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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Currently, no information disclosure statements have been filed in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the helical cutter is provided in a number of two” should read “wherein the helical cutter comprises two helical cutting elements”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 grinding device, arranged between the first feeding port and the mixing room” in claim 1 (The specification teaches a structure of the grinding device as a plurality of knives (See Page 10, Lines 1-2 of Specification));
“a temperature-controlling unit and a humidity-controlling unit” in claim 1 (The specification teaches a structure of the temperature-controlling unit as by means of a heat source (See Page 10, Lines 12-14); the specification teaches a structure of the humidity-controlling as by means of a mist maker (See Page 10, Lines 14-16 of Specification));
“a guiding device, mounted on the processing barrel and configured to guide water vapor generated in the mixing room back to the mixing room” in claim 1 (The specification teaches a structure of the guiding device as an inclined guiding plate and an inclined covering plate (See Page 15, Line 18-19 of Specification));
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 § 103
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.
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 1,2, 5-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang Sung Gie (KR-101346593-B1 and corresponding English language translation) in view of Guo (CN-110372432-A and corresponding English language translation), Chen (CN-108083856-A and corresponding English language translation), Atkinson et al. (US-20200148604-A1), Gao (TW M530810 U and corresponding English language translation) and Bradlee (US 10556840 B1) (all referenced in 892).
Regarding claim 1, Jang Sung Gie teaches an organic-waste recycling apparatus (“food processing device” para. 0001) for fast formation of compost, configured to process a to-be-processed object for recycling (“apparatus for grinding or drying food waste discharged from normal home, food store, etc., and for use as a livestock feed or compost.” para. 0002), the organic-waste recycling apparatus comprising:
a processing barrel (Figure 3 below), having a first feeding port (Figure 3, feature 10), mixing room (Figure 3, feature 300), and an output (Figure 3, feature 390), wherein the first feeding port and output are communicated with the mixing room (Figure 3, feature 10, 100, 200, 300), and the to-be-processed objects are fed into the mixing room (“A crushing unit 100 capable of crushing the foodstuff into which the crushed foodstuff is crushed is provided in a lower portion of the crushing unit 100. The crushed foodstuff is transported to the stirring and drying unit 300” para. 0036);
PNG
media_image1.png
361
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a grinding device (Figure 3, feature 100), arranged between the first feeding port (Figure 3, feature 10) and the mixing room (Figure 3, feature 300), which uses crushing blades (feature 112, 122, para. 0048);
a control device (Figure 19, feature 600), having a temperature-controlling unit (See annotated Figure 17 below, band heater 302) electrically connected to the control device (“the control unit 600 serves to control a specific component by providing a control signal for other components” para. 0039), wherein the temperature-controlling unit is used to adjust a fermentation temperature in the mixing room (“The stirred food or drink is heated and dried by a heater 302 provided in the stirring housing 301” para. 0164) (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f)).
PNG
media_image2.png
534
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a stirring device (See annotated Figure 18, feature 310), installed in the mixing room (300) for rolling and blending the to-be processed objects fed through the first feeding port in the mixing room. (“The stirring spatula 313 plays a role of dispersing or discharging food in the stirring housing 301, and when the food is partially dried, it also performs a role of crushing the food” para. 0127);
PNG
media_image3.png
460
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jang Sung Gie fails to teach the following limitations:
a second feeding port communicated with the mixing room, where the to-be processed objects are fed
a humidity-controlling unit electrically connected to the control device
a helical cutter installed in the mixing room for rolling and blending the to-be processed objects for even heating
a guiding device mounted on the processing barrel (Note: this element was invoked via 112f)
a guiding device configured to guide water vapor generated in the mixing room back to the mixing room.
Regarding limitation (1), Guo teaches composter having a second feeding port (See annotated Figure 1 below, feature 9) adjacent to a first feeding port (Figure 1, feature 19). Guo teaches that this configuration allows material processing of bulk material and pretreatment of plant residue without affecting the feeding of the inlet of the can lid 9 (para. 0108). Guo also teaches that this fermenter can be applied to organic wastes with more shapes and physical states (para. 0024).
PNG
media_image4.png
527
565
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Guo’s configuration in Jang Sung Gie’s device because this combination would enable a wider variety of organic to be materially processed by the apparatus. This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Guo. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Guo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding limitation (2), Chen teaches a composting having a humidity-controlling unit electrically connected to a control device (“the main body is equipped with a PLC, and the stirring mechanism, humidity control mechanism and gathering mechanism are all electrically connected to the PLC.”, para. 0019) and the humidity controlling unit is used to adjust the fermentation humidity in the mixing room (Through the humidity control mechanism, the nozzles can spray the aerobic fertilizer compost evenly, humidifying and oxygenating it, which is conducive to the growth and reproduction of aerobic bacteria, improving their activity and increasing the production efficiency of organic fertilizer, para. 0023). Chen also discloses that aerobic bacteria need appropriate amounts of oxygen and humidity to grow and reproduce (para. 0005). Please see annotated Figure 1 below. Note: moisture and humidity are used interchangeably due to foreign translation.
PNG
media_image5.png
546
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Chen’s configuration in Jang Sung Gie’s device because this combination would supply the appropriate amounts of humidity for aerobic bacteria to grow and reproduce.This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding limitation (3), Atkinson et al. teaches a composter having a stirrer (See annotated Figure 2 below, feature 60) with helical blades (Figure 2, 58) installed in the mixing bin (Figure 2, feature 24). Atkinson et al. also teaches that stirrers including helical blades (Figure 2, feature 58) are reducing mechanisms that enable reduction of the particle’s sizes of refuse by the operation of the stirrer (para 0032). Atkinson et al. also teaches that reducing mechanisms – such as helical blades – enable the refuse to be uniformly mixed with heat, water and aeration provided to promote decomposition of the refuse (para 0026).
PNG
media_image6.png
693
590
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Atkinson et al.’s configuration in Jang Sung Gie’s device because substituting the stirring spatula with a helical cutter would amount to simple substitution (MPEP § 2144.06 II) The stirring spatula and helical cutter are functional equivalents in this present case. This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Atkinson et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Atkinson et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding limitation (4), Gao teaches a food waste machine having a guiding device with an incline guiding plate and inclined covering plate via a slope plate (See annotated Figure 2 below, feature 541). Gao teaches that the slope plate allows condensate generated to flow down on both sides; “when the water vapor rises to contact the two sides of the slope plate 541, the condensate generated will flow down to the water flow trench 542 on both sides of the two sides of the slope plate 541” (Page 4 of Machine Translation).
PNG
media_image7.png
629
541
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Gao’s configuration in Jang Sung Gie’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would have allow condensate to flow down on both sides of the guiding device. This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Gao. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Gao to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding limitation (5) Bradlee teaches a guiding device (See annotated Figure 15 below), mounted on the processing barrel. Bradlee et al. also teaches that the inclined arrangement of a slanted lid 912 that allows water vapor rising through the compost material to condense on the undersurface of the lid 912 (para. 42). Condensed water vapor falls back down into the composting device, allowing condensate to drip onto dry compost material, “it falls toward the center crease 952, and falls from the center crease 952 in the region closest to the gill 120. The compost material closest to the gill is likely the driest material as the gill has caused aeration in that area” (para. 41).
PNG
media_image8.png
557
505
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Bradlee’s configuration in Jang Sung Gie’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow condensate to drip onto dry compost material and rehydrate it. This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Bradlee. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Bradlee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Modified Jang Sung Gie fails to teach a housing, wherein the processing barrel is located within one side of the housing and the control device is located within an opposite side of the housing. Nonetheless, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Modifying the device of Jang Sung Gie such that the processing barrel is located within one side of the housing and control device was located within an opposite side of the housing would amount to merely rearrangement of parts, as such modification would predictably result in the same operation between the controller and processing barrel.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Modified Jang Sung Gie fails to teach wherein the first feeding port and the second feeding port are located at the same side of the processing barrel.
However, Guo further teaches an embodiment wherein the first feeding port (Figure 1, feature 19) and second feeding port (Figure 1, feature 9) are located at a same side of the processing barrel. Guo also teaches that the location of the first feeding port allows material processing of bulk material and pretreatment of plant residue without affecting the feeding of the inlet (para. 0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Guo’s configuration in Jang Sung Gie’s device with a reasonable expectation because it would allow material processing of bulk material in the first feeding port without affecting feeding of the inlet from the second feeding port. This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Guo. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Guo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Jang Sung Gie teaches an organic waste-recycling apparatus containing an output located at a side opposite to the side of the feeding port (Feeding Port (feature 10) and Output (feature 390)). The structure resulting from a combination of Gie and Guo would encompass a structure where the first feeding port and second feeding port are opposite to the side of the output (See rejection of claim 1, limitation 1 – the configuration of the feeding ports adjacent to each other on the same side would be opposite the output).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Jang Sung Gie teaches wherein the stirring device has a rotary shaft. (“The stirring module 310 includes a stirring rotating shaft 312 rotated by the rotary motor 311, and a stirring spatula 313 disposed on the stirring rotating shaft 312 to be spaced apart from each other.” (para. 0126). The structure resulting from a combination of Gie and Atkinson et al. would encompass a structure where the helical cutter is affixed around the rotary shaft (See rejection of claim 1, limitation 3).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 7. Jang Sung Gie fails to teach wherein the helical cutter is provided in a number of two.
However, Guo further teaches an apparatus containing two helical cutters (“A tank body for accommodating the first and second helical ribbon groups”, para. 0016). Guo teaches that the use of two helical cutters arranged parallel to each other allows fermentation material to be transported along two different path directions (para. 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Guo’s configuration in Jang Sung Gie’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow the transportation of fermentation material along two different path directions.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to include an extra helical cutter attached to the rotary shaft to modified Jang Sung Gie’s device for improving transport of fermentation material because it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significant unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B). This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Guo.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Guo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Gie also teaches a temperature- control unit installed at the bottom of the processing barrel. “The heater 302 may be provided as a band heater to heat the stirring housing 301 and play a role of heating and drying food.” (para. 0125).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Modified Jang Sung Gie teaches a guiding device that has an inclined guiding plate and inclined covering plate, in which the inclined guiding plate is connected to and forms an included angle with the inclined covering plate, so that water vapor is guided along the inclined guiding plate and inclined covering plate back into the mixing room. (See rejection of claim 1, limitation 4 and 5).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang Sung Gie (already referenced), Guo (already referenced), Chen (already referenced) Atkinson et al. (already referenced), Gao (already referenced), Bradlee (already referenced) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hayman et al. (US-20200353473-A1) (all referenced in 892).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Jang Sung Gie fails to teach a vent that is communicated with the mixing room.
Hayman et al. cites prior art of a food recycler (Figure 2A, feature 200) including exhaust ports (Figure 2A, feature 228) that acts as a vent. Hayman et al. teaches that the exhaust port facilitates managing potential odor from the waste food (para. 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the prior art configuration cited in Hayman et al.’s application publication in Jang Sung Gie’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow potential odors from the waste food to be managed more effectively. This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hayman et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Hayman et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Jang Sung Gie fails to teach a filtering device arranged between the vent and the mixing room.
Hayman et al. cites prior art of a food recycler (Figure 2A, feature 200) including air filters (Figure 2A, 226). “The air filters are positioned at the bottom of the unit such that air flows from the bottom up through the filters and out the exhaust ports 228” (para. 0009). Hayman also teaches that odor can be filtered through a filtering material which can be contained in the air filters 226 (para. 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the prior art configuration cited in Hayman et al.’s application publication in Jang Sung Gie’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow odor to be filtered out of the food recycler. This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hayman et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Hayman et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang Sung Gie (already referenced), Guo (already referenced), Chen (already referenced), Atkinson et al. (already referenced), Gao (already referenced), Bradlee (already referenced) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cruson et al. (ES-2382801-T3 and corresponding English Language Translation) (all referenced in 892).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches apparatus of claim 1. Jang Sung Gie fails to explicitly teach fermentation temperature ranges between 50-80 C.
Cruson et al. teaches an ideal temperature range between 54.44 and 65.55 degrees Celsius (Page 13 of translation), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 50 - 80C, and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. Cruson et al. teaches that this temperature range enables optimal decomposition of the matter (Page 9 of translation). It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Cruson et al. to obtain the invention in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches apparatus of claim 1. Jang Sung Gie fails to explicitly teach humidity ranges between 50% and 70%.
Cruson et al. teaches an ideal moisture range of approximately 50% (Page 13 of translation), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 50%-70% and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. Cruson et al. teaches that this humidity enables optimal decomposition of the matter (Page 9 of translation). It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Cruson et al. to obtain the invention in claim 10.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jang Sung Gie (already referenced), Guo (already referenced), Chen (already referenced), Atkinson et al. (already referenced), Gao (already referenced), Bradlee (already referenced) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Crepeau et al. (US-20200353474-A1) (all referenced in 892).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jang Sung Gie teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Jang Sung Gie fails to teach a lighting unit and an image capturing unit both mounted on the inclined guiding plate.
Crepeau et al. teaches a food recycler (Figure 2A, 200); “The food recycler 200 could include in the lid 204 or some other location within the food recycler 200, a light and a camera (not shown) which can enable the user to view the contents of the bucket 206” (para. 0116). Crepeau et al. teaches that this would allow images or video to be received by the camera and transmitted as instructed by the controller to a network node such that the user could retrieve those images through an app or through a website to visually see the progress of the cycle and the state of the waste food in the recycle process (para. 0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Crepeau et al.’s light and camera teaching in Jang Sung Gie’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow monitoring of the progress of the composting cycle in the mixing room. This method of improving Jang Sung Gie’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Crepeau et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jang Sung Gie and Crepeau et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 PM.
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.
/JULIUS FRANCIS YOH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799