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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 29, 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. US 11399514 (‘514 hereinafter) in view of Medoff (US 20100124583). ‘514 discloses all of the limitations in claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 except for the conditioning element including a microwave generator configured to transfer energy operable to condition the litter as the litter is tumbled in the drum.
However, Medoff teaches a method of processing biomass (Figs. 1-46) comprising a conditioning element (auger and conditioner) including a microwave generator ([0222]) configured to (capable of) transfer energy operable to condition the litter as the litter is tumbled in the drum (312, 342).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conditioning element including a microwave generator, as taught by Medoff, to Wood’s conditioning element, in order to produce desired products ([0343], [0449], [0751] and [0762]).
Application Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,399,514
1
1
2
2
3
1
5
3
6
4
7
1
8
6
9
9
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 8 and 9 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 8 recites the limitation "infeed hopper" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US 7341024) in view of Medoff (US 20100124583).
With respect to claim 1, Wood discloses an at least semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle (Figs. 1-24), the litter conditioning vehicle comprising: a chassis (of the “drive-through machine” or tractor or other suitable vehicle. Col. 5, lines 23-28. Of the bobcat. Col. 8, line 52. Of the front-end loaders. Col. 13, line 18); a drive system (of the “drive-through machine” or tractor or other suitable vehicle. Col. 5, lines 23-28. Of the bobcat. Col. 8, line 52. Of the front-end loaders. Col. 13, line 18) coupled to the chassis and configured to (capable of) move the litter conditioning vehicle along a floor of an animal enclosure; a collection system (pickup mechanism) coupled to a front portion of the chassis (Fig. 12), the collection system configured to (capable of) collect litter from the floor (Figs. 13-17), the collection system including a flailer (auger and tiller blades) configured to (capable of) reduce a particle size of the litter; a conditioning system (processing mechanism) coupled along a length of the chassis (Fig. 11), the conditioning system including a drum (auger) and a conditioning element (1810, 1820, 1840, 1850 and 1860), an inner volume of the drum configured to (capable of) receive litter from the collection system, the drum configured to rotate to tumble the litter disposed in the inner volume, and a dispersement system (830) coupled to a back portion of the chassis, the dispersement system configured to (capable of) receive conditioned litter from the conditioning system and to disperse the conditioned litter on the floor behind the litter conditioning vehicle (Fig. 12).
Wood fails to disclose the conditioning element including a microwave generator configured to transfer energy operable to condition the litter as the litter is tumbled in the drum.
However, Medoff teaches a method of processing biomass (Figs. 1-46) comprising a conditioning element (auger and conditioner) including a microwave generator ([0222]) configured to (capable of) transfer energy operable to condition the litter as the litter is tumbled in the drum (312, 342).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conditioning element including a microwave generator, as taught by Medoff, to Wood’s conditioning element, in order to produce desired products ([0343], [0449], [0751] and [0762]).
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heatwole (US 20210212295) in view of Medoff (US 20100124583).
With respect to claim 1, Heatwole discloses an at least semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle (Figs. 1-30), the litter conditioning vehicle comprising: a chassis (102); a drive system (110) coupled to the chassis and configured to (capable of) move the litter conditioning vehicle along a floor of an animal enclosure; a collection system (120) coupled to a front portion of the chassis ([0043]), the collection system configured to (capable of) collect litter from the floor, the collection system including a flailer ([0045]) configured to (capable of) reduce a particle size of the litter; a conditioning system (140) coupled along a length of the chassis ([0024]), the conditioning system including a drum ([0050]) and a conditioning element (of 140), an inner volume of the drum configured to (capable of) receive litter from the collection system, the drum configured to rotate to tumble the litter disposed in the inner volume, and a dispersement system (160) coupled to a back portion of the chassis ([0023]-[0024]), the dispersement system configured to (capable of) receive conditioned litter from the conditioning system and to disperse the conditioned litter on the floor behind the litter conditioning vehicle. Heatwole discloses the conditioning system further includes a heating element.
Wood fails to disclose the conditioning element or the heating element including a microwave generator configured to transfer energy operable to condition the litter as the litter is tumbled in the drum.
However, Medoff teaches a method of processing biomass (Figs. 1-46) comprising a conditioning element (auger and conditioner) including a microwave generator ([0222]) configured to (capable of) transfer energy operable to condition the litter as the litter is tumbled in the drum (312, 342).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conditioning element including a microwave generator, as taught by Medoff, to Wood’s conditioning element, in order to produce desired products ([0343], [0449], [0751] and [0762]).
With respect to claim 2, Heatwole’s semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle modified by Medoff’s microwave generator, Heatwole further discloses wherein the energy transferred to the litter is operable to heat the litter to an average temperature of at least 170 °F ([0026]).
With respect to claim 3, Heatwole’s semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle modified by Medoff’s microwave generator, Heatwole further discloses wherein the microwave generator (the heating element) is disposed in the inner volume of the drum ([0051] and [0052]).
With respect to claim 4, Heatwole’s semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle modified by Medoff’s microwave generator, Heatwole and Medoff fail to disclose wherein the microwave generator emits microwave radiation at about 915 MHz.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the microwave generator emits microwave radiation at about 915 MHz, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 5, Heatwole’s semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle modified by Medoff’s microwave generator, Heatwole further discloses the litter conditioning vehicle of claim 1, further comprising: a control system including a plurality of sensors, the control system configured to control an operating state of at least one of the drive system, the collection system, the conditioning system, and the dispersement system in response to data received from at least one sensor from the plurality of sensors (claim 3).
With respect to claim 6, Heatwole’s semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle modified by Medoff’s microwave generator, Heatwole further discloses wherein the data received from the at least one sensor from the plurality of sensors is data associated with the conditioning system, the control system configured to control at least one of a flowrate of litter through the drum, an amount of energy transferred to the litter in the drum, a dwell time of at least a portion of the litter in the drum, or a rotational velocity of the drum (claim 4).
With respect to claim 7, Heatwole’s semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle modified by Medoff’s microwave generator, Heatwole further discloses wherein the collection system includes a conveyer (226, 227, 326) configured to transport litter from the flailer to an infeed mechanism ([0050]) of the conditioning system, the infeed mechanism being in communication with the inner volume of the drum (claim 1).
With respect to claim 8, Heatwole’s semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle modified by Medoff’s microwave generator, Heatwole further discloses wherein the flailer is configured to reduce a particle size of the litter to a first average particle size, the infeed hopper (345) including an auger ([0112]) configured to reduce the particle size of the litter to a second average particle size smaller than the first average particle size, the auger configured to deliver the litter having the second average particle size into the inner volume of the drum (claim 6).
With respect to claim 9, Heatwole’s semi-autonomous litter conditioning vehicle modified by Medoff’s microwave generator, Heatwole further discloses wherein the second average particle size is between about 0.2 inches and about 1.0 inches (claim 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a litter conditioning vehicle: Samaha, Lange ‘015, Lange ‘490, O'Connor, Lange ‘132, Lindores and Lange ‘144.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. 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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights