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 .
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitschel (US 2017/0253891) in view of Terzini et al (US 6,467,708), further in view of EP 2000449 A1, even further in view of either Brown ‘775 (US 3,533,775) or Brown ‘687 (US 3,385,687), still further in view of KR 20180082048 A. Gitschel discloses a method and apparatus for processing mixed solid waste comprising an organic compostable waste portion and an organic non-compostable waste portion, wherein the method comprises shredding the waste and composting the shredded waste in a microbial environment. The differences between the method and apparatus disclosed by Gitschel, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that Gitschel does not disclose that both the organic compostable waste portion and the organic non-compostable waste portion should be shredded, and that the composted waste product should be heated. Terzini et al disclose a method for processing municipal waste wherein all the municipal waste is shredded without separating into compostable and non-compostable portions. EP 2000449 A1 discloses a method for treating household waste, comprising composting the waste without prior separation into an organic wet fraction and refuse derived fuel, which would include plastics and so on. (See claim 22 of EP 2000449 A1.) Brown ‘775 and Brown ‘687 both establish the conventionality of drying composted material by heating. (See the sentence bridging columns 3 and 4 of Brown ‘775, and col. 2, lines 57-63 of Brown ‘687.) KR 20180082048 A discloses a method for producing refused derived fuel by drying composted waste. (See Paragraph [0001] of the English translation.) It would be obvious from Terzini et al in view of EP 2000449 A1 to modify the process of Gitschel by shredding and composting the waste without separating the compostable material from the non-compostable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Gitschel teaches in Paragraph [0126] that presorting of non-compostable items such as concrete is not required, Terzini et al specifically discloses a composting process of municipal waste wherein non-compostable materials such as ferrous materials and plastic materials are not separated before the shredding and composting steps, and EP 2000449 A1 discloses composting of household waste without prior separation into an organic fraction and RDF, in claim 22 . It would be further obvious from either Brown ‘687 or Brown ‘775 to heat the composted material of Gitschel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since both Brown ‘687 and Brown ‘775 establish at the aforementioned passages that the compost should be dried by heating to form a marketable fertilizer. It would be expected from KR 20180082048 A that such heating step would result in a product comprising compost and refuse derived fuel, since Brown ‘775 and Brown ‘687 both teach that heat for the drying step is supplied from the furnace fired by the removed paper, and KR 20180082048 A specifically discloses that refuse derived fuel is formed when compost is heated. Regarding claims 12 and 14, Gitschel discloses a control unit in Paragraph [0033]. Regarding claim 2, Gitschel discloses in Paragraph [0106] that the composting temperature is in a range from about 120 F to about 150 F. Regarding claim 3, Brown ‘775 discloses at col. 3, lines 55-57 that the mass is sterilized at a temperature of about 165 F, and Brown ‘687 suggests at col. 2, lines 57-62 that there is enough heat for drying the compost. It would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable temperature for such heat. Regarding claims 5-7, Gitschel discloses in Paragraph [0105] that the digestion system is microbial. Regarding claims 6 and 7, Terzini et al disclose at col. 8, lines 10-16 that the volume of the waste material is reduced by as much as 60% because of the disintegration of the waste material. Regarding claims 8 and 15, It would be obvious from EP 2000449 A1 to withdraw condensation water from the heating unit, since it would be expected that the heating unit would produce condensation water in that EP 2000449 A1 teaches that condensation can occur when highly flammable components such as plastics are combusted. Regarding claim 10, it is well-known that refuse derived fuel is typically in the form of briquettes. Regarding claims 16 and 17, it is conventional to place unit operations in series in chemical processing. Regarding claim 18, it would be obvious to include the apparatus of Gitschel at or near a house or apartment building, since it is well-known that houses and apartment buildings are sources of household waste. Regarding claim 19, it would be obvious to provide at least two apparatus of Gitschel so as to increase capacity. It would also be obvious to include a pellet plant, since it is well-known that RDF is typically provided as pellets (i.e., briquettes).
(10) Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument, that neither Terzini et al nor the cited combination of references disclose a single integrated apparatus that shreds, composts to create a desired intermediate, transfers with interlocks, dries to a target moisture, removes condensate with feedback, and gates exit on moisture containment, is not convincing, since claims 1-2 do not require transfers with interlocks, removing condensate with feedback or gates exit on moisture attainments. Moreover, Terzizi et al disclose the steps of composting and drying. The composting step of Terzini et al would inherently pass through a stage that an intermediate composting product would be attained and where a target moisture would be attained during the drying step. Regarding the limitation of “a single, unitary waste processing apparatus” is concerned, Terzini et al teach at col. 4, lines13-30 that one skilled in the art will readily recognize that the number of composting vessels required will depend on the throughput sped of the composting vessels and the volume of waste material coming through the shredder. One would appreciate from such teaching that the number of composting vessels could be as low as one, which would result in a unitary stream of mixed waste. Moreover, the combination of shredder, composter and heating unit is considered to constitute a single apparatus. In any event, it would be a matter of routine process design choice to determine whether the shredder, composter and heating unit should be present in a single housing, or whether they should stand by thesleves as individual units.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitschel (US 2017/0253891) in view of Terzini et al (US 6,467,708), further in view of EP 2000449 A1, even further in view of either Brown ‘775 (US 3,533,775) or Brown ‘687 (US 3,385,687), still further in view of KR 20180082048 A. Gitschel discloses a method and apparatus for processing mixed solid waste comprising an organic compostable waste portion and an organic non-compostable waste portion, wherein the method comprises shredding the waste and composting the shredded waste in a microbial environment. The differences between the method and apparatus disclosed by Gitschel, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that Gitschel does not disclose that both the organic compostable waste portion and the organic non-compostable waste portion should be shredded, and that the composted waste product should be heated. Terzini et al disclose a method for processing municipal waste wherein all the municipal waste is shredded without separating into compostable and non-compostable portions. EP 2000449 A1 discloses a method for treating household waste, comprising composting the waste without prior separation into an organic wet fraction and refuse derived fuel, which would include plastics and so on. (See claim 22 of EP 2000449 A1.) Brown ‘775 and Brown ‘687 both establish the conventionality of drying composted material by heating. (See the sentence bridging columns 3 and 4 of Brown ‘775, and col. 2, lines 57-63 of Brown ‘687.) KR 20180082048 A discloses a method for producing refused derived fuel by drying composted waste. (See Paragraph [0001] of the English translation.) It would be obvious from Terzini et al in view of EP 2000449 A1 to modify the process of Gitschel by shredding and composting the waste without separating the compostable material from the non-compostable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Gitschel teaches in Paragraph [0126] that presorting of non-compostable items such as concrete is not required, Terzini et al specifically discloses a composting process of municipal waste wherein non-compostable materials such as ferrous materials and plastic materials are not separated before the shredding and composting steps, and EP 2000449 A1 discloses composting of household waste without prior separation into an organic fraction and RDF, in claim 22 . It would be further obvious from either Brown ‘687 or Brown ‘775 to heat the composted material of Gitschel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since both Brown ‘687 and Brown ‘775 establish at the aforementioned passages that the compost should be dried by heating to form a marketable fertilizer. It would be expected from KR 20180082048 A that such heating step would result in a product comprising compost and refuse derived fuel, since Brown ‘775 and Brown ‘687 both teach that heat for the drying step is supplied from the furnace fired by the removed paper, and KR 20180082048 A specifically discloses that refuse derived fuel is formed when compost is heated. Regarding claims 12 and 14, Gitschel discloses a control unit in Paragraph [0033]. Regarding claim 2, Gitschel discloses in Paragraph [0106] that the composting temperature is in a range from about 120 F to about 150 F. Regarding claim 3, Brown ‘775 discloses at col. 3, lines 55-57 that the mass is sterilized at a temperature of about 165 F, and Brown ‘687 suggests at col. 2, lines 57-62 that there is enough heat for drying the compost. It would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable temperature for such heat. Regarding claims 5-7, Gitschel discloses in Paragraph [0105] that the digestion system is microbial. Regarding claims 6 and 7, Terzini et al disclose at col. 8, lines 10-16 that the volume of the waste material is reduced by as much as 60% because of the disintegration of the waste material. Regarding claims 8 and 15, It would be obvious from EP 2000449 A1 to withdraw condensation water from the heating unit, since it would be expected that the heating unit would produce condensation water in that EP 2000449 A1 teaches that condensation can occur when highly flammable components such as plastics are combusted. Regarding claim 10, it is well-known that refuse derived fuel is typically in the form of briquettes. Regarding claims 16 and 17, it is conventional to place unit operations in series in chemical processing. Regarding claim 18, it would be obvious to include the apparatus of Gitschel at or near a house or apartment building, since it is well-known that houses and apartment buildings are sources of household waste. Regarding claim 19, it would be obvious to provide at least two apparatus of Gitschel so as to increase capacity. It would also be obvious to include a pellet plant, since it is well-known that RDF is typically provided as pellets (i.e., briquettes).
(10) Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument, that claim 12 recites moisture sensors, a control unit that dynamically regulates process parameters to achieve preset target moisture, and a condensation-withdrawal manifold with feedback to modulate heating, is not convincing. Gitschel discloses a control unit in Paragraph [0033] configured to achieve a desired moisture content in dry organic material 116. It would be obvious from EP 2000449 A1 to withdraw condensation water from the heating unit, since it would be expected that the heating unit would produce condensation water in that EP 2000449 A1 teaches that condensation can occur when highly flammable components such as plastics are combusted. Applicant’s argument, that the examiner’s and Board’s reliance on the references to supply disparate items (controls; heating; condensation;; RDF) confirms that Terzini itself does not render the amended claims obvious, is not convincing, since the rejection is not based on Terezizi alone. Prior art references are good not only for what they individually teach or disclose, but also for what they would collectively suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
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 12-19 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. In claim 12, lines 28 and 30, there is no clear antecedent basis for “the exit unit”.
Claims 12-29 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. There is no “description support” in the original specification for such limitations for “moistures sensors operable coup0led to the composting unit and the heating unit”; “a condensation-withdrawal manifold fluidly connected to the heating unit, the manifold configured to remove condensation water and to feedback its removal rate to the control unit for heat modulation”; and “an interlocked transfer means for transferring the mixed waste intermediate product from the composting unit to the heating unit, wherein the interlock and the exit unit are controlled by the control unit such that (a) transfer from the composting unit to the heating unit is inhibited until a composting-threshold condition is met, and A(b) product withdrawal at the exit unit is inhibited until the target moisture is reached”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736