 20, 21, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR-19990009208 and corresponding English language machine translation) in view of Kim (EP 0860407).
The reference of Lee has been discussed above with respect to claims 1, 7, 9, 19 and 22.
Claim 10 differs by reciting that the sliding portion of the conveying element is a wiping portion.
The reference of Kim discloses that it is known in the art to provide a composting device (Fig. 1) with wiping elements (45) which move along the inner wall of the chamber (10).
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 conveying elements as suggested by the reference of Kim in the system of the reference of Lee for the known and expected result of providing an alternative means recognized in the art to achieve the same result, mixing the material within a cylindrical composting chamber.
With respect to claims 12-15, the reference of Lee does not disclose that the conveyor unit is capable of the operating modes required of claims 12-15.
The reference of Kim discloses that it is known in the art to construct the conveyor unit (agitator)(40) wherein in one mode the conveyor unit mixes the material within the chamber and a second mode the conveyor unit transports the material out of the chamber (col. 4, line 47, to col. 5, line 6, and col. 9, line 48, to col. 10, line 50).
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 the agitator mechanism of the reference of Kim in the system of the primary reference for the known and expected result of providing an alternative means recognized in the art to achieve the same result while providing the advantages associated with the structure of the agitator plates disclosed by the reference of Kim.
With respect to claims 20, 21, 26 and 27, the reference of Lee differs by providing the discharge opening on the bottom wall of the cylindrical chamber.
The reference of Kim discloses that it is known in the art to provide a cylindrical compost chamber with a discharge opening (13) in the end wall of the chamber rather than in the bottom of the chamber.
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 discharge opening in the end wall of the chamber for the known and expected result providing an alternative means recognized in the art to discharge material from a cylindrical compost chamber with an agitator while providing the mixing benefits associated with the agitator structure of the device of Kim.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR-19990009208 and corresponding English language machine translation) in view of Tombeur (WO 2015135994 and corresponding English language machine translation).
The reference of Lee has been discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 31.
With respect to claim 32, while the reference of Lee discloses that the composting apparatus includes a ventilation device as discussed in claim 31, the reference does not disclose that the air guide structure surrounds the wall of either the initial chamber or subsequent chamber.
The reference of Tombeur discloses that it is known in the art to provide a composting chamber (14) that is
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a composting apparatus, in the claimed environment or scope of claim, that includes an initial chamber with a first chamber region and a second chamber region wherein a disk-shaped conveying element separates the chamber regions as recited in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references of Matsui (US 2004/0172996); Wu et al. (CN 108640722); and Gitt et al. (WO 2004/022508) are cited as prior art which pertain to vertical compositing devices with multiple chambers.
The references of Maghas et al. (US 2018/0215676) and Ueda et al. (JP H08309320) is cited as prior art which pertain to a composting device with plural chambers.
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