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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Liu (CN 111803693 A) fails to teach a hermetically seal between an environment inside and an environment outside of a processing chamber, and instead teaches a closed tank configured to prevent water from leaking). This is found persuasive.
However, the shared technical features of “provide a hermetic seal between the environment inside and an environment outside of the processing chamber," "fluidly coupled to or comprising a generator (G) configured to generate ozone and to maintain a target concentration level of ozone of the environment inside the processing chamber," "a particle transporting arrangement configured, in the loading mode and in the processing mode, to stir the particles of medical waste, and further configured, in the unloading mode, to move the particles of medical waste to the outlet for extraction" fail to make a contribution over the prior art as evidenced by Bataille et al. (US 20230233720 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an EFD of 06/17/2020). See rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 particle transporting arrangement configured…to stir the particles of medical waste, and further configured…to move the particles of medical waste to the outlet for extraction” in claim 1.
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. Specifically, the transporting arrangement is understood to include stirrers and mechanical equivalents configured to mix and provide motive force to waste particles as described in the specification (page 9, lines 5-16)
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 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the processing chamber is further fluidly coupled to or comprising a generator configured to generator ozone…and wherein the generator is releasably attached to the processing chamber.” It is unclear how to chamber can comprise a generator that is releasably attached to itself. It is suggested that the Applicant recites that the generator is releasably attached to a container/housing/receptacle or delete the phrase “or comprising” to cure the indefiniteness issue.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the transporting arrangement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection can be cured by amending the limitation to recite “the particle transporting arrangement.”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bataille et al. (US 20230233720 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an EFD of 06/17/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Bataille teaches a waste processing chamber (Fig. 1, chamber 130) configured to operate in any one of a loading mode, a processing mode and an unloading mode, further configured to provide, in the processing mode, an environment (Fig. 1, 133) to disinfect particles of medical waste using ozone [0067], the processing chamber comprising:
an inlet configured to, in the loading mode, to receive the particles of medical waste (Fig. 1, inlet 131 receives waste particles from feed hopper [0101-105]), and configured to, in the processing mode and unloading mode to provide a hermetic seal between the environment inside and an environment outside of the processing chamber (Fig. 1, inlet 131 hermetically seals chamber 130 [0067]),
an outlet configured to, in the unloading mode, to extract the particles of medical waste from the processing chamber (Fig. 1, outlet 103), and configured to, in the loading mode and processing mode, to provide a hermetic seal between the environment inside and the environment outside of the processing chamber (chamber 130 is a hermetic volume [0088-0089] = outlet understood to provide hermetic seal as well),
a particle transporting arrangement configured, in the loading mode and in the processing mode, to stir the particles of medical waste, and further configured, in the unloading mode, to move the particles of medical waste to the outlet for extraction (Fig. 1, conveying device 101 stirs waste 10 and moves it towards outlet 103 [0076-0078]),
one or more sensors configured to measure characteristics of the environment inside the processing chamber (ozone sensor for measuring concentration inside the chamber [0052-0053]),
wherein the processing chamber is further fluidly coupled to or comprising a generator configured to generate ozone (Fig. 1, ozone injection device 140 [0090], and to maintain a target concentration level of ozone of the environment inside the processing chamber [0054].
Regarding claim 2, Bataille teaches the waste processing chamber according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least an ozone sensor configured to measure an ozone concentration level of the environment inside the processing chamber (ozone sensor for measuring concentration inside the chamber [0052-0053] and extraction device 150 for determining ozone concentration [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Bataille teaches the waste processing chamber according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the environment inside the processing chamber (extraction device 150 can measure temperature of chamber [0028]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bataille et al. (US 20230233720 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an EFD of 06/17/2020).
Regarding claim 3, Bataille teaches the waste processing chamber according to claim 1, wherein the generator is fluidically connected to the waste processing chamber (Fig. 1, ozone injector 140 is separated by an airlock from the chamber 130, wherein the air lock can be opened and closed [0093-0098] = ozone injector understood to be attached to chamber) but does not explicitly teach wherein the generator is releasably attached to the waste processing chamber.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with performing maintenance on the ozone generators, a function which could be made easier if the generator was separable from the waste processing chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ozone generator as taught by Bataille to be releasably attached to the waste processing chamber to improve the ease of maintenance operations and this involves the separation of parts which was already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bataille et al. (US 20230233720 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an EFD of 06/17/2020) in view of Jude et al. (WO 2017160891 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 10/03/2023).
Regarding claim 5, Bataille teaches the waste processing chamber according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least a hydrometry sensor to determine a hydrometry level ([0028], [0052]) but does not teach a humidity sensor configured to measure a humidity of the environment inside the processing chamber. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with measuring the humidity within the chamber to ensure optimal sterilization properties caused by synergistic effects with the ozone and water vapor, motivating one to turn towards Jude.
Jude teaches a biomedical waste treatment system (Fig. 1, 100) comprising a control assembly (170) with a sensor unit configured to measure humidity within a treatment chamber (page 9, lines 10-21) and a humidity generator configured to control humidity within the chamber (page 9, lines 26-31). Jude teaches that moisture-saturated ozone gas increases the oxidation potential of ozone and enhances sterilization efficiency (page 10, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing chamber as taught by Bataille to include the humidity sensors and generators as taught by Jude to maintain a humidity within the chamber that enhances the sterilization effects of ozone and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 6, Bataille teaches the waste processing chamber according to claim 1, comprising a heating device configured to heat the sterilization chamber to a temperature above 100 degrees Celsius [0082]) but does not teach a controllable climate control unit configured to maintain a target temperature of the environment inside the processing chamber. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with maintaining the temperature within the processing chamber to ensure a temperature threshold sufficient to kill microorganisms is met, motivating one to turn towards Jude.
Jude teaches a biomedical waste treatment system (Fig. 1, 100) comprising a control assembly (170) with a sensor unit configured to measure temperature within a treatment chamber and a control module (Fig. 1, 170) configured to control parameters within the treatment chamber (page 9, lines 10-21). Jude teaches the control module to store sterilization parameters (such as temperature) thresholds and to allow for the control and regulation of said parameters (page 11, lines 10-15 = temperature understood to be maintainable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waste processing chamber as taught by Bataille to include the control module as taught by Jude to control and maintain the temperature within the waste processing chamber and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 7, Bataille teaches the waste processing chamber according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the chamber further comprises a controllable humidifier configured to maintain a target humidity of the environment inside the processing chamber. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with controlling the humidity within the chamber to ensure optimal sterilization properties caused by synergistic effects with the ozone and water vapor, motivating one to turn towards Jude.
Jude teaches a biomedical waste treatment system (Fig. 1, 100) comprising a control assembly (170) with a sensor unit configured to measure humidity within a treatment chamber (page 9, lines 10-21) and a humidity generator configured to control humidity within the chamber (page 9, lines 26-31). Jude teaches that moisture-saturated ozone gas increases the oxidation potential of ozone and enhances sterilization efficiency (page 10, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing chamber as taught by Bataille to include the humidity sensors and generators as taught by Jude to maintain a humidity within the chamber that enhances the sterilization effects of ozone and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 9, Bataille teaches the waste processing chamber according to claim 1, wherein the particle transporting arrangement has a shaft having a longitudinal axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the processing chamber (Fig. 1, conveyors 111 and 112) and wherein the arrangement is intended to spatially reposition the waste and improve contact with ozone held in the chamber [0076] but does not teach paddles extending in orthogonal directions to the longitudinal axis of the shaft. Bataille contemplates where one of the transporting arrangements may have a different conveying mechanism than the first [0076], wherein the first conveying type (Fig, 1, conveyor 111) is a belt loop conveyor [0075]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a plurality of conveying mechanisms could be used to stir the waste particles and improve their surface area of contact with the ozone, motivating one to turn towards Jude.
Jude teaches a biomedical waste treatment system (Fig. 1, 100) comprising a chamber (Fig. 1, 140) and a waste transporter assembly (Fig. 1, 142) that is a screw type auger teach with a shaft having a longitudinal axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the processing chamber and paddles extending in orthogonal directions to the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Fig. 1, 142; Fig. 5 shows a top view).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second conveyor as taught by Bataille with the auger screw conveyor as taught by Jude since both drive waste particles through a treatment chamber towards an exit (Jude, page 8, lines 15-25) and this involves the substitution of equivalents known for the same purposes. See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bataille et al. (US 20230233720 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an EFD of 06/17/2020) in view of Ferrigni (WO 2009019570 A2) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 10/03/2023).
Regarding claim 8, Bataille teaches the waste processing chamber according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the processing chamber is provided with inspection windows arranged on an upper half of the processing chamber. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with operators monitoring the disinfection process occurring within the chamber, motivating one to turn towards Ferrigni.
Ferrigni teaches a device for the treatment of hospital garbage comprising a series of modules (abstract), wherein the first module (Fig. 2.1) is configured to use UVC radiation, and the second module (Fig. 2.2) is configured to use ozone to sterilize the garbage (page 4, lines 20-24). Ferrigni teaches wherein the second module is provided with visible inspection windows that are airtight, and do not allow for the escape of ozone or radiation-preventing users from harm (page 6, lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper half of the processing chamber as taught by Bataille with the inspection windows as taught by Ferrigni to allow for visual inspection of the sterilization process without harming operators and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bataille et al. (US 20230233720 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an EFD of 06/17/2020) in view of Blakeman et al. (US 20180214589 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bataille teaches a waste processing chamber according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the processing chamber further comprises: a controllable gas inlet configured to provide fresh air to the processing chamber and a controllable gas outlet configured to let out gas from the environment in the processing chamber. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with regulating the ozone concertation within the processing chamber, motivating one to turn towards Blakeman.
Blakeman teaches a sterilizing system and method [abstract] comprising a sterilization chamber (Fig. 1, 110) fluidically coupled to an ozone generator (120), an air mover (140, understood to be fresh air source with inlet connected to chamber), and an exhaust port (184). Blakeman teaches the air mover to control the circulation and exhausting of air from the sterilization chamber [0037-38] via the exhaust port in order to maintain an optimal ozone concentration within the chamber [0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing chamber as taught by Bataille to include the controllable air mover and exhaust port as taught by Blakeman to control the concentration of ozone within the processing chamber and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070196232 A1 teaches a system for treating biomedical waste with ozone and a shredding mechanism.
US 20130341444 A1 teaches a system for the sterilization of medical waste with gaseous ozone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758