DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 09/24/2026. Claim(s) 11–19 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 11–19 after a restriction requirement without traverse in the reply filed 09/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears claim 16 was intended to depend from claim 14 based on the antecedent basis in the claim (claim 14 claims a first sliding bracket; claim 11 does not, which causes an antecedent basis issue). Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 11–13 & 18–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,976,805 to Drouot et al in view of WO 2019/104775 to Xue.
With regard to claim 11, Drouot discloses a system (0) (abstract) comprising: a first processing compartment for receiving a first bucket (2) of first waste food (4) (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 16–23); and at least one heat pump (6) that processes first humid air from the first processing compartment (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 54–67; Col. 6, lines 46–60), wherein the first processing compartment recycles the first waste food with a recycling process (Col. 8, lines 38–39).
Wang fails to disclose a second processing compartment for receiving a second bucket of second waste food; and processing a second humid air from the second processing compartment; and recycling the second waste food on independent recycling processes. Xue teaches a second processing compartment for receiving a second batch of second waste food (Figs. 1 & 3; pg. 3; two separate cavities are shown); and recycling the first and second waste foods on independent recycling processes (Pg. 3). 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 waste food processing system of Drout with the dual chamber food waste processor of Xue because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing multiple batches of food waste to be processed at the same time.
As combined, Drout and Xue would disclose processing a second humid air from the second processing compartment because, as previously discussed, Drout discloses processing humid air from a processing compartment (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 54–67; Col. 6, lines 46–60) and processing a second humid air from a second processing compartment would simply require a duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claim 12, Drout as previously combined with Xue further discloses at least one controller for controlling, via the first processing compartment, a first food recycling process for the first waste food (Drout: Col. 8, lines 11–33; Col. 9, lines 40–46) and for controlling, via the second processing compartment, a second food recycling process for the second waste food (Drout: Col. 8, lines 11–33; Col. 9, lines 40–46; Xue: Pg. 3; adding a second compartment would require control of that compartment in a similar fashion as the first).
With regard to claim 13, Drout as previously combined with Xue further discloses the at least one controller further comprises: a first controller for controlling, via the first processing compartment, the first food recycling process for the first waste food (Drout: Col. 8, lines 11–33; Col. 9, lines 40–46); and a second controller for controlling, via the second processing compartment, the second food recycling process for the second waste food (Drout: Col. 8, lines 11–33; Col. 9, lines 40–46; It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)).
With regard to claim 18, Drout as previously combined with Xue further discloses the first processing compartment comprises a first air channel (Xue: 15) that transmits the first humid air to the at least one heat pump (Drout: 6) (Drout: Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 54–67; Col. 6, lines 46–60; Xue: Fig. 1, Pgs. 2–3) and wherein the second processing compartment comprises a second air channel (Xue: 11) that transmits the second humid air to the at least one heat pump (Drout: 6) (Drout: Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 54–67; Col. 6, lines 46–60; Xue: Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 19, Drout as previously combined with Xue further discloses the first air channel (Xue: 15) is established when the first processing compartment is in a closed position (Xue: Fig. 3) and wherein the second air channel (Xue: 11) is established when the second processing compartment is in the closed position (Xue: Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14–17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note that claim 16 is included in the above list based on the assumption it was intended to be dependent on claim 14 based on the context of the claim (see the objection to claim 16 in paragraph 3 of this office action).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
October 8, 2026
