DETAILED ACTION 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 This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/498,824 , filed 10/12/2021 , and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2025 and 06/18/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The comma between “2 parts” and “vegetable matter” appears to be a type. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-13 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. Claims 1 and 7 recite a process for producing compost and topsoil, respectively. The claims, however, involve converting waste energy into electrical energy. While a process may have multiple outputs, the term “compost” or “topsoil” impl y a biological decomposition product. Here, the result of the claimed steps is electricity and the preamble is considered indefinite because it does not alig n with the claimed steps. Claim 1 recites the Markush group in step (a) “ vegetable matter selected from the group of vegetable matter consisting of trees, stumps, brush, leaves, and animal manure ”. Animal manure is distinct from “vegetable matter” and including manure in a group defined as vegetable matter render s the scope of the claim indefinite. Claims 1 and 7 recites the limitation "the waste energy" in step (f). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1, 7-8 and 13 recite the term “dirt”. The term dirt is not defined by the claims or specification. Dirt can be considered “ a substance, such as mud or dust, that soils someone or something ”. In regard to soil, s ome scientific definitions distinguish dirt from soil by restricting the former term specifically to displaced soil. It is unclear if the term dirt is describing earthen soil, how it differs from the claimed topsoil, or if it is generally a dirty material such as debris, dust, excrement, or soot. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is given its pain meaning as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary to include, but not limited to, any of the following: : a filthy or soiling substance such as mud, dust, or grime, loose or packed soil or sand. In regard to claims 6 and 12 t he term s “ the size of a finger ” and “the size of a hand” are relative terms which render the claim s indefinite. The term s are highly subjective and not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 7 recites the limitation "combining the […] dirt" in step (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While step (b) recites removing dirt associated with the vegetable matter, it is not clear if this is the same dirt combined in step (e). 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juárez et al. ( Science of the Total Environment, 2015) in view of Sirois et al. (US Department of Agriculture Research Service, 1985) as evidenced by Vos (BTC, 2006). In regard to claim 1 , Juarez et al. teaches a process for producing compost , comprising the steps of: (a) providing a supply of vegetable matter selected from the group of vegetable matter consisting of trees, stumps, brush, leaves, and animal manure (e.g. food and garden waste; e.g. bark, sawdust and wood chips are used as input materials) [pg. 92, section 2.1] ; (d) incinerating a variable amount of the vegetable matter to produce ash and waste heat (e.g. wood ash was supplied from the power broiler of an incineration plant located in Kufstein) [pg. 92, section 2.1] ; (e) combining the reduced-size vegetable matter and ash (e.g. biowaste was mixed with tree cuttings and wood ash) [pg. 92, section 2.1] ; and (f) converting the waste energy into electrical energy (e.g. power boiler of an incineration plant located in Kufstein, wherein the biomass co-generation plant referred to in Juarez uses a steam turbine process to convert heat to electricity) [Vos, section 6.1]. While Juarez describes supplying the vegetable matter, the reference does not explicitly disclose: (b) agitating the vegetable matter to loosen and remove dirt associated with the vegetable matter; and (c) reducing the size of the vegetable matter (e.g. bark, sawdust and wood chips are inherently reduced size vegetable matter); Sirois et al. is directed to the preparation of wood for energy use [abstract]. The initial form of the wood may or may not require additional processing before burning [pg. 176, 2 nd para.] including (b) agitating the vegetable matter to loosen and remove dirt associated with the vegetable matter (e.g. cleaning the wood material to remove dirt contamination by the use of disc screens, air screens, the flotation method, and magnets) [para. bridging pgs. 178-179]; and (c) reducing the size of the vegetable matter (e.g. sizing is necessary when the type of boiler requires a uniform particle size…initial sizing can take place for use with a portable chipper, using an auger to separate the wood chips into smaller and larger materials) [pg. 179]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention remove dirt from the vegetable matter to reduce damage and maintenance to equipment and reduce pollution [pg. 178, last 2 para.]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the size of the vegetab le matter because a small particle size allows for faster combustion [pg. 175, 2 nd para.]. In regard to claim 2, Sirois et al. disclose a step of screening the combined reduced-size vegetable matter and ash to remove large debris (e.g. sizing by screening, the larger material is passed over the screen and separated into one pile) [pg. 179; sizing]. In regard to claim 3, Juarez et al. disclose at least partially decomposing the reduced size vegetable matter (e.g. composting the piles of food and garden waste, tree cuttings, and ash) [pg. 92, section 2.1] . In regard to claim 4, Juarez et al. disclose combining the wood ash with commun al biowaste and food and garden waste [pg. 92, section 2.1] . Food and garden waste is considered to begin to decompose immediately due to microbial activity and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the vegetable matter described in Juarez is at least partially decompos ed before combining with the ash. In regard to claim 5, Sirois et al. disclose reducing the size of the vegetable matter by processing the vegetable matter through a chipper (whole-tree chipping in a wood chipper) [pg. 176]. In regard to claim 6, Sirois et al. disclose reducing the size of the vegetable matter, wherein the reduced-size vegetable matter is between the size of a finger and the size of a hand (e.g. between 5 and 8.5 inches in diameter) [pg. 177, 4 th para.]. In regard to claim 7, Juarez et al. teaches a process for producing topsoil, comprising the steps of: (a) providing a supply of vegetable matter selected from the group of vegetable matter consisting of trees, stumps, brush, leaves, and animal manure (e.g. food and garden waste; e.g. bark, sawdust and wood chips are used as input materials) [pg. 92, section 2.1]; (d) incinerating a variable amount of the vegetable matter to produce ash and waste heat (e.g. wood ash was supplied from the power broiler of an incineration plant located in Kufstein) [pg. 92, section 2.1]; (e) combining the reduced-size vegetable matter and ash (e.g. biowaste was mixed with tree cuttings and wood ash and composted) [pg. 92, section 2.1] with dirt (e.g. the compost mixture includes standard soil) [pg. 93, 2 nd col., 1 st para.]; and (f) converting the waste energy into electrical energy (e.g. power boiler of an incineration plant located in Kufstein, wherein the biomass co-generation plant referred to in Juarez uses a steam turbine process to convert heat to electricity) [Vos, section 6.1]. While Juarez describes supplying the vegetable matter, the reference does not explicitly disclose: (b) agitating the vegetable matter to loosen and remove dirt associated with the vegetable matter; and (c) reducing the size of the vegetable matter (e.g. bark, sawdust and wood chips are inherently reduced size vegetable matter); Sirois et al. is directed to the preparation of wood for energy use [abstract]. The initial form of the wood may or may not require additional processing before burning [pg. 176, 2 nd para.] including (b) agitating the vegetable matter to loosen and remove dirt associated with the vegetable matter (e.g. cleaning the wood material to remove dirt contamination by the use of disc screens, air screens, the flotation method, and magnets) [para. bridging pgs. 178-179]; and (c) reducing the size of the vegetable matter (e.g. sizing is necessary when the type of boiler requires a uniform particle size…initial sizing can take place for use with a portable chipper, using an auger to separate the wood chips into smaller and larger materials) [pg. 179]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention remove dirt from the vegetable matter to reduce damage and maintenance to equipment and reduce pollution [pg. 178, last 2 para.]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the size of the vegetable matter because a small particle size allows for faster combustion [pg. 175, 2 nd para.]. In regard to claim 8, Sirois et al. disclose a step of screening the combined reduced-size vegetable matter and ash to remove large debris (e.g. sizing by screening, the larger material is passed over the screen and separated into one pile) [pg. 179; sizing]. In regard to claim 9, Juarez et al. disclose at least partially decomposing the reduced size vegetable matter (e.g. composting the piles of food and garden waste, tree cuttings, and ash) [pg. 92, section 2.1] In regard to claim 10, Juarez et al. disclose combining the wood ash with commun al biowaste and food and garden waste [pg. 92, section 2.1] . Food and garden waste is considered to begin to decompose immediately due to microbial activity and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the vegetable matter described in Juarez is at least partially decomposed before combining with the ash. In regard to claim 11, Sirois et al. disclose reducing the size of the vegetable matter by processing the vegetable matter through a chipper (whole-tree chipping in a wood chipper) [pg. 176]. In regard to claim 12, Sirois et al. disclose reducing the size of the vegetable matter, wherein the reduced-size vegetable matter is between the size of a finger and the size of a hand (e.g. between 5 and 8.5 inches in diameter) [pg. 177, 4 th para.]. In regard to claim 13, Juarez et al. disclose c ombining 200 g of a mixture composed of sand, standard soil (e.g. dirt) and 0, 15 and 30% (w/w) of compost [pg. 93, 2 nd col., 1 st para ]. Juarez describes compost comprising vegetable matter and 0% - 15% wood ash [pg. 92, section 2.1]. The combination 6 parts dirt, 2 parts, vegetable matter, and a trace of ash is encompassed by the ranges disclosed by Juarez and “i n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [See MPEP 2144.05]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3599 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber R Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3149 . 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. /JENNIFER A SMITH/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 March 24, 2026