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.
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 conveying unit” in claims 1, 11 and 36;
“a ventilation device” in claim 3;
“a pressure generating unit” in claim 4;
“a mixing unit” in claim 9;
“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 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 1-9, 11, 12 and 15-35 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.
In claim 1, at line 13, “the control unit” lacks antecedent basis. It appears that this claim element should be “the controller”. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is not clear how the recited “a conveying unit” differs from that recited in claim 1. It appears that the conveying unit of claim 1 is also the mixing unit. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
In claim 31, at line 2, “the control unit” lacks antecedent basis. It appears that this claim element should be “the controller”. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claims 2-9, 12, 15-30 and 32-35 are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim and do not cure the deficiencies of the indefinite claim.
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 1-9, 11, 12 and 16-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 19990009208) (PTO-892 dated 1/28/2026) in view of Zishiri (US 2020/0087224) (Attached PTO-892).
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;
wherein the composting device comprises a conveying unit (stirrer)(6, 7, 8) by means of which dried organic material is conveyable from the drying chamber into the composting chamber.
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 is “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.
Claim 1 further differs by reciting that the composting device comprises a sensor device coupled to the control unit (controller) for determining an amount of the transferred material ,and wherein the conveying unit is at least one of controllable and regulatable as a function of a signal of the sensor device.
The reference of Zishiri discloses that it is known in the composting art to employ a sensor device (counter) (¶[0111]) associated with a conveying unit (rotary gate) (¶[0111]) for determining an amount of transferred material.
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 employ a rotary gate and counter in place of the slide gate of the primary reference for the known and expected result of providing an alternative means recognized in the art to achieve the same result, control the communication between two chambers within a composting device while allowing the amount of material that is transferred between the two chambers be determined. Regulating or controlling the conveying unit based on the amount of material would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art for the known and expected result of ensuring optimal amounts of material have been added to the composting chamber in the system of the primary reference of Lee.
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 claim 11, the reference of Lee discloses a conveying unit/mixing 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 claims 31 and 32, the use of a sensor device for determining an amount of transferred material and control the conveying unit would have been obvious for the same reasons advanced above with respect to claim 1.
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.
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) by means of a conveying unit (stirrer)(6, 7, 8) and converting the material in the composting chamber to form compost material.
Claim 36 further differs by reciting that the composting method employs a sensor device coupled to the control unit (controller) for determining an amount of the transferred material ,and wherein the conveying unit is at least one of controllable and regulatable as a function of a signal of the sensor device.
The reference of Zishiri discloses that it is known in the composting art to employ a sensor device (counter) (¶[0111]) associated with a conveying unit (rotary gate) (¶[0111]) for determining an amount of transferred material.
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 employ a rotary gate and counter in place of the slide gate of the primary reference for the known and expected result of providing an alternative means recognized in the art to achieve the same result, control the communication between two chambers within a composting device while allowing the amount of material that is transferred between the two chambers be determined. Regulating or controlling the conveying unit based on the amount of material would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art for the known and expected result of ensuring optimal amounts of material have been added to the composting chamber in the system of the primary reference of Lee.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 19990009208) (PTO-892 dated 1/28/2026) in view of Zishiri (US 2020/0087224) (Attached PTO-892) taken further in view of Maghas et al. (US 2018/0215676) (PTO-892 dated 1/18/2026).
The combination of the references of Lee and Zishiri has been discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 15 differs 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.
Response to Arguments
Art-Based Rejections & Amended Claims
With respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 over the reference of Lee (KR 19990009208), Applicants argue that the rejections are improper for the following reasons:
i) A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to automate the control of the heater (page 10, paragraph 1, of the response dated 5/28/2026).
ii) The stirrer in Lee is only used to mix and does not convey the material from one tank into another (page 10, paragraph 2, of the response dated 5/28/2026).
iii) The reference of Maghas does not teach that the weight sensor can also be used to control the conveyor unit (pages 9-10 of the response dated 5/28/2026).
In response to argument i) above, the examiner maintains that automated control of a heater for whatever the reason would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Without automated control of a heater, maintaining a desired temperature within the chamber would not be possible unless a person manually turned the heater off and on. The reference of Lee clearly mentions the desired to maintain specific temperatures within the chambers and discloses the use of heaters. As a result, the use of a controller to control the heater would clearly have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In response to argument ii) above, the stirrer in the reference of Lee also functions as a conveyor along with the slide gate. If not, only the contents of the chamber directly above the slide gate opening would be capable of being transferred to the composting chamber. The examiner additionally notes that their conveyer system also transfer material between the chambers solely by gravity once the material is conveyed to the opening in the chamber by the stirring unit.
In response to argument iii) above, the newly cited combination of claim limitations have been addressed by the combination of the references of Lee (KR 19990009208) (PTO-892 dated 1/28/2026) in view of Zishiri (US 2020/0087224) (Attached PTO-892).
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of claims 1-35 under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims in the response dated 5/28/2026.
Note: New grounds of rejection have been made under 35 USC 112(b) in view of the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights