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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are pending and examined.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “pivoted” has been interpreted as meaning that the structure in question (e.g. “at least one pivoted rotting chamber” in claim 1, “at least one pivoted cylindric rotting chamber” in claim 3”) has a pivot for rotating the structure.
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 3-4 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.
Regarding claim 3, Lns. 3-4 recite, “wherein each of the plurality of angular segments forms a rotting chamber”. However, it is unclear if this rotting chamber is the same as or different from the “at least one pivoted rotting chamber” previously recited in claim 1. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “wherein each of the plurality of angular segments forms a rotting chamber of the at least one pivoted rotting chamber”.
Claim 4 is rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (WO Pub. No. 02/20428) in view of Ueda et al. (US Pat. No. 5,753,498; hereinafter Ueda).
Regarding claim 1, Walker discloses a rotting device for an organic material (Pg. 2 Lns. 4-8, see Fig. 1). The rotting device comprises:
at least one pivoted rotting chamber configured to enclose the organic material, the at least one pivoted rotting chamber having a port and a cover for opening and closing the port (Pg. 10 Ln. 20-Pg. 16 Ln. 24, see Fig. 1 at apparatus 11, where drive means causes wheel assembly 15a to rotate the unit in conjunction with rollers 63 about the central axis relative to framework 17, the apparatus having sealable closures 33 for filling and emptying contents of the container).
A chamber drive unit configured to turn the at least one pivoted rotting chamber (Pg. 10 Ln. 20-Pg. 16 Ln. 24, see Fig. 1).
A control unit connected to the chamber drive unit and configured to operate the chamber drive unit (Pg. 10 Ln. 20-Pg. 16 Ln. 24, the reciprocating mechanisms of the drive means includes control means to impart rotation to the wheel assembly to cause the unit to rotate).
The cover moves back and forth for feeding and exhausting the organic material into and from the port of the at least one pivoted rotting chamber (Pg. 10 Ln. 20-Pg. 16 Ln. 24, see Fig. 1).
Walker fails to explicitly disclose a cover drive unit connected to the control unit and configured to be operated by the control unit and move the cover back and forth for feeding and exhausting the organic material into and from the port of the at least one pivoted rotting chamber.
Ueda is in the analogous field of apparatuses for decomposing organic matter (Ueda Col. 1 Lns. 4-10). Ueda teaches a cover drive unit connected to a control unit and configured to be operated by the control unit and move the cover back and forth (Ueda; Col. 7 Lns. 54-60, see Fig. 1 at lid 3, which can be opened and closed automatically). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Walker with the teachings of Ueda to include a cover drive unit connected to the control unit and configured to be operated by the control unit and move the cover back and forth for feeding and exhausting the organic material into and from the port of the at least one pivoted rotting chamber. The motivation would have been to be able to open and close the cover automatically (Ueda; Col. 7 Lns. 54-60, see Fig. 1), which would reduce the potential for user error and increase throughput.
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to enclose…”, “configured to turn…”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, modified Walker discloses the rotting device according to claim 1.
Modified Walker fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one pivoted rotting chamber has a volume of at least 4 m3.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the at least one pivoted rotting chamber have a volume of at least 4 m3, since where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The motivation would have been to be able to enclose a large amount of organic material, thereby increasing throughput.
Regarding claim 7, modified Walker discloses the rotting device according to claim 1. Walker further discloses a feeding unit having at least one of a feeding line and a feeding funnel, wherein the feeding line is a screw conveyor or a belt conveyor (Walker; Pg. 17 Ln. 26-Pg. 18 Ln. 10, see Fig. 11 at feed conveyor 80).
Modified Walker fails to explicitly disclose that the feeding unit is connected to and operated by the control unit.
However, Ueda further teaches a control unit that is connected to and operates a plurality of units (Ueda Col. 9 Ln. 59-Col. 10 Ln. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Walker with the further teachings of Ueda so that the feeding unit is connected to and operated by the control unit. The motivation would have been to be able to feed organic material to the device automatically (Ueda; Col. 7 Lns. 54-60, see Fig. 1), which would reduce the potential for user error and increase throughput.
Regarding claim 8, modified Walker discloses the rotting device according to claim 1. Walker further discloses an exhausting unit having an exhausting line, wherein the exhausting line is a screw conveyor or a belt conveyor (Walker; Pg. 17 Ln. 26-Pg. 18 Ln. 10, see Fig. 11 at discharge conveyor 82).
Modified Walker fails to explicitly disclose that the exhausting unit is connected to and operated by the control unit.
However, Ueda further teaches a control unit that is connected to and operates a plurality of units (Ueda Col. 9 Ln. 59-Col. 10 Ln. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Walker with the further teachings of Ueda so that the exhausting unit is connected to and operated by the control unit. The motivation would have been to be able to remove organic material from the device automatically (Ueda; Col. 7 Lns. 54-60, see Fig. 1), which would reduce the potential for user error and increase throughput.
Regarding claim 9, modified Walker discloses the rotting device according to claim 1. Walker further discloses a plurality of sensors selected from the group consisting of temperature sensors, humidity sensors, oxygen sensors, pH sensors, and combinations thereof, wherein each is connected to the control unit and associated with and arranged within the at least one rotting chamber (Walker Pg. 17 Lns. 14-19).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Ueda as applied to claims 1-2 and 7-9 above, and further in view of Massip et al. (Translation of FR Pub. No. 2953827; hereinafter Massip).
Regarding claim 3, modified Walker discloses the rotting device according to 1.
Modified Walker fails to explicitly disclose at least one pivoted cylindric rotting container having a plurality of angular segments separated from each other by a perforated segment wall, wherein each of the plurality of angular segments forms a rotting chamber of the at least one pivoted rotting chamber.
Massip is in the analogous field of composting devices (Massip Pg. 2 1st Para.). Massip teaches at least one pivoted cylindric rotting container having a plurality of angular segments separated from each other by a perforated segment wall, wherein each of the plurality of angular segments forms a rotting chamber of at least one pivoted rotting chamber. The plurality of angular segments span identical peripheral angles and have identical volumes (Massip; Pg. 2 2nd Para.-Pg. 3 First Para., see Fig. 1 at cylindrical rotational wall 3 having walls 6 with orifices 7 sized for the passage of earthworms). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Walker with the teachings of Massip to include at least one pivoted cylindric rotting container having a plurality of angular segments separated from each other by a perforated segment wall, wherein each of the plurality of angular segments forms a rotting chamber of the at least one pivoted rotting chamber, where the plurality of angular segments span identical peripheral angles and have identical volumes. The motivation would have been that such a configuration will allow for the continuous decomposition of organic matter (Massip Pg. 2 2nd Para.-Pg. 3 First Para.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Walker discloses the rotting device according to 3. Modified Walker further discloses that the plurality of angular segments span identical peripheral angles and have identical volumes (see Claim 3 above at Massip teaching that the plurality of angular segments span identical peripheral angles and have identical volumes in Pg. 2 2nd Para.-Pg. 3 First Para., see Fig. 1).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Ueda as applied to claims 1-2 and 7-9 above, and further in view of Manka (Translation of EP Pub. No. 0685441).
Regarding claim 5, modified Walker discloses the rotting device according to 1.
Modified Walker fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of rotting containers aligned in an axial direction, wherein the plurality of rotting containers are detachably connected to each other and separated from each other by a perforated container wall extending perpendicular to the axial direction.
Manka is in the analogous field of devices for composting organic waste (Manka Pg. 1 2nd Para.). Manka teaches a plurality of rotting containers aligned in an axial direction, the plurality of rotting containers being detachably connected to each other and separated from each other by a perforated container wall extending perpendicular to the axial direction (Manka; Pg. 1 Last Para.-Pg. 2 First Para., each chamber is immobilized by a releasable connection, Pg. 3 3rd Para., see Figs. 1-4 at chambers 11 having perforated partitions 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rotting device of modified Walker with the teachings of Manka to include a plurality of rotting containers aligned in an axial direction, wherein the plurality of rotting containers are detachably connected to each other and separated from each other by a perforated container wall extending perpendicular to the axial direction. The motivation would have been that dividing the chambers into sub-chambers would allow for continuous operation of the device (Manka Pg. 2 2nd to Last Para.), and providing a perforated container wall between the chambers will allow for rotting bacteria to penetrate between the chambers so that the load is distributed evenly (Manka Pg. 1 Last Para.-Pg. 2 First Para.).
Regarding claim 6, modified Walker discloses the rotting device according to claim 5.
Modified Walker fails to explicitly disclose a platform directly or indirectly supporting each of the plurality of rotting containers.
However, Manka further teaches a platform directly or indirectly supporting each of the plurality of rotting containers (see Manka Fig. 1 at platform 2 supporting each of the chambers 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Walker with the further teachings of Manka to include a platform directly or indirectly supporting each of the plurality of rotting containers, in order to keep the rotting containers on an even level so that the containers remain connected during operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798