And 13-16Notice 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 .
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, 3, 4, 6-10 and 13-15 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, line 7, there is no antecedent basis for “organic matter”. It is also indefinite as to whether the claim requires that at least 80% by weight of the product pass through a sieve having a 3 mm mesh size, since this limitation is in a “whereby” clause. The word “whereby” should be changed to – wherein - - in the third to last line to avoid this rejection.
Claims 3, 4, 6-10 and 13-15 are also rejected, since they depend on claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ES2381718A1 in view of Sahl (US 7,497,890), further in view of PITTWOOD (US 3,756,784), even further in view of Horigane (US 2001/0006811). ES2381718A1 discloses a composting process in which shoes are included in the composting mixture. (See pages 9-11 of the English translation.) he differences between the process and apparatus disclosed by ES2381718A1, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that ES2381718A1 does not disclose the steps of pulverizing to form a coarse slurry, autoclaving the slurry, and producing a product wherein at least 80% by weight pass through a sieve having a 3 mm mesh size. It would be obvious from Sahl in view of PITTWOOD to modify the process and apparatus of ES2381718A1 by pulverizing to form a coarse slurry, autoclaving the slurry, and producing a product wherein at least 80% by weight pass through a sieve having a 3 mm mesh size. One of ordinary skill in art would be motivated to do so, since Sahl discloses grinding degradable substance to a size of less than 10 mm before composting at col. 1, lines 43-53, and PITTWOOD teaches at col 4, lines 60-67 that household refuse to be composted should have articles of clothing and footwear remove prior to pulverization. It would also be obvious from Sahl in view of PITTWOO, further in view of Horigane to sterilize the organic material in an autoclave. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Sahl teaches in the Abstract that the waste should be sterilizer, PITTWOOD discloses at col. 4, lines 48-57 that the material should be pathogenically safe by holding the material at an appropriate temperature for an appropriate amount if time, and Horigane specifically discloses an autoclave for sterilization of organic waste in Paragraph [0003].
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sahl discloses that materials such as aluminum cans should be removed from then waste stream. It is conventional to remove such metallic materials with a metal detector.
Regarding claim 8, Sahl discloses at col. 4, lines 16-19 that ground metallic components can be returned to the waste stream.
Regarding claim 9, it would be obvious to provide a products verification stage that verifies each of the manufactured products as being of a kind made of compostable materials, since ES2381718A1 teaches in the third full paragraph on page 23 of the English translation that there should be a low presence of soluble salts to be suitable as a substrate for cultivation,
Regarding claim 10, it would be obvious to test the compost for seedling growth, since Sahl discloses at col. 1, lines 18-14 that the compost is useful as a fertilizer or enriched soil.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ES2381718A1 in view of Sahl, further in view of PITTWOOD, even further in view of Horigane, as applied to claim 1 above, still further in view of WO 99/54028. It would be still further obvious from WO 99/54028 to carry out the pulverization with a water jet. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since WO 99/54028 would suggest on page 10, lines 20 and 21 that water jet pulverization is conventional.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: ES2381718A1 discloses a composting process in which shoes are included in the composting mixture. (See pages 9-11 of the English translation.) he differences between the process and apparatus disclosed by ES2381718A1, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that ES2381718A1 does not disclose the steps of pulverizing to form a coarse slurry, autoclaving the slurry, and producing a product wherein at least 80% by weight pass through a sieve having a 3 mm mesh size. It would be obvious from Sahl in view of PITTWOOD to modify the process and apparatus of ES2381718A1 by pulverizing to form a coarse slurry, autoclaving the slurry, and producing a product wherein at least 80% by weight pass through a sieve having a 3 mm mesh size. One of ordinary skill in art would be motivated to do so, since Sahl discloses grinding degradable substance to a size of less than 10 mm before composting at col. 1, lines 43-53, and PITTWOOD teaches at col 4, lines 60-67 that household refuse to be composted should have articles of clothing and footwear remove prior to pulverization. It would also be obvious from Sahl in view of PITTWOO, further in view of Horigane to sterilize the organic material in an autoclave. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Sahl teaches in the Abstract that the waste should be sterilizer, PITTWOOD discloses at col. 4, lines 48-57 that the material should be pathogenically safe by holding the material at an appropriate temperature for an appropriate amount if time, and Horigane specifically discloses an autoclave for sterilization of organic waste in Paragraph [0003]. However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in the applied references to modify the process of ES2381718A1 with the verification steps recited in claim 14. Nor would there be any motivation from the prior art to include such steps in the process of ES2381718A1. Accordingly claim 14 is not rejected over the prior art.
KR100382054B1 and KR100426977B1 are made of record for disclosing waste treatment systems which include crushing the waste.
Carlsson (US 4,132,638) is made of record for disclosing a degradation technique including grinding and forming a slurry.
EP 2540182 A1 is made of record for disclosing a composting process which includes compostable shoes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 PM
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights