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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the generator, main rotating wheel, flywheel assembly, directly connected transmission shaft, feeding port, first transmission shaft, second transmission shaft, third transmission shaft, transmission device, power generation assembly, feeding port, and current collecting device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There appears to be a typographical error in p. 6, [0041]: “a worm wheal is installed” should read “a worm wheel is installed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the phrase “receive the power output by the power energy conversion unit” is interpreted as receive the power output from the power energy conversion unit.
In claim 5, the front-end sealing bin and the rear-end sealing bin will be interpreted as a front end and rear end of a roller fermentation bin, as shown in Fig. 1.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“a dump unit, configured to receive a kitchen waste” in claim 1, line 2;
“a power energy conversion unit, configured to convert a part of energy generated by a fitness equipment or a rocking handle into electrical energy, and output a remaining part of the generated energy directly as power” in claim 1, lines 3-5;
“a biological conversion unit, configured to cooperate with the dump unit and receive the power output by the power energy conversion unit [and further] configured to receive the kitchen waste fed by the dump unit and perform a composting and fermentation processing on the kitchen waste” in claim 1, lines 6-9;
“an energy storage unit, configured to be connected to the power energy conversion unit and a solar panel [and further] configured to store the electrical energy generated by the power energy conversion unit and the solar panel” in claim 1, lines 10-12;
“a material outputting and returning unit, configured to be connected to the biological conversion unit” and “the material outputting and returning unit is configured to output and return a material decomposed by the biological conversion unit” in claim 1, lines 13-15;
“a current collecting device…configured to collect the electrical energy generated by the generator and transmit the electrical energy to the energy storage unit” in claim 3, lines 3 and 7-8;
“a crushing and removing impurity device…configured to remove impurities in the kitchen waste and then crush the kitchen waste” in claim 4, lines 2-3 and 5-6;
“a lifting device…to drive the hopper to move up and down through the lifting rope” in claim 6, lines 2-3 and 5-6;
“a monitoring unit…configured to monitor an operation condition of the biological conversion unit in real time and control feeding and discharging rates, a stirring rate and a ventilation rate of the biological conversion unit” in claim 7, lines 2 and 4-7;
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.
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 § 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 2-8 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.
Regarding claim 2, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. From the phrase “through a directly connected transmission shaft” in lines 5-6, it is unclear if the directly connected transmission shaft is intended to be positively recited structure.
Claim limitations “a current collecting device…configured to collect the electrical energy generated by the generator and transmit the electrical energy to the energy storage unit”, “a lifting device…to drive the hopper to move up and down through the lifting rope”, and “a monitoring unit…configured to monitor an operation condition of the biological conversion unit in real time and control feeding and discharging rates, a stirring rate and a ventilation rate of the biological conversion unit” in claims 3, 6, and 7, respectively, each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the claim language (see [0016], [0026], [0027], [0043], [0062], and [0063] in the specification filed 3/13/2024, and it is not immediately clear as to what the representation of the monitoring unit is in Fig. 1 of the drawings filed 3/13/2024) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to what constitutes a current collecting device, a lifting device or a monitoring unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination on the merits, a current collecting device, a lifting device, and a monitoring unit will be interpreted as any structure(s) capable of completing the claimed functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 3, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. From the phrase “a second end of the third transmission shaft is drivingly connected to the generator through a coupling” in lines 5-6, it is unclear if the coupling is intended to be positively recited structure or merely the manner in which the second end of the third transmission shaft and generator is drivingly connected. For examination on the merits, the phrase will be interpreted as the manner in which the second end of the third transmission shaft and generator is drivingly connected.
Regarding claim 6, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. It is unclear if the rocking handle recited in line 3 is the same or different as the rocking handle recited in claim 1, line 4.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
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 3, 6, and 7 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure(s) to perform the claimed functions of collecting the electrical energy generated by the generator and transmit the electrical energy to the energy storage unit (claim 3), driving the hopper to move up and down through the lifting rope (claim 6), or monitoring an operation condition of the biological conversion unit in real time and control feeding and discharging rates, a stirring rate and a ventilation rate of the biological conversion unit (claim 7). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 211798553 U) (hereinafter referred to as Li). English machine translation provided, see PTO-892.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an in-site composting system for community kitchen waste (title; Fig. 1), comprising:
a dump unit, configured to receive a kitchen waste (Fig. 5, delivery box 5-2 and material collection box 5-3; claim 1, “The delivery box includes a kitchen waste delivery door”);
a power energy conversion unit, configured to convert a part of energy generated by a fitness equipment or a rocking handle into electrical energy, and output a remaining part of the generated energy directly as power (Fig. 3, stationary bike 3-1 and power transmission device 3-2; [0039], “power transmission device 3-2 converts the kinetic energy generated by the movement of the stationary bike into electrical energy”);
a biological conversion unit (Fig. 1, aerobic composting chamber 2 and underground vermicomposting chamber 6), configured to cooperate with the dump unit and receive the power output by the power energy conversion unit, wherein the biological conversion unit is configured to receive the kitchen waste fed by the dump unit ([0043]-[0046] describes how material is transported from the material collection box 5-3 to the underground vermicomposting chamber 6) and perform a composting and fermentation processing on the kitchen waste ([0046] describes fermentation and composting);
an energy storage unit (Fig. 4, power and control chamber 3), configured to be connected to the power energy conversion unit and a solar panel ([0038], “power and control chamber 3 houses the solar panel's energy storage batteries, three sets of energy storage batteries”), wherein the energy storage unit is configured to store the electrical energy generated by the power energy conversion unit and the solar panel ([0038]); and
a material outputting and returning unit (Fig. 1, compost removal device 7), configured to be connected to the biological conversion unit ([0037]), wherein the material outputting and returning unit is configured to output and return a material decomposed by the biological conversion unit ([0037]).
The claimed dump unit, power energy conversion unit, biological conversion unit, energy storage unit, and material outputting and returning unit are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f) section above). The corresponding prior art elements perform the functions specified in the claim, are not precluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and are an equivalent of the means- (or step-) plus-function limitations. Examiner finds that the prior art element/s is/are equivalent to the limitations of note because of at least one of the following reasons:
The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
In particular, the prior art elements each perform identical functions specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the prior art elements described above are prima facie equivalent to the claimed dump unit, power energy conversion unit, biological conversion unit, energy storage unit, and material outputting and returning unit (MPEP § 2183).
Examiner notes that claim elements “a fitness equipment or a rocking handle” in lines 3-4 and “a solar panel” in line 11 are drawn to the intended use of the apparatus. For this reason, claim 1 as written does not positively recite the fitness equipment, rocking handle, or solar panel.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Beard et al. (US 2012/0238406 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Beard), Yu et al. (CN 113372150 A) (hereinafter referred to as Yu-1), and Cruson et al. (EP 1520845 B1) (hereinafter referred to as Cruson). English machine translations provided, see PTO-892.
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the in-site composting system for community kitchen waste according to claim 1.
Li discloses further the power energy conversion unit comprising the fitness equipment (Fig. 3, stationary bike 3-1) and transmission assembly (Fig. 3, power transmission device 3-2). The fitness equipment of Li having a main rotating wheel ([0009], “circular wheel fitness equipment”; Fig. 3).
Li teaches that the fitness equipment generates power ([0008]) but is silent to a power generation assembly, a directly connected transmission shaft, and the transmission assembly comprising a flywheel and driveshaft set.
However, Beard in the art of electricity generation using fitness equipment teaches that it is known to construct fitness equipment with a power generation assembly (Fig. 25) to produce electricity ([0143], “Rotation of the driven wheel 1206 turns a rotor of the generator 1204 to produce electrical energy”; Fig. 12, generator 1204). Beard teaches that the generator can generate electricity by converting kinetic energy to electrical energy ([0143], rotation of the driven wheel converted to electrical energy).
Furthermore, Beard discloses that the driven wheel may be a flywheel ([0060]) driven by crank ([0058]-[0059]), i.e., a main rotating wheel, operatively connected to the driven wheel by a chain, belt, shaft, gear, or a gear train ([0058]), i.e., a directly connected transmission shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power conversion unit of Li to further comprise a generator, i.e., a power generation assembly, as Beard teaches it is known in the art that a generator attached to fitness equipment would predictably convert rotational energy of the fitness equipment into readily usable electrical energy.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission assembly of Li to comprise a flywheel, wherein a main rotating wheel of the fitness equipment is connected to the flywheel in a transmission manner through a directly connected transmission shaft, as Beard teaches that such a modification is well known in the art. The flywheel would predictably provide steady rotational energy to the power generation assembly, and the directly connected transmission shaft would predictably transfer rotational energy from the main wheel to the flywheel.
Yu-1 in the art of rotary composters teaches it is known in the to use a transmission shaft, i.e., a driveshaft set comprising a first transmission shaft, to transfer rotational energy to a fermentation cylinder ([0069]; Fig. 1, transmission shaft 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination transmission assembly such that it comprises a driveshaft set because Yu-1 teaches that such a modification would predictably transfer rotational energy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the prior art combination device to transfer the rotational energy from the fitness equipment.
The prior art combination is silent to:
The driveshaft set further comprising a second transmission shaft and third transmission shaft;
the flywheel assembly connected to a first end of the first transmission shaft;
the first transmission shaft and second transmission shaft arranged vertically;
a first end of the second transmission shaft is provided with a transmission device;
the transmission device is drivingly connected to a first end of the third transmission shaft;
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination to meet limitation (a) as described above as such a modification represents mere duplication of Yu-1’s transmission shaft. It has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04 VI B). Such a modification would predictably extend the distance the transmission assembly can transfer rotational energy.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination to meet limitations (b) and (c) as described above, as such modifications would amount to mere rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Modifying the prior art combination to meet claimed limitation (b) as described above would predictably transfer rotational energy generated by the flywheel to the first transmission shaft. Modifying the prior art combination to meet claimed limitation (c) as described above would predictably allow each shaft to transfer rotational energy in a vertical direction.
Regarding the limitations (d) and (e) above, the prior art combination is silent to a transmission component.
However, Cruson in the art of composters teaches a gearbox, i.e., a transmission component, used to provide suitable torque for driving rotation ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination apparatus to incorporate a transmission component provided at a first end of the second transmission shaft and drivingly connected to a first end of the third transmission shaft because the transmission component would predictably transfer rotation between the shafts, as taught by Cruson, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to control the rotational speed or to increase torque.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Beard, Yu-1, Cruson, and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2002/0090718 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the in-site composting system for community kitchen waste according to claim 2.
Cruson of the prior art combination discloses that the transmission device is a gearbox, as set forth above.
Beard of the prior art combination discloses that the power generation assembly comprises a generator, as set forth above, and a current collecting device (Fig. 25, current collecting device is the battery charger manager), and discloses further that the prior art current collecting device collects electrical energy generated by the generator and transmits electrical energy to the energy storage unit ([0212]).
The limitations “an input end of the gearbox is drivingly connected to the first end of the second transmission shaft”, “an output end of the gearbox is drivingly connected to the first end of the third transmission shaft”, and “a second end of the third transmission shaft is drivingly connected to the generator through a coupling” are met by the prior art combination, as set forth above.
The prior art combination is silent to a brake arranged on the gearbox.
However, Chen in the art of composting teaches it is known in the art to use a brake system, i.e., a brake, for locking rotation ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination to further comprise a brake arranged on the gearbox because the brake would predictably lock rotation of the gearbox, as taught by Chen, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve safety of the device.
The claimed current collecting device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f) section above). Examiner finds that the prior art element is equivalent to the limitation of note because of at least one of the reasons set forth above. In particular, the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the battery charger manager is prima facie equivalent to the claimed current collecting device (MPEP § 2183).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Beard, Yu-1, Cruson, and Chen as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 214327587 U) (hereinafter referred to as Zhu). English machine translations provided, see PTO-892.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the in-site composting system for community kitchen waste according to claim 3.
Li of the prior art combination discloses wherein the dump unit comprises a kitchen waste can (Fig. 5, delivery box 5-2), and a gravity sensing gate (Fig. 5, material collection box 5-3; [0045], material collection box 5-3 has a weight sensor), where the gravity sensing gate is arranged at a bottom of the kitchen waste can (Fig. 5 shows delivery box 5-2 arranged at a bottom of material collection box 5-3).
The prior art combination is silent to a crushing and removing impurity device and a feeding pipeline.
However, Zhu in the art of kitchen waste composting discloses a crushing and removing impurity device configured to remove impurities in kitchen waste and crush the kitchen waste (Fig. 1, mixing and crushing chamber 4 and filter screen 5; [n0024] discloses) arranged at a lower end of a gravity sensing gate (Fig. 1, gravity sensing device 6), and; a feeding pipeline (Fig. 1, dosing pipeline 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination system to further comprise a crushing and removing impurity device arranged at a lower end of a gravity sensing gate, and further comprise a feeding pipeline because such a modification is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to crush and filter kitchen waste impurities prior to composting, and to transport the kitchen waste from the crushing and removing impurity device.
The claimed crushing and removing impurity device is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f) section above). Examiner finds that the prior art elements are equivalent to the limitation of note because of at least one of the reasons set forth above. In particular, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the elements shown in the prior art for the corresponding elements disclosed in the specification ([0047] of the specification describes the structure of the crushing and removing impurity device). Therefore, the prior art mixing and crushing chamber and filter screen is prima facie equivalent to the claimed crushing and removing impurity device (MPEP § 2183).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Beard, Yu-1, Cruson, Chen, and Zhu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2019/0373903 A1) and Yu (CN 114669580 A) (hereinafter referred to as Yu-2). English machine translations provided, see PTO-892.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the in-site composting system for community kitchen waste according to claim 4.
Yu-1 of the prior art combination teaches that a biological conversion unit can comprise a rotary fermentation device (Fig. 1), i.e., a roller fermentation bin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the biological conversion unit discussed above for a rotary fermentation bin because it has been held that a claim has no patentable significance when substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 B).
Yu-1 further discloses the gear transmission mechanism (Fig. 1, first transmission wheel 21 and second transmission wheel 9), front-end sealing bin and rear-end sealing bin (Fig. 1), stirring device (Fig. 3), feeding port (Fig. 1, feeding inlet 5), discharge port (Fig. 1, discharge port 12) a driving device ([0069], motor 18), and the roller fermentation bin rotatably installed on a base (Fig. 1) as claimed in claim 5.
Zhu of the prior art combination discloses a micro-negative pressure deodorization device, comprising a breather pipe (Fig. 1, air intake pipe 15), an induced draft fan (Fig. 1, induced draft fan 13), and an air outlet pipe (Fig. 1, air outlet pipe 16). Zhu discloses that the micro-negative pressure deodorization is connected to a fermentation chamber through a breather pipe and air outlet pipe ([n0023]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination apparatus to further comprise the micro-negative pressure deodorization device as claimed because Zhu teaches that such a technique is known to improve a similar device, and such a modification would improve the prior art combination device by deodorizing the roller fermentation bin.
The prior art combination is silent to a deodorization filter element and a rain proof hood.
However, Wang in the art of composting teaches it is known in the art to use air filters for deodorization, i.e., a deodorization filter element, for the purpose of treating waste gas ([0032]).
Furthermore, Yu-2 in the art of waste treatment teaches it is known in the art to use a rain-proof cover with a ventilation mechanism (abstract and [n0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art micro-negative pressure deodorization device to further comprise a deodorization filter element and a rain proof hood provided on a second end of the air outlet pipe for the purpose of treating waste gas and preventing rain from entering the micro-negative pressure deodorization device, as taught by Wang and Yu-2, respectively.
Regarding the claimed arrangement of the elements of the micro-negative pressure deodorization device and gear transmission mechanism, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Particularly, the arrangement of the micro-negative pressure would predictably deodorize the roller fermentation bin, and the arrangement of the gear transmission mechanism would predictably allow the roller fermentation bin to rotate.
Regarding claim 6-8, the current prior art of record either discloses or teaches the subject matter as it is best understood by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang (US 2022/0274774 A1) is drawn to a garbage disposal box with fitness equipment as means for powering the device.
Li (CN 212050347 U) is drawn to a lifting device.
Zhao (CN 111282976 A) is drawn to a kitchen waste processing device.
Kwak et al. (KR 20130085131 A) is drawn to a ventilated, solar powered composting unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is (571)272-6818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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 Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/A.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights