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 .
Response to Amendment
The submission entered May 26, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed November 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20 are pending. Claim(s) 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 16-18, 20 is/are currently amended.
The objections to the drawings presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly presented rejections are necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the loading stations distributed vertically along the chute [Claim 1], exhaust at upper end of chute [Claim 1], connector pipe connecting the air intake and the chute [Claim 9], chute comprising an air inlet at a lower end of the chute [Claim 10], second fluid mover provided at an upper portion of the chute [Claim 11], connector pipe connecting the intake and the chute [Claim 16], chute extending between the loading stations [Claim 17] and second fluid mover configure to exhaust air from the chute [Claim 17] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the language “the loading stations are distributed vertically along the chute” and “an exhaust provided at an upper end of the chute” is not supported by the original specification. The loading stations appear to be distributed vertically along a transport pipe rather than the chute and the exhaust is provided at an upper end of the transport pipe. It appears applicant is using “chute” in the claims to refer to the transport pipe disclosed in the specification. This is a new matter rejection.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the language “a connector pipe connecting the air intake and the chute” is not supported by the original specification. The connector pipe connects the intake and the transport pipe. This is a new matter rejection.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the language “the chute comprising an air inlet at a lower end of the chute” and “the first fluid mover moves fluid into and through the intake and into the chute via the air inlet, and wherein the fluid is exhausted through an upper portion of the chute” is not supported by the original specification. The air inlet is provided at a lower end of the transport pipe rather than the chute and the fluid moves into the transport pipe and is exhausted through an upper portion of the transport pipe. This is a new matter rejection.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the language “a second fluid mover provided at an upper portion of the chute” is not supported by the original specification. The second fluid mover is provided at an upper portion of the transport pipe. This is a new matter rejection.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, the language “a connector pipe connecting the intake and the chute” is not supported by the original specification. The connector pipe connects the intake and the transport pipe. This is a new matter rejection.
Regarding Claim(s) 17, the language “the chute extends between the loading stations” and “a second fluid mover configured to exhaust air from the chute” and “wherein the first fluid mover moves fluid into and through the elongate vertical air intake and into the chute” is not supported by the original specification. The chute does not extend between the loading stations, rather it is the transport pipe that extends between the loading stations. The second fluid mover exhausts air from the transport pipe and the first fluid mover moves fluid into the transport pipe, not the chute. This is a new matter rejection.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the language “the chute is operable to convey materials provided to the plurality of loading stations through the system without being impeded by the air introduced by the elongate vertical air intake” is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose whether the materials are impeded by the flow of air. This is a new matter rejection.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “fluid”, and the claim also recites “air” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “fluid”, and the claim also recites “air” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “fluid”, and the claim also recites “air” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is 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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 20 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 20 fails to recite limitations that further limit the structure of the system. The language of claim 20 is a recitation of the manner in which the system operates, which does not structurally limit the system. 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
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, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dargin (USPN 1169319) in view of Korean Document (KR-20150137934-A, copy and machine translation attached, hereafter ‘934).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Dargin (USPN 1169319) teaches a waste collection and transport system comprising: an air intake (vertical portion of pipe 70) introducing air from an outside environment to the system and extending between a first end (at cap 71) and a second end (at cavity 69); a plurality of loading stations (openings with doors 10) for inputting materials into the system and a vertically extending chute (chute 5 with hood 23 and receptacle 21) for conveying the materials; wherein the loading stations are distributed vertically along the chute [Page 2:3-5, “each floor 9, this chute is provided with a door 10”]; and the air intake extends vertically and parallel to the chute (the pipe 70 is elbow shaped with one leg of the elbow being vertical and parallel to the chute as seen in the figures); wherein an outside air inlet (at cap 71) is provided at a first end of the air intake, and the air intake is fluidly connected to the chute at a location vertically below each of the plurality of loading stations; an exhaust (6) provided at an upper end of the chute and wherein air from the outside air inlet is conveyed through the air intake and the chute, and is exhausted out of the system through the exhaust [Page 3:50-83]. Dargin fails to teach at least one of the air inlet and the exhaust comprises an air mover for forced air movement. ‘934 teaches a chute (110) and teaches an air mover (fan 141) at an air inlet at the bottom of the chute and an air mover (fan 142) at an exhaust provided at an upper end of the chute. Figure 6 shows an air inlet connecting the fan (141) to the chute. The airflow is used to control the speed of trash in the chute as well as ventilating the chute and preventing odors from entering a building [Translation, Page 4, “Thus, the upward airflow…To adjust the descending speed of the trash” and Page 6, “The case 210…air forming the ascending airflow…odor is prevented from flowing into the inside of the building”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an air mover at the at least one of the air inlet and the exhaust in order to induce a flow of air to control the speed of the trash and discharge odors from the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Dargin teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the air inlet comprises a first air mover and the exhaust comprises a second air mover. ‘934 teaches a first air mover (141) at the bottom of a chute and a second air mover (142) at an exhaust at an upper end of the chute. ‘934 teaches the air movers create an upward airflow to adjust the speed of the trash and discloses the upward airflow prevents odors from flowing into a building. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first air mover and a second air mover to create an upward flow of air inside of a chute to control the speed of trash and to discharge odors from the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Dargin teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the second air mover is positioned vertically above the plurality of loading stations. ‘934 shows (Figure 6) the air mover (fan 142) above the loading station (111). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to place the second air mover vertically above the plurality of loading stations in order to draw air upward from the loading stations.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Dargin teaches each of the plurality of loading stations comprises a door (door 10).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Dargin teaches a connector pipe (horizontal portion of pipe 70) connecting the air intake and the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Dargin teaches a waste collection and transport system comprising: a loading station (opening with door 10) for inputting materials into the system; a vertically extending chute (chute 5 with hood 23 and receptacle 21) for connecting the loading station to a transport pipe (72), the chute comprising an air inlet (70) at a lower end of the chute vertically below the loading station; an intake (portion of 70 that extends vertically) extending parallel to the chute, wherein fluid enters the intake and into the chute via the air inlet, and the fluid is exhausted through an upper portion of the chute (at 6). Dargin fails to teach a first fluid mover configured to move outside air into the intake, wherein the first fluid mover moves fluid into and through the intake and into the chute via the air inlet. ‘934 teaches a first fluid mover (fan 141) configured to move outside air into an intake (intake of fan 141), wherein the first fluid mover moves fluid into and through the intake and into the chute via the air inlet (Figure 6 shows an air inlet connecting the fan 141 and chute 110), and wherein the fluid is exhausted through an upper portion of the chute (through fan 142). ‘934 teaches the fans create an upward airflow to adjust the speed of the trash and discloses the upward airflow prevents odors from flowing into a building [Translation, Page 4, “Thus, the upward airflow…To adjust the descending speed of the trash” and Page 6, “The case 210…air forming the ascending airflow…odor is prevented from flowing into the inside of the building”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first fluid mover configured to move outside air into the intake, wherein the first fluid mover moves fluid into and through the intake and into the chute via the air inlet to control the speed of trash and to discharge odors from the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Dargin teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a second fluid mover provided at an upper portion of the chute. ‘934 teaches a second fluid mover (fan 142) provided at the upper portion of the chute (110), as described above. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second air mover to create an upward flow of air to control the speed of trash and discharge odors from the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Dargin teaches the loading station includes a door (10).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Dargin teaches a connector pipe (portion of pipe 70) extending horizontally) connecting the intake and the chute; and wherein the connector pipe extends within a floor or foundation of a building in which the system is provided (Figure 1 shows the pipe 70 extending within a floor or foundation).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Dargin teaches a waste collection and transport system comprising: a plurality of vertically dispersed loading stations (openings with doors 10) for inputting materials into the system and a chute (chute 5 with hood 23 and receptacle 21); wherein the chute extends between the loading stations (the chute is provided with openings at each floor); an elongate vertical air intake (portion of pipe 70 that extends vertically) configured to introduce outside air to the system (through the opening at cap 71). A flow of air moves through the pipe and into the chute at a location provided vertically below each of the plurality of loading stations. Dargin fails to teach a first fluid mover configured to circulate air into the intake; and a second fluid mover configured to exhaust air from the chute; and wherein the first fluid mover moves fluid into and through the elongate vertical air intake and into the chute at a location provided vertically below each of the plurality of loading stations. ‘934 teaches a first fluid mover (fan 141) configured to circulate air into an intake (intake of fan 141); and a second fluid mover (fan 142) configured to exhaust air from the chute; and wherein the first fluid mover moves fluid into and through the intake and into the chute (Figure 6 shows the fan 141 connected to the chute 110) at a location provided vertically below each of a plurality of loading stations (111). ‘934 teaches the fans create an upward airflow to adjust the speed of the trash and discloses the upward airflow prevents odors from flowing into a building [Translation, Page 4, “Thus, the upward airflow…To adjust the descending speed of the trash” and Page 6, “The case 210…air forming the ascending airflow…odor is prevented from flowing into the inside of the building”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first fluid mover configured to circulate air into the intake; and a second fluid mover configured to exhaust air from the chute; and wherein the first fluid mover moves fluid into and through the elongate vertical air intake and into the chute at a location provided vertically below each of the plurality of loading stations in order to control the speed of trash and discharge odors from the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Dargin teaches the elongate vertical air intake extends parallel to the chute (the vertical portion of pipe 70 is parallel to the chute).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the claim fails to set forth any structural limitations. Further, the claim recites the manner in which the system is operated; such recitations do not structurally limit the system. See MPEP 2114.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR20090000523A discloses an air mover at the upper end of a chute to discharge odors.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights