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 .
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.
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 dispensing mechanism” in claims 1 and 17.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al (CN 215207447-U; with English machine translation) (hereinafter “Jiang”).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a composting machine comprising: a fermentation reservoir for holding anaerobic waste (FIGS. 2-3: collection box (52); [0029] of the English machine translation); and a microbe dispensing device positioned at least partially above the fermentation reservoir, the microbe dispensing device comprising: a microbe reservoir for receiving a microbe product (FIGS. 2-3: microorganisms storage box (10) arranged above collection box (52); [0029]); and a dispensing mechanism for selectively depositing the microbe product into the fermentation reservoir to facilitate a fermentation process of the anaerobic waste (FIGS. 2-3: feeding mechanism (6); see [0026]). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "e.g., for holding anaerobic waste; for receiving a microbe product; for selectively depositing the microbe product into the fermentation reservoir to facilitate a fermentation process of the anaerobic waste" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the intended uses of the apparatus do not further define any structural features to the device but rather only define how the device may be used. The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed composting machine and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang further discloses a disk housing defining an intake opening positioned under the microbe reservoir and a discharge opening positioned over the fermentation reservoir (FIGS. 2-3: guide tube (66) having an inlet adjacent storage box (10) and an outlet positioned above collection box (52); [0026], [0030]); and a dispenser disk rotatably mounted within the disk housing, wherein rotation of the dispenser disk directs the microbe product through the disk housing between the intake opening and the discharge opening (FIGS. 2-3: partition plate (64) arranged within guide tube and configured to dispense microorganisms into the collection box; [0026], [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang further discloses a motor mechanically coupled to the dispenser disk (stepper motor (61) coupled to the partition plate (64)); and a controller in operative communication with the motor for selectively rotating the dispenser disk to dispense the microbe product (dispensing mechanism is coupled to a motor configured to adjust feeding speed; [0025], [0027], [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang discloses wherein the microbe reservoir contains microorganisms ([0030]). Therefore, the microbe reservoir of Jiang inherently includes an inlet port for introducing microorganism into the microbe reservoir.
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that the microbe product is material worked on and not an element of the claimed composting machine. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 17, Jiang discloses a microbe dispensing device for a composting machine, the microbe dispensing device comprising: a microbe reservoir positioned at least partially above a fermentation reservoir and being configured for receiving a microbe product (FIGS. 2-3: microorganisms storage box (10) arranged above collection box (52); [0029]); and a dispensing mechanism for selectively depositing the microbe product into the fermentation reservoir to facilitate a fermentation process of anaerobic waste in the fermentation reservoir (FIGS. 2-3: feeding mechanism (6); see [0026]). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "e.g., for receiving a microbe product; for selectively depositing the microbe product into the fermentation reservoir to facilitate a fermentation process of anaerobic waste in the fermentation reservoir" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the intended uses of the apparatus do not further define any structural features to the device but rather only define how the device may be used. The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed composting machine and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 18, Jiang further discloses wherein the dispensing mechanism comprises: a disk housing defining an intake opening positioned under the microbe reservoir and a discharge opening positioned over the fermentation reservoir (FIGS. 2-3: guide tube (66) having an inlet adjacent storage box (10) and an outlet positioned above collection box (52); [0026], [0030]); and a dispenser disk rotatably mounted within the disk housing, wherein rotation of the dispenser disk directs the microbe product through the disk housing between the intake opening and the discharge opening (FIGS. 2-3: partition plate (64) arranged within guide tube and configured to dispense microorganisms into the collection box; [0026], [0030]).
Therefore, Jiang meets and anticipates the limitations set forth in claims 1-2, 6-7, 10 and 17-18.
Claims 1, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohn (US 2008/0209967).
Regarding claim 1, Cohn discloses a composting machine comprising: a fermentation reservoir for holding anaerobic waste (FIG. 2A: chamber (7); [0022]); and a microbe dispensing device positioned at least partially above the fermentation reservoir, the microbe dispensing device comprising: a microbe reservoir for receiving a microbe product (FIG. 2A: chamber (3) arranged above chamber (7)); [0020]); and a dispensing mechanism for selectively depositing the microbe product into the fermentation reservoir to facilitate a fermentation process of the anaerobic waste (FIG. 2A: door selectively opened to dispense materials into the chamber (7); [0020]-[0021]). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "e.g., for holding anaerobic waste; for receiving a microbe product; for selectively depositing the microbe product into the fermentation reservoir to facilitate a fermentation process of the anaerobic waste" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the intended uses of the apparatus do not further define any structural features to the device but rather only define how the device may be used. The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed composting machine and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 8, Cohn further discloses a wastewater discharge port defined proximate a bottom of the fermentation reservoir and being fluidly coupled to a liquid storage reservoir (chamber (7) includes a drain hole at a bottom of the chamber adapted to convey fluid from chamber to a liquid storage reservoir (11); [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Cohn further discloses a composting reservoir for holding aerobic waste and the anaerobic waste after completion of the fermentation process (FIG. 2A: compost from chamber (7) is discharged to a reservoir (12); [0028]-[0029]). Regarding the limitation “wherein a composting cycle is performed within the composting reservoir,” said limitation is directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
Therefore, Cohn meets and anticipates the limitations set forth in claims 1, 8 and 11.
Claims 1, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2006/0037898).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a composting machine comprising: a fermentation reservoir for holding anaerobic waste (FIG. 1: tank (70)); and a microbe dispensing device positioned at least partially above the fermentation reservoir, the microbe dispensing device comprising: a microbe reservoir for receiving a microbe product (hopper (30)); and a dispensing mechanism for selectively depositing the microbe product into the fermentation reservoir to facilitate a fermentation process of the anaerobic waste (push bar (34)). Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "e.g., for holding anaerobic waste; for receiving a microbe product; for selectively depositing the microbe product into the fermentation reservoir to facilitate a fermentation process of the anaerobic waste" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the intended uses of the apparatus do not further define any structural features to the device but rather only define how the device may be used. The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed composting machine and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 11, Choi further discloses a composting reservoir for holding aerobic waste and the anaerobic waste after completion of the fermentation process (FIG. 1: container (42)). Regarding the limitation “wherein a composting cycle is performed within the composting reservoir,” said limitation is directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 13, Choi further discloses a mixer rotatably mounted in the composting reservoir for mixing the anaerobic waste and the aerobic waste (FIG. 1: agitator (38)).
Regarding claim 14, Choi further discloses an output bin for receiving both the anaerobic waste and the aerobic waste after the composting cycle (materials within the container (42) is collected using collection means; [0037]).
Therefore, Choi meets and anticipates the limitations set forth in claims 1, 11 and 13-14.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in view of Chen et al (CN 218579929-U; with English machine translation) (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 19-20, Jiang discloses the composting machine of claims 2 and 18. Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the dispenser disk rotates about an axis of rotation and defines a pellet aperture spaced apart from the axis of rotation along a radial direction, wherein the pellet aperture is sized to define a dosing volume of the microbe product, wherein the dispenser disk is configured to dispense the microbe product one time for every 360 degrees of rotation. Chen discloses a microbial agent dispensing mechanism comprising a disc housing (1) (FIGS. 1-3) defining an intake opening (4) and a discharge opening (5), a dispenser disk rotatably mounted within the disk housing (6), and a pellet aperture (9). The pellet aperture is sized to define a dosing volume of the microbe product, wherein the dispenser disk is configured to dispense the microbe product one time for every 360 degrees of rotation (each aperture (9) allows discharge of microbes one time for every 360 degrees of rotation; see FIGS. 1-3; [0020]-[0025] of the English machine translation document). In view of Chen, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the dispenser of Jiang with the dispenser of Chen to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because Chen discloses that the dispenser facilitates improved quantitative discharge of microbes (see [0022]).
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seon Seung-il (KR-2010-0011327; with English machine translation) (hereinafter “’327”).
Regarding claim 9, Cohn discloses the composting machine of claim 1. Cohn discloses wherein materials including microorganism are introduced into the fermentation reservoir ([0020]) but does not explicitly disclose one or more weight sensors for detecting a weight of the anaerobic waste; and a controller in operative communication with the one or more weight sensors and being configured to: obtain a weight of the anaerobic waste; determine that the weight of the anaerobic waste exceeds a predetermined threshold; and operate the microbe dispensing device to dispense the microbe product in response to determining that the weight of the anaerobic waste exceeds the predetermined threshold. ‘327 discloses a composting device comprising a vessel (180) and a dispenser (170). ‘327 further discloses one or more weight sensors for detecting a weight of the anaerobic waste; and a controller in operative communication with the one or more weight sensors and being configured to: obtain a weight of the anaerobic waste; determine that the weight of the anaerobic waste exceeds a predetermined threshold; and operate the microbe dispensing device to dispense the microbe product in response to determining that the weight of the anaerobic waste exceeds the predetermined threshold. See [0038], [0041]-[0042]. In view of ‘327, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composting device of Cohn with the composting device of ‘327. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of adjusting amount of microorganisms added to the composting device based on the amount of materials within the vessel, and thereby improve the efficacy of the composting, as disclosed by ‘327 ([0038], [0041]-[0042]).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 12, Cohn discloses the composting machine of claim 11. Cohn discloses the claimed composting reservoir but does not explicitly disclose an auger for selectively urging the anaerobic waste into the composting reservoir after completion of the fermentation process. However, Cohn does disclose wherein active controls can be used to move materials from the composting reservoir ([0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified employed active controls such as auger to move materials from the composting device of Cohn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because Cohen discloses that active controls can be used instead with the composting device in order to move materials from the composting reservoir ([0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Cohn discloses the composting machine of claim 11. Cohn discloses means for introducing materials into the composting device (see [0020]-[0021]). Although not specifically disclosed by Cohn, it would have been intrinsic in the compositing device of Cohn to employ materials transfer means such as receptacles. Cohn does not explicitly disclose wherein the transfer means includes a plurality of transfer means (i.e., an anaerobic waste reservoir for feeding the anaerobic waste into the fermentation reservoir; a green waste reservoir for feeding green waste into either the fermentation reservoir or the composting reservoir; and an aerobic waste reservoir for feeding the aerobic waste into the composting reservoir.) However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the material transfer means of Cohn, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Berberet et al (US 2013/0260446; hereinafter “Berberet”).
Regarding claim 15, Choi discloses the composting machine of claim 14. Choi discloses wherein the materials within the container (42) is collected using collection means ([0037]) but does not explicitly disclose a door in bottom of the composting reservoir that is selectively opened to drop composted waste into the output bin. Berberet discloses a composting device comprising a container comprising an agitator (FIG. 4: 108; [0055]) and a door in a bottom of the container facilitating removal of the materials within the container to a second container (FIG. 4). In view of Berberet, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composting reservoir of Choi to comprise a door at its bottom as disclosed by Berberet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in a device having the added advantage of discharging materials from the container without the user coming in contact with the materials within the container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 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 on 5712721374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights