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 123 245.4 09/05/2020) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements dated 3/7/2023; 12/2/2024; 5/23/2025 and 7/22/2025 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 heating device” in claim 1;
“a control device” in claim 1;
“a ventilation device” in claim 3;
“a pressure generating unit” in claim 4;
“an air guide part” in claim 4;
“a mixing unit” in claim 9;
“a conveying unit” in claim 10;
“a heating device” in claim 16;
“a ventilation device” in claim 17;
“a pressure generating unit” in claim 18;
“an air guide” in claim 18;
“a heating device” in claim 19;
“a humidification device” in claim 20;
“a conveying unit” in claim 23;
“a heating device” in claim 25;
“a ventilation device” in claim 25;
“a humidification device” in claim 25;
“a mixing unit” in claim 27;
“a conveying unit” in claim 28;
“a mixing unit” in claim 29; and
“a heating device” in claim 33.
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 1-35 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 (62) 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.
In claims 2-35, “Composting apparatus” lacks antecedent basis. Note: Claim 1 recites a “Composting device”. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 11, “the mixing unit” lacks antecedent basis. Note: Claim 11 depends from claim 10 which depends from claim 1 rather than claim 9. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 14, “the conveying unit” lacks antecedent basis. Note: Claims 1 and 13 are devoid of a reference to a conveying unit.
In claim 26, bridging lines 3-4, “the composting process” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claims 1-35 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 2-35 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.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 19990009208).
With respect to claim 36, the reference of Lee discloses:
Method for providing compost material from organic material, said method comprising:
- heating and drying organic material to be composted (page 3, ¶3, of the machine translation), in a drying chamber (stabilizer)(2);
- transferring dried organic material into a composting chamber (page 3, ¶5, to page 4, ¶2, of the machine translation) (main fermentation tank)(15) and converting the material in the composting chamber to form compost material.
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 1-12, 16-30 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 19990009208).
With respect to claim 1, the reference of Lee discloses:
Composting device (Figs. 1-4) for providing compost material from organic material, comprising:
- a drying chamber (stabilizer)(2) for receiving organic material to be composted;
- a heating device (heater rod) (10) located on the drying chamber for heating the organic material located in the drying chamber;
- a control device (24); and
- a composting chamber (main fermentation tank)(15), which is connected to the drying chamber (stabilizer)(2) via an opening (passage)(16) for material transfer and in which the organic material that has been dried in the drying chamber is convertible into compost material.
While the reference of Lee discloses a controller (24) and references automated control of the device (page 3, ¶3, to page 4, ¶1, of the machine translation), the reference does not specifically state that the controller if “for at least one of controlling and regulating the heating device”.
In the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to automate the control of the heating device for the known and expected result of automating a manual activity for maintaining a desired temperature condition within the stabilizer chamber which is desired within the device of the primary reference.
With respect to claim 2, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the apparatus of the reference of Lee would be structurally capable of being operated in the modes required of claim 2.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, 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).
With respect to claim 5, the reference of Lee discloses that the air guide part can include a heating device (12).
With respect to claim 6, the reference of Lee discloses that the device includes a condensation device (23) downstream of the drying chamber in the flow direction of the drying air.
With respect to claim 7, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to automate the control of the ventilation device for the known and expected result of automating a manual activity for maintaining a desired temperature and/or moisture and/or temperature conditions within the stabilizer chamber which is desired within the device of the primary reference.
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 drying chamber (1) with a heater for the known and expected result of facilitating the drying of the material within the chamber.
With respect to claim 8, the reference of Lee discloses the use of a moisture sensor (14).
With respect to claim 9, the reference of Lee discloses that the device includes a mixing unit (7).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, the reference of Lee discloses a conveying unit (stirrer)(6, 7, 8), passage (16) and slide gate (17) on at least drying chamber, having at least one conveying element (7) for the organic material, said conveying element being arranged in said drying chamber.
With respect to claim 12, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the apparatus of the reference of Lee would be structurally capable of being operated in the modes required of claim 12.
With respect to claim 16, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to provide the composting chamber (main fermentation tank)(15) with a heater for the known and expected result of providing an art recognized means for maintaining a desired temperature within the compositing chamber.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, 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).
With respect to claim 19, the reference of Lee discloses that the air guide part can include a heating device (12).
With respect to claims 20, 21 and 23, the reference of Lee discloses adding fermentation agent, aerobic microorganisms and/or moisture control agent to the fermentation tank (15) (page 3, ¶7, of the machine translation). As a result, it would have been obvious to provide the device with a supply of liquid for controlling the moisture within the fermentation tank as contemplated by the reference of Lee.
With respect to claim 22, the reference of Lee discloses that the device includes a condensation device (23) downstream of the drying chamber in the flow direction of the drying air.
With respect to claim 24, the reference of Lee discloses that when adding liquid to a chamber, it is known to added to an upper side of the chamber (spreading device)(21). As a result, it would have been obvious to add liquid to the fermentation tank (15) in the same manner.
With respect to claim 25, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to automate the control of the heaters, the ventilation device and/or humidification device for the known and expected result of automating a manual activity for maintaining a desired temperature and/or moisture and/or temperature conditions within the composting chamber which is desired within the device of the primary reference. Note, the use of these structures on the composting chamber has been discussed in claims 20-24 previously.
With respect to claim 26, the reference of Lee discloses the use of a moisture sensor (14) and temperature sensor (20a).
With respect to claim 27, the reference of Lee discloses that the device includes a mixing unit (7a).
With respect to claims 28 and 29, the reference of Lee discloses a conveying unit (stirrer)(6a, 7a, 8a) and discharge (19) on the fermentation tank (15) wherein the discharge can be communicated with a removal container to avoid discharging the product on the ground.
With respect to claim 30, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the apparatus of the reference of Lee would be structurally capable of being operated in the modes required of claim 30.
With respect to claim 33, the device of Lee includes a heating device (heater rod) (10) located on the drying chamber for heating the organic material located in the drying chamber that is structurally capable of operating in the manner required of claim 33.
With respect claim 34, in the absence of further positively recited structure, the drying chamber (3) and the composting chamber (15) of the reference of Lee are structurally capable of being independently operated.
With respect to claim 35, use of wireless interfaces to communicate and control an apparatus is notoriously well known in the art and would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art for remotely controlling and/or monitoring the composting device.
Claims 13-15, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 19990009208) in view of Maghas et al. (US 2018/0215676).
The reference of Lee has been discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 13-15, 31 and 32 differ by reciting that the device includes the use of weight sensors.
The reference of Maghas et al. discloses that it is known in the art to provide a compost device with weight sensors (¶[0028]).
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 device of the reference of Lee with weight sensors as is conventional in the art for monitoring the state of the material and/or the amounts of material moving within the system.
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