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
Claims 3 and 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites, “The according to claim 19…” which appears to be a typo and the claim should read, “The method for collecting solid part and liquid part of crushed biowaste separately according to claim 19…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims1-2, 4-6 and 9-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper part of the mushroom foot" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “an upper part of a mushroom foot”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the floor of the container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “a floor of the container”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the pump". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 10 is assumed to depend from claim 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pump". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 10 is assumed to depend from claim 2.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the biowaste inlet" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “a biowaste inlet”.
Claim 15 recites at least one biowaste mill. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 which recites a biowaste mill. It is unclear if claim 15 requires another biowaste mill or if the biowaste mill of claim 15 is referring to the already recited mill of claim 14. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “…from the biowaste mill…”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the container" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “a container”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first part and the second part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the first part of the container and the second part of the container”.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from one of the above claims.
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 requires the method be performed by a two part biowaste container. However, the claim language of claim 19 requires a container with a first and a second part and thus inherently requires a two part biowaste container. Therefore, claim 20 does not provide any further limitations to the method of claim 19.
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, 4-6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lappeman US 2012/0067807 in view of Matry US 3,342,368.
Claim 1, Lappeman teaches a two-part container comprising: a first part of the container (20, 22, 24, 26) for solids, a second part of the container (below 21) for liquids, the second part of the container is arranged below the first part of the container, a separating wall (21) between the first and second parts, a drain connection (50) in the second part, the two part container further comprising a separating valve (23) arranged to the separating wall and being configured to separate at least a part of the liquids from the solids from the first part to the second part of the container (fig. 1-4). The recitation of the container being for crushed biowaste is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus. Lappeman does not teach the separating valve is mushroom shaped.
Matry teaches a container comprising: a first part of the container (12) for solids and a space below the first part for liquids, a separating wall (34) between the first part and the space, a separating valve (38) arranged to the separating wall and being configured to separate at least a part of the liquids from the solids from the first part to the space, the separating valve is a mushroom shaped valve comprising in an upper part of a mushroom foot openings (40) for liquids to be separated to the space below the first part (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the separating valve structure of Matry in Lappeman because the shape of the valve protects against blocking of the drainage openings (col. 1, lines 25-30).
Claims 4-6 and 12, Lappeman further teaches the container further comprises an inlet (the opening at the top of the container) (fig. 1-4); a degreasing wall (at 40) in the second part capable of separating grease from other liquids (fig. 1-4); the degreasing wall is a wall in the second part of the container that is off a floor of the container (fig. 1-4); and the container comprises an outlet (26) in the first part of the container (fig. 1-4).
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salonen et al. EP 3,549,652 in view of Matry US 3,342,368.
Claim 1, Salonen teaches a two-part container comprising: a first part of the container (101) for solids, a second part of the container (below 102) for liquids, the second part of the container is arranged below the first part of the container, a separating wall (102) between the first and second parts, a drain connection (107) in the second part, the two part container further comprising a separating valve (perforations 106) arranged to the separating wall and being configured to separate at least a part of the liquids from the solids from the first part to the second part of the container (fig. 1-5). The recitation of the container being for crushed biowaste is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus. Salonen does not teach the separating valve is mushroom shaped.
Matry teaches a container comprising: a first part of the container (12) for solids and a space below the first part for liquids, a separating wall (34) between the first part and the space, a separating valve (38) arranged to the separating wall and being configured to separate at least a part of the liquids from the solids from the first part to the space, the separating valve is a mushroom shaped valve comprising in an upper part of a mushroom foot openings (40) for liquids to be separated to the space below the first part (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the separating valve structure of Matry in Salonen because the shape of the valve protects against blocking of the drainage openings (col. 1, lines 25-30).
Claims 4 and 12-13, Salonen further teaches the container further comprises an inlet (103) (fig. 1); the container further comprises an outlet (108) in the first part of the container (fig. 1); and the container further comprises a biowaste mill (551) for crushing biowaste before entering the container, the mill is arranged in connection of an inlet (103) of the container (fig. 1-5).
Claim 14, Salonen in view of Matry further teaches a biowaste collection system comprising a biowaste mill (551) for crushing biowaste, a biowaste drain (552) for crushed biowaste, the container of claim 1, the biowaste drain is arranged between the biowaste mill and the container so that crushed biowaste is delivered to the first part of the container through a biowaste inlet (103) (Salonen fig. 1-5).
Claims 15 and 17, Salonen further teaches the container is arranged to receive crushed biowaste through the biowaste mill through the biowaste drain (fig. 1-5); and the biowaste collection system further comprises a second sink (557) that is connected to a main drain (fig. 1-5).
Claim 16 recites where the biowaste mill is located which is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the system. The mill of Salonen is located below a first sink (556) (fig. 1-5).
Claim 18 recites the system is common for at least two building which is a recitation of an intended use of the system and does not provide any further structural limitations to the system. Salonen does teach the system being common for at least two buildings (fig. 5).
Claims 19-20, Salonen teaches a method for collecting solid part and liquid part of crushed biowaste separately, the method comprises: receiving crushed biowaste to a first part (101) of a container for solid part of the crushed biowaste, separating at least a part of the liquids from the crushed biowaste to a second part (below 102) of the container through a separating valve (106) arranged to a separating wall (102) arranged between the first and second parts of the container, the second part of the container is arranged below the first part of the container, so that the solid part of the crushed biowaste remains in the first part of the container, the container being a two part biowaste container (fig. 1-5). Salonen does not teach the separating valve is mushroom shaped.
Matry teaches a container comprising: a first part of the container (12) for solids and a space below the first part for liquids, a separating wall (34) between the first part and the space, a separating valve (38) arranged to the separating wall and being configured to separate at least a part of the liquids from the solids from the first part to the space, the separating valve is a mushroom shaped valve comprising in an upper part of a mushroom foot openings (40) for liquids to be separated to the space below the first part (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the separating valve structure of Matry in Salonen because the shape of the valve protects against blocking of the drainage openings (col. 1, lines 25-30).
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salonen et al. EP 3,549,652 in view of Matry US 3,342,368 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinette US 5,934,576.
Claim 2, Salonen in view of Matry teaches as obvious the container of claim 1 but do not teach a pump.
Robinette teaches a container (54) comprising a first part (above 58), a second part (below 58), the second part of the container arranged below the first part, a separating wall (58) between the parts, a drain connection (80) in the second part, the container comprising a separating valve (the screen 58) arranged to the separating wall and capable of separating liquids from solids in the first part of the container where the drain connection is a pump (84) arranged inside the second part of the container which is configured to pump liquid from the second part to a drain through a drain outlet (fig. 1, col. 5, lines 50-57). Using a pump to remove liquid is a well established technique as demonstrated by Robinette and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10, Robinette teaches the pump being located within the second part of the container where liquid would collect and therefore the pump would be a submersible pump as it would necessarily be submersed in the liquid (fig. 1, col. 5, lines 50-57).
Claim 11, Robinette teaches the container comprises an entry hatch (100) in the container to allow for servicing of the container (col. 6, lines 5-11). Providing a housing with a lid for the pump would likewise be obvious to allow servicing of the pump within the container.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salonen et al. EP 3,549,652 in view of Matry US 3,342,368 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lappeman US 2012/0067807.
Salonen in view of Matry teaches as obvious the container of claim 1 but does not teach a degreasing wall.
Lappeman teaches a two-part container comprising: a first part of the container (20, 22, 24, 26) for solids, a second part of the container (below 21) for liquids, the second part of the container is arranged below the first part of the container, a separating wall (21) between the first and second parts, a drain connection (50) in the second part, the two part container further comprising a separating valve (23) arranged to the separating wall and being configured to separate at least a part of the liquids from the solids from the first part to the second part of the container and a degreasing wall (at 40) in the second part capable of separating grease from other liquids, the degreasing wall is a wall in the second part of the container that is off a floor of the container (fig. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the degreasing wall of Lappeman because it prevents floating debris from leaving the sump (par 35).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salonen et al. EP 3,549,652 in view of Matry US 3,342,368 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borowski et al. US 2015/0324760.
Salonen in view of Matry teaches as obvious the container of claim 1 but does not teach a sensor.
Borowski teaches a container with a sensor (164) that indicates when the container is filled with waste (fig. 7, par 316). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sensor of Borowski to provide a display or alarm when the container is full of debris. Borowski does not specifically teach an ultrasonic sensor. Ultrasonic sensors are well known in the art and would have been an obvious choice of a known type of sensor to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights