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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 1-18 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 1 recites “A system for drying sludge (2), in particular sewage sludge generated during wastewater treatment,- wherein the system comprises a, preferably rectangular, drying surface (4) for accommodating the sludge (2) over a flat area”
"preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim(s) 2-18 depend(s) on claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 2 recites “ the guides (16.1, 16.2) are each formed by a single or multi-part metal profile that is connected, preferably bolted, to a floor surface (6), in particular to the floor surface (6) of a solar drying hall.
"preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner interprets “a single or multi-part metal profile that is connected, preferably bolted, to a floor surface (6), in particular to the floor surface (6) of a solar drying hall” as “a single or multi-part metal profile that is connected to a floor surface (6) of a solar drying hall”
Claim(s) 3-4 depend(s) on claim 2 and are also rejected.
Claim 5 “the drying surface (4) and the travel paths (5.1, 5.2) are on the same plane, wherein the plane preferably has a vertically extending normal.
"preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner interprets “the drying surface (4) and the travel paths (5.1, 5.2) are on the same plane”
Claim 8 recites “ the sludge turner (3) in the region of the first wheel (14.1) and in the region of the second wheel (14.2) respectively has a bulkhead (19.1, 19.2), which in vertical direction respectively overlap with one of the guides (16.1, 16.2) and in horizontal direction has a distance to the respectively adjacent guide (16.1, 16.2), the amount of which is preferably between 1 mm and 30 mm, in particular between 3 mm and 20 mm.
“the sludge turner (3) in the region of the first wheel (14.1) and in the region of the second wheel (14.2) respectively has a bulkhead” There is no antecedent basis for the region
Examiner interprets in the region of as approximate to
There is no antecedent basis for the amount
"preferably" and “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because preferably makes it unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d), and in particular raises a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims
Examiner suggests this multi-ranged limitation could be a singular range whose criticality is supported by the specification.
Claim(s) 9-10 depend(s) on claim 8 and are also rejected.
Claim 14 recites “the system comprises at least one electrical power cable (26), preferably extending along one of the travel paths (5.1, 5.2), and in that the sludge turner (3) comprises a power pickup that is in operative connection with the electrical power cable (26).
"preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner interprets “at least one electrical power cable (26), preferably extending along one of the travel paths” as “at least one electrical power cable (26)”
Claim 15 recites “A movable sludge turner for a system (1) for drying sludge (2) on a drying surface (4) according to claim 1, wherein…the wheels (14.1, 14.2) are supported on opposite sides of a common gantry (7) of the sludge turner (3), characterized in that a barrier (18) for separating the wheels (14.1, 14.2) from the drying surface (4)”
It is unclear whether claim 15 is intended to be a dependent claim that further limits the system of claim 1, with antecedent basis conserved. See 112 (d) rejection.
If the claim is intended to be dependent, Examiner suggests conserving the same preamble across all dependent claims and using appropriate articles to maintain proper antecedent basis both within the claim itself and in relation to claim 1, including the underlined elements:
A movable sludge turner for a system (1) for drying sludge (2) on a drying surface (4) according to claim 1, wherein the sludge turner (3) has at least one first wheel (14.1) and at least one second wheel (14.2), wherein the wheels (14.1, 14.2) are supported on opposite sides of a common gantry (7) of the sludge turner (3), characterized in that a barrier (18) for separating the wheels (14.1, 14.2) from the drying surface (4) comprises a first guide (16.1) and a second guide (16.2) extending in the direction of travel (F) of the sludge turner (3), wherein the sludge turner (3) - while the latter is traveling - is guided transversely to the direction of travel (F) with the aid of the guides (16.1, 16.2), and wherein the guides (16.1, 16.2) extend upwards from a travel plane of the wheels (14.1, 14.2) and act as a barrier for the sludge (2) spread on the drying surface (4) to keep sludge (2) away from the travel paths (5.1, 5.2).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites “A movable sludge turner…characterized in that a barrier (18) for separating the wheels (14.1, 14.2) from the drying surface (4)”
The claim relates to a movable sludge turner, wherein a barrier is provided for separating the wheels from the drying surface. However, the barrier (18) and the drying surface (4) are not part of the sludge turner (3) and therefore cannot be used to specify the sludge turner.
Furthermore,
Claim 1 recites “A system for drying sludge (2), in particular sewage sludge generated during wastewater treatment,- wherein the system comprises a, preferably rectangular, drying surface (4) for accommodating the sludge (2) over a flat area…wherein the system has a first travel path (5.1) and a second travel path (5.2) … separated from the drying surface (4) by a barrier”
It appears that Claim 15 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2930175-A1, hereinafter Saur.
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner interprets that “preferably rectangular” is indefinite and thus does not further limit the claim.
Saur teaches A system (Fig. 6) for drying sludge (20), in particular sewage sludge generated during wastewater treatment,
- wherein the system comprises a drying surface (10) for accommodating the sludge (20) over a flat area,
- wherein the system comprises a movable sludge turner (30) adapted to turn and mix the sludge (20) spread on the drying surface (10),
- wherein the system has a first travel path and a second travel path (437 of each wall 15),
-wherein the two travel paths extend at least partially on opposing longitudinal sides of the drying surface (10) and are separated from the drying surface (10) by a barrier (15), characterized in that the barrier (15) in the area of the first travel path comprises a first guide and a second guide (15) in the area of the second travel path extending in the direction of travel (437) of the sludge turner (30),
-wherein the sludge turner (30) - as the latter travels - is guided transversely to the direction of travel with the aid of the guides (“the means 35 for guiding the tool 30 in movement straddling the walls 15”, p 8 ¶ 5), and
-wherein the guides (15) extend upwards from the drying surface (10) and act as a barrier for the sludge (20) spread on the drying surface (10), to keep sludge (20) away from the travel paths (“Walls 15 can be arranged… along the sides parallel to the longitudinal direction of this strip forming a corridor delimiting in the transverse direction the area of reception of the material to be treated 20.”, p 8 ¶3).
While Saur teaches “Motorization means 352 are provided on the frame 35 to allow the movement of the latter in one direction or the other relative to the bed of material 20” (p 5 ¶1), it is unclearly in Fig. 6 whether the motorization means are multiple wheels.
However, Saur Fig. 1 also teaches the sludge turner (30) has at least one first wheel and at least one second wheel, wherein the wheels are supported on opposite sides of a common gantry (35) of the sludge turner (30), which spans the drying surface (10) in a transverse direction of the drying surface (Fig. 1), and
- wherein the first wheel rolls on the first travel path and the second wheel rolls on the second travel path as the respective travel plane when the sludge turner (30) is in operation (437),
Saur is analogous because Saur teaches a movable sludge turner installed across a defined corridor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the facility of Fig. 6 to house the moving sludge turner of Fig. 1. In doing so, walls 15 are “forming a corridor delimiting in the transverse direction the area of reception of the material to be treated 20.” (Saur p 8 ¶3).
Regarding Claim 5, Examiner interprets that “the plane preferably has a vertically extending normal” is indefinite and thus does not further limit the claim.
Saur teaches the drying surface (10) and the travel paths (437) are on the same plane (10).
Regarding Claim 6, Saur teaches the sludge turner (30) comprises a first guide roller (40), by which the sludge turner (30) contacts the first guide (15) while traveling.
Regarding Claim 7, Saur teaches the axis of rotation (416) of each of the guide rollers (40) extends at an angle to the vertical.
Regarding Claim 8, Examiner interprets that “the amount of which is preferably between 1 mm and 30 mm, in particular between 3 mm and 20 mm” is indefinite and thus does not further limit the claim.
Modified Saur teaches the sludge turner (30) in the region of the first wheel and in the region of the second wheel respectively has a bulkhead (vertical partitions adjacent to wheels of Fig. 1), which in vertical direction respectively overlap with one of the guides (Fig. 6) and in horizontal direction has a distance to the respectively adjacent guide (15),
Regarding Claim 10, Examiner interprets the claim as follows:
“…respectively one of the guides (15) extends between the guide roller (40) and one of the bulkheads”
Modified Saur teaches respectively one of the guides (15) extends between the guide roller (40) and one of the bulkheads (vertical partition adjacent to wheels of Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Saur teaches the sludge turner (3) comprises at least one pusher plate for moving the sludge (20) located on the drying surface (10) (“the blades 406 and 407 ensure an advancement of the material 20 in the same direction as that of the movement of the tool 30”, p 6 ¶3).
Regarding Claim 12, Saur teaches the sludge turner comprises a drive (352) that is in particular in operative connection with at least one wheel (Fig. 1) in order to cause a movement of the sludge turner.
Regarding Claim 13, Examiner interprets “an operation of the drive results in a relative movement between the sludge turner and the traction means” as a manner of operating the device.
MPEP 2114 (II) states “manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art”.
Saur teaches the system comprises a traction means that is in operative connection with the drive of the sludge turner (“Motorization means 352 are provided on the frame 35 to allow the movement of the latter in one direction or the other relative to the bed of material 20”, p 6 ¶1; Fig. 1 band attaching wheel to drive means).
Regarding Claim 15, Examiner interprets the claim as the following (interpretations emphasized in bold):
“The system according to claim 1, comprising the movable sludge turner for the system for drying the sludge on the drying surface, wherein the sludge turner has the at least one first wheel and the at least one second wheel, wherein the wheels are supported on opposite sides of the common gantry of the sludge turner, characterized in that the barrier for separating the wheels from the drying surface comprises the first guide and the second guide extending in the direction of travel of the sludge turner, wherein the sludge turner - while the latter is traveling - is guided transversely to the direction of travel with the aid of the guides, and wherein the guides extend upwards from the travel plane of the wheels and act as the barrier for the sludge spread on the drying surface to keep the sludge away from the travel paths”
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets claim 15 as specifying that the system travel paths of claim 1 are the movable sludge turner travel paths.
Modified Saur teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Saur further teaches the travel paths (437) of the system (Fig. 6) equate to the travel paths of the movable sludge turner (30).
Regarding Claim 16, Saur teaches the sludge turner (30) comprises at least one guide roller (40).
Regarding Claim 17, Saur teaches the sludge turner (30) comprises at least one pusher plate (“the blades 406 and 407 ensure an advancement of the material 20 in the same direction as that of the movement of the tool 30”, p 6 ¶3).
Regarding Claim 18, Saur teaches the sludge turner (30) comprises a bulkhead in the region of the first wheel and in the region of the second wheel (the vertical partitions adjacent to the wheels of Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saur in view of BWC (https://www.bwc.com/products/dualvee-single-edge-track.html), hereinafter BWC.
Regarding Claim 2, Examiner interprets that “preferably bolted” is indefinite and thus does not further limit the claim.
Saur teaches the guides (15) are each formed by a single or multi-part profile that is connected, to a floor surface (10), in particular to the floor surface of a solar drying hall (“The material to be processed is placed under a solar greenhouse”, p 4 ¶1).
Saur is silent to the building material of walls 15.
However, BWC teaches “Linear Guide Track”(p. 3 Product Info Subheading) and “choice of materials include general purpose carbon steel or corrosion resistant stainless steel” (p. 3 Product Info last para.)
BWC is analogous because BWC solved the problem of a metal profile guide track.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, for the wall of Saur to be made from common building materials known in the field, such as the corrosion resistant stainless steel track of BWC.
Regarding Claim 3 Saur in view of BWC teaches the metal profile has an essentially L-shaped cross-section (BWC p. 3 Image).
Regarding Claim 4, Saur teaches the floor surface (10) is part of the system (Fig. 6) and forms the drying surface (10) and/or the travel paths (437).
Regarding Claim 9, Examiner interprets “arranged between the guides” to mean the bulkheads lie interior to the guides.
Modified Saur teaches the limitations of claim 8 as set forth above, and further teaches the bulkheads (19.1, 19.2) are arranged in a direction extending transverse to the direction of travel of the sludge turner (Fig. 1 vertical partitions adjacent to wheels are arranged extending transversally from the direction of travel).
Saur does not teach the bulkheads lie interior to the guides.
However, BWC teaches placement of the wheels on the guide tracks such that the vertical partition extant interior to the wheels of Saur would be between the guides in a direction extending transverse to the direction of travel of the Saur sludge turner (30).
BWC provides motivation for this arrangement: “perfect for harsh, and debris-laden environments, Its inherent design in combination with track perform a natural wiping action allowing it to withstand the harsh environments it is used in” (BWC p 3 Dualvee Details Section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to to substitute the design choice of Saur with that of the BWC guide track. Doing so would be beneficial in “harsh or debris-laden environments”, such as sludge turning.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saur in view of Renner (Renner, T. ASME. 2022), hereinafter Renner.
Regarding Claim 14, Examiner interprets that “preferably extending along one of the travel paths” is indefinite and thus does not further limit the claim.
Saur is silent to the power source of the system.
However, Renner teaches “An important component of the HUBER Sludge Turner SOLSTICE® units are e-chains manufactured by igus®. The e-chains include the company’s chainflex® cables, which provide reliable data transfer and energy supply for the sludge turners. Image: igus®” (p. 2 ¶9)
Renner is considered analogous art because Renner addresses the same problem of energy supply to a operating sludge turner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to power the sludge turner of Saur with the energy cables from the sludge turner of Renner, since “Energy chains are the best solution for cable guidance on long travels…It requires little room, protects the cable, and is easy to install and maintain.” (Renner p 2 ¶10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-5,204,263 teaches a compost turning machine
US-3,881,707 teaches production of compost by the aerobic decomposition of waste such as sewage products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights