DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
at least one discharge device for removing dried residues
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structures is/are:
discharge device [Wingdings font/0xE0] an opening (see pgpub; para. 110)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kishi (US 4999930 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kishi discloses a method for drying preferably biogenic residues to a dry mass, comprising the following steps:
a) filling the residues (raw sewage; abstract) having a liquid content into a bioreactor (Fig. 2, 5) filled with spheres (43) and having a mixer (42), and mixing the spheres and the residues by operating the mixer at least intermittently during the filling and/or after the filling, so that films of the residues form on the surfaces of the spheres (col. 4, line 62 - col. 5, line 39),
b) drying the films of residues with the formation of crusts of dry mass with a residual water content on the surfaces of the spheres by feeding a drying medium (air) into the bioreactor, which flows around the spheres, with at least temporary operation of the mixer (col. 4, line 62 - col. 5, line 39),
c) grinding and further drying the dry mass by operating the mixer at least intermittently while grinding off powdery dry mass from the spheres (col. 5, lines 33-36),
d) discharging the powdery dry mass from the bioreactor (col. 5, lines 40-56).
Regarding claim 2, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the drying medium is a drying fluid which is warm, unsaturated air (outside air picks up the moisture from within the bioreactor, which means the air is inherently unsaturated; col. 5, lines 19-23) and/or unsaturated, superheated water vapour.
Regarding claim 4, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the spheres are dried before the residues are fed in, by feeding the drying medium into the bioreactor (the spheres are dried with air during the cleaning operation before the next batch of residue) (col. 5, lines 40-68).
Regarding claim 5, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a liquid (Fig. 13; 9), being one of water and a further residue with a higher moisture content, is supplied onto the surfaces of the spheres (3) when the residues (4) are filled in.
Regarding claim 8, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, during the supply of the drying medium, moisture is discharged as water vapour with the drying medium, as more highly saturated air and/or as excess vapour (col. 6, lines 39-55). Note: this limitation is given limited weight since it simply recites the intended effect of a positively recited step. See MPEP 2111.04(I).
Regarding claim 9, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, during the grinding, the crusts of dry mass are ground off from the surfaces of the spheres and settle as powdery dry mass with a residual water content at the base of the bioreactor (col. 5, lines 32-39). Note: this limitation is given limited weight since it simply recites the intended effect of a positively recited step. See MPEP 2111.04(I).
Regarding claim 11, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, during the drying, the drying medium is supplied via a plurality of drying medium inlets arranged at different heights of the bioreactor, a drying medium inlet (Fig. 2; one of the inlets 41) arranged in the lower third of the bioreactor, a drying medium inlet (Fig. 2; 40) arranged in the centre filling level area, a drying medium inlet (Fig. 2; 47) arranged above a maximum filling level and a drying medium inlet (Fig. 2; another one of the inlets 41) arranged in the base area.
Regarding claim 13, Kishi discloses a bioreactor designed to carry out a method according to claim 1, comprising:
a housing (Fig. 8; 11 or 6+11), with at least one base (bottom wall of the housing) and a peripheral wall (side walls of the housing),
a mixer (42), which is rotatably mounted about the vertical axis and which is arranged inside the housing,
at least one drying medium inlet (Fig. 8; outlet of pipe 19) arranged in the centre area of the peripheral wall of the housing in relation to a height of the housing or to a maximum fill level (Hmax),
at least one drying medium outlet (inlet of pipe 16),
a filling of the bioreactor from a plurality of spheres (43), with an initial fill level (e.g., level of the first fill),
at least one feed line for residues (44), and
at least one discharge device (16) for removing dried residues.
Regarding claim 14, Kishi discloses the bioreactor according to claim 13, further comprising a lid (12/15) which closes an upper opening of the bioreactor.
Regarding claim 15, Kishi discloses the bioreactor according to claim 13, further comprising a plurality of drying medium inlets, a drying medium inlet (20) arranged in the lower third of the bioreactor in the peripheral wall, the drying medium inlet arranged in the centre filling level area in the peripheral wall, a drying medium inlet (Fig. 8: outlet of pipe 48) arranged above the maximum fill level in the peripheral wall or in the lid and/or a drying medium inlet arranged in the base.
Regarding claim 16, Kishi discloses the bioreactor according to claim 13, wherein a feed line (88 or 97) for liquids, is arranged above the maximum filling level (note: the max fill level can be arbitrary, as it could be a max fill level designated by the process and not the max level physically possible).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi (US 4999930 A) in view of Jeong (KR 20140035583 A).
Regarding claim 3, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, except wherein the spheres have a water absorption capacity, and are and are made of wood. However, Jeong teaches mixing wood chips with food garbage to absorb the odor from the garbage (pg. 7, paragraph starting with “In this case, a wood chip…”).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Kishi wherein at least some of the spheres have a water absorption capacity, and are and are made of wood, to help absorb some of the odors from the sewage.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi (US 4999930 A) in view of Kiilerich (US 20170225982 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 5, except wherein the liquid supplied contains an iron salt and/or lime. However, Kiilerich teaches a wastewater treatment process and the step of supplying a liquid with iron salt to remove sulfuric compounds (paras. 4, 34). Although the type of liquid is not specified, it would have been obvious to use water as the liquid since water is plentiful and is a commonly used solvent.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Kishi wherein the liquid supplied contains an iron salt in order to eliminate the sulfuric compounds in the sewage.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi (US 4999930 A) alone.
Regarding claim 7, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, except wherein, during the filling of the residues and/or during the drying and/or during the grinding, the mixing process takes place intermittently. However, whether the mixing is continuous or intermittent is a matter of optimization. Since the mixing is performed to promote uniform heating and evaporation of the liquid from the raw sewage (col. 14, lines 52-56), then it can be performed intermittently only as long as needed. It would be unnecessary to continuously mix the material if they are already uniformly mixed.
Regarding claim 10, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, during the grinding, the powdery dry mass is dried at the base of the bioreactor via the surfaces of the spheres which are located in the powdery dry mass in the base area of the bioreactor, except there is no direct flow of the drying medium through the powdery dry mass.
However, whether the grinding operation is performed with or without airflow through the powdery dry mass is a matter of optimization. If the grinding is performed without air, then the powder would settle at the bottom of reactor. The grinding operation then stops and air can be introduced to remove the powder. If the grinding is performed with air, then the powder on the surfaces of the spheres would be removed with the air without settling on the bottom of the reactor. Either method would produce the same result. It is also possible to grind the residue with air during a portion of the time, and then grind without the air when the residue is substantially dry.
Regarding claim 12, Kishi discloses the method according to claim 11, except wherein the drying medium supply in the lower region of the bioreactor, from the drying medium inlet arranged in the lower third of the bioreactor and the drying medium inlet arranged in the base area, is reduced or switched off when crust formation begins on the surfaces of the spheres.
However, whether the drying medium is switched off when crust formation begins, or at another time, is a matter of optimization. The drying medium is used to heat the spheres and the raw sewage, and to remove the evaporated liquid from the reactor. The drawback is that supplying the heated drying medium requires energy and it creates noise. Therefore, the time at which the supply of drying medium is reduced or switched off is matter of optimizing the drying time, costs, and noise.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi (US 4999930 A) in view of Moore (US 7096516 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Kishi discloses the bioreactor according to claim 13, except wherein a sieving device being a perforated plate or a grid or rods, is arranged in the housing upstream of the discharge device.
However, Moore teaches a toilet screen to prevent unwanted objects from entering the drain of the toilet (see abstract and Field of Invention). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Kishi to include a removable sieving device, being a perforated plate or a grid or rods, arranged in the housing upstream of the discharge device. The motivation to combine is to prevent unwanted objects from entering the drain of the toilet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights