DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on April 17, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1 and 10 in independent claim form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 1, recited the limitation of “The food recycler of claim 1, wherein the food recycler further comprises: a housing…“ is suggested to be replaced with “The food recycler of claim 1, further comprises: a housing…“,
Claim 13 line 1, recited the limitation of “The food recycler of claim 10, wherein the food recycler further comprises: a sensor…“ is suggested to be replaced with “The food recycler of claim 1, further comprises: a sensor…“,
Claims 8 and 14 lines 1 and 2, recited the limitation of “RF component“ is suggested to be replaced with “radio frequency component“.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 3 recited “a drying component configured to remove”,
Claim 10 recited “a drying component configured to remove”,
Claim 11 recited “a grinding mechanism for chopping”,
Claim 20 recited “the grinding mechanism rotates”.
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.
Claims 3,10,11 and 20, discloses the limitation “a drying component configured to remove”, “a grinding mechanism for chopping”, “the grinding mechanism rotates” have been interpreted under 112(f) because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “component”, “mechanism” coupled with functional language “configured to remove”, “for chopping”, “rotates” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification/disclosure shows that there is equivalent structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “a drying component” have the equivalent structure to be “a fan” in claim 3, “a grinding mechanism” have the equivalent structure to be “a first and second arms” in claim 11.
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 1-9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recited in lines 12-13, the limitations "such that the chopping projection is positioned blow the first portion of the grinding blade" is indefinite, the language of the claim is unclear and confusing. For the purpose of examination, the recitation of “the chopping projection is positioned blow the first portion of the grinding blade” will be interpreted as " the chopping projection is positioned below the first portion of the grinding blade ".
Claims 5 and 16 in line 1, recited the limitations “the food recycling cycle” is indefinite, the language was intended use and was never positively recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 in line 2, recited the limitations “the removable air filter of the filter system is configured in the lid such that air from the bucket travels through the removable air filter in the lid and out an opening on a top surface of the lid” is indefinite, the recitation is unclear since claim 1 required “a lid having a cavity for guiding air from the bucket to a filter; and a filter system configured to include a removable air filter that is inserted into the food recycler and that receives the air guided from the cavity of the lid.”. Clarity is needed.
Claim 7 in line 3, recited the limitations “other devices” is indefinite, it is unclear what structure is being claimed. Clarity is needed.
Claim 20 recited in line 5, the limitations “the fixed chopping mechanism” is indefinite, it is unclear what structure is being claimed. Clarity is needed.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Application No. 16/868476 (Patent 11389804) in view of claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 17/699450 (Patent 11541397). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in the claims mentioned above of the instant application are also recited in the claims mentioned above of the reference application.
Regarding claim 1, see claim 1 of US. patent 11389804 in view of claim 1 of US. patent 11541397,
Regarding claim 10, see claims 1 and 3 of US. patent 11389804,
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 1-6, 9-12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected as best understood under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Globosoft in Youtube.com-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QgiQ2puLJw (also manual) hereinafter Globosoft in view of Yoshikawa JP Publication (3,279,218) hereinafter Yoshikawa.
Regarding claim 1,
Globosoft discloses a food recycler (Foodcycler FC-30, the foodcyler FC-3 is disclosed in Applicant Disclosure as admitted Prior art see fig.2A-D and specification (i.e. Background), therefore the details will be referred to the Youtube picture and the Background), comprising:
a controller (214) comprising at least one user interface component (picture) usable to at least initiate a food recycling cycle (each mode are cycles, as recited in Para.[0007]),
PNG
media_image1.png
660
1057
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a motor (216) in electrical communication with the controller (214 as recited in Para.[0007]);
a bucket (212) contained within the food recycler (see Youtube Video), the bucket (212) having a single hole at a top of the bucket for directly receiving food and for unloading compost (see Youtube Video),
wherein the food recycler is configured to be used on a countertop (see para. [0005]) ;
a grinding blade (250) connected to the motor (216 as recited in Para.[0010]) having a first portion of the grinding blade (262) and a second portion of the grinding blade (264 or 268);
a chopping projection (254) configured to extend (256,260) inwardly from an interior wall of the bucket (see Youtube Video and fig.2A-2D) such that the chopping projection is positioned blow the first portion of the grinding blade (262) and above the second portion of the grinding blade (264);
a lid (204) and a filter system (as shown in fig. 2B) configured to include a removable air filter (226, conventionally air filters are removable/replaceable for maintenance) that is inserted into the food recycler
Globosoft does not disclose the lid to have a cavity for guiding air from the bucket to a filter; and the filter system configured to receive the air guided from the cavity of the lid.
Globosoft and Yoshikawa disclose both analogous art in the field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. kitchen garbage disposer).
Yoshikawa, in a similar art, teaches a kitchen garbage disposer (see fig. 1-6) with a lid (24) to have a cavity (air passage, see pag. 4 lines 34-37) for guiding air from the bucket to a filter; and the filter system (38,39) configured to include a removable air filter (39) configured to receive the air guided from the cavity of the lid.
Yoshikawa teaches the lid with a cavity to facilitate the removal of odor from kitchen garbage materials (see para.[0003] line 3), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to manufacture the food recycler of Globosoft with a lid with a cavity for guiding air from the bucket as taught by Yoshikawa, as it would be beneficiary to Globosoft to be able to facilitate the removal of odor from kitchen garbage materials and render the food recycler more efficient.
Examiner notes, the recitation of “for guiding air from the bucket to a filter” is intended use.
Regarding claim 2,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Globosoft further discloses a housing (Globosoft, food recycler size is the housing see picture) with an opening (Globosoft, opening shown in fig.2A-B) configured to receive the removable air filter.
Examiner notes, the recitation of “configured to receive the removable air filter” is intended use.
Regarding claim 3,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Globosoft further discloses a drying component (222, 230 as shown in fig 2B) configured to remove water from the food (Conventionally Dryer remove water by evaporation),
wherein the drying component (222, 230 as shown in fig 2B) comprises a fan (222) in electrical communication with the controller (214 as recited in Para.[0007]) to draw air from the bucket and through the filter system (as recited in Para.[0007] and [0009]).
Regarding claim 4,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Globosoft further discloses a gear box (224) configured below the bucket (see fig. 2A-B).
Regarding claim 5, (as best understood)
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Globosoft further discloses the food recycling cycle consumes 8 kilowatt hours per cycle or per 2.5 liters (as recited in Para.[0008]) (the 8 kilowatt hours per cycle or per 2.5 liters can also be rewritten “8 kilowatt hours per 2500 grams” or “0.1 kilowatt hours per 31.25 grams”), but does not disclose wherein the food recycling cycle to consume 0.1 kilowatt hours of energy per 100 grams of the waste food items, however it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to change the power consumption of the apparatus of Globosoft from 0.1 kilowatt hours per 31.25 grams to 0.1 kilowatt hours of energy per 100 grams such that more food material can be processed under a standard power consumption and improve efficiently based on time and energy.
Regarding claim 6, (as best understood)
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Globosoft in view of Yoshikawa discloses wherein the lid (Yoshikawa, 24) is configured to receive the filter system (Yoshikawa, 38,39), wherein the removable air filter (Yoshikawa, 39) of the filter system (Yoshikawa, 38,39) is configured in the lid (Yoshikawa, 24, in fig.2-3, element 39 is extended out in fig.2 to be inserted in the lid part cavity element 38 in fig.3 therefore the filter is in the lid) such that air from the bucket travels through the removable air filter in the lid and out an opening (Yoshikawa, 20) on a top surface of the lid (Yoshikawa, see fig.1 below show the top and bottom surfaces of the bottom cover (element 37) of the lid).
PNG
media_image2.png
646
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Globosoft further discloses at least one exhaust port (228) connected to a first end of the filter system (as shown in fig.2B) to allow release of odorless air from the housing.
Regarding claim 10,
Globosoft discloses a food recycler (Foodcycler FC-30, the foodcyler FC-3 is disclosed in Applicant Disclosure as admitted Prior art see fig.2A-D and specification (i.e. Background), therefore the details will be referred to the Youtube picture and the Background), comprising:
a case (see picture in claim 1) that includes a control system (214);
a set of user interface components (see picture in claim 1) in electrical communication with the control system,
wherein the set of user interface components being accessible from an exterior of the case (see picture in claim 1) and usable to at least cause the control system to initiate a food recycling cycle;
a motor (216) in communication with the control system (214 as recited in Para.[0007]);
a bucket (212) contained within the case (see youtube video);
a filter system (as shown in fig. 2B) having a removable filter (226, conventionally air filters are removable/replaceable for maintenance);
a lid (204) configured above the bucket (212); and
a drying component (222, 230 as shown in fig 2B) configured to remove water from waste food items (as recited in Para.[0007] and [0009]).
Globosoft does not disclose a lid to include a cavity for directing air from the bucket to the filter system;
Globosoft and Yoshikawa disclose both analogous art in the field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. kitchen garbage disposer).
Yoshikawa, in a similar art, teaches a kitchen garbage disposer (see fig. 1-6) with a lid (24) to include a cavity (air passage, see pag. 4 lines 34-37) for directing air from the bucket to the filter system (38,39).
Yoshikawa teaches the lid with a cavity to facilitate the removal of odor from kitchen garbage materials (see para.[0003] line 3), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to manufacture the food recycler of Globosoft with a lid to include a cavity for directing air from the bucket to the filter system as taught by Yoshikawa, as it would be beneficiary to Globosoft to be able to facilitate the removal of odor from kitchen garbage materials and render the food recycler more efficient.
Regarding claim 11,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft further wherein the bucket (212) comprises a grinding mechanism (250) for chopping the waste food items, the grinding mechanism (250) having a first arm (262) that passes above a chopping projection (256,260) from an interior wall of the bucket (see fig.2C and 2D) and a second arm that passes below the chopping projection (256,260).
Regarding claim 12,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft discloses a bucket (212) being configured with a volumetric capacity of 2.50 liters (as recited in Para.[0006]), but does not disclose the bucket to be configured with a volumetric capacity between 2.51 liters and 10 liters, however it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to change the bucket capacity of Globosoft from 2.50 liters to be between 2.51 liters and 10 liters such that the bucket can hold more food, allow more food material to be processed and improve efficiently based on time and energy.
Regarding claim 15,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft further discloses wherein the case is configured with: a height between 324 millimeters and 396 millimeters; a length between 165 millimeters and 329 millimeters; and a width between 165 millimeters and 329 millimeters (see para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 16,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft further discloses the food recycling cycle consumes 8 kilowatt hours per cycle or per 2.5 liters (as recited in Para.[0008]) (the 8 kilowatt hours per cycle or per 2.5 liters can also be rewritten “8 kilowatt hours per 2500 grams” or “0.1 kilowatt hours per 31.25 grams”), but does not disclose wherein the food recycling cycle to consume 0.1 kilowatt hours of energy per 100 grams of the waste food items, however it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to change the power consumption of the apparatus of Globosoft from 0.1 kilowatt hours per 31.25 grams to 0.1 kilowatt hours of energy per 100 grams such that more food material can be processed under a standard power consumption and improve efficiently based on time and energy.
Regarding claim 17,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft in view of Yoshikawa discloses wherein the filter system (Yoshikawa, 38,39) is positioned near a top portion of the case (Yoshikawa, see fig.2-3) and configured to accommodate one or more filters (Yoshikawa, 39) and wherein one or more air filters (Yoshikawa, 39, conventionally air filters are removable/replaceable for maintenance) are removable from the filter system (Yoshikawa, 38,39).
Regarding claim 18,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft further discloses wherein the drying component (222, 230 as shown in fig 2B) comprises a fan (222) in electrical communication with the control system (214 as recited in Para.[0007]) to draw air from the bucket and through the filter system (as recited in Para.[0007] and [0009]).
Regarding claim 20, (as best understood)
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft further discloses a fixed chopping mechanism (254,256,260) extending from an interior wall of the bucket (see fig.2C and 2D); and
a grinding mechanism (250) having a first portion (262) extending from a central portion (252) of the grinding mechanism and a second portion (264,268) extending from the central portion (252) of the grinding mechanism,
wherein the fixed chopping mechanism (254,256,260) is configured to be positioned below the first portion (262) of the grinding mechanism and above the second portion (264,268) of the grinding mechanism such that when the grinding mechanism (250) rotates in the bucket (212), the waste food items are chopped by an interaction of the fixed chopping mechanism (254,256,260) and the grinding mechanism (250) with the waste food items.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Globosoft in Youtube.com in view of Yoshikawa as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in further view of Strutz US. Publication (2004/0251339) hereinafter Strutz.
Regarding claim 7, (as best understood)
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Globosoft is silent about an antenna in electrical communication with the controller, the antenna configured to allow wireless communication between the controller and other devices over a communications network.
Globosoft and Strutz disclose both art in the same field of endeavor (i.e. material comminuting) and are concerned of a similar problem (i.e. food processing).
Strutz, in a similar art, teaches an antenna in electrical communication with the controller (control circuitry, as recited in Para.[0040]), the antenna configured to allow wireless communication between the controller and other devices (touch pad) over a communications network (as recited in Para.[0040]).
Strutz teaches an antenna for wireless communication to allow the user to control and get status of the apparatus from a distance, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to add to the apparatus of Globosoft, an antenna for wireless communication as taught by Strutz as it would be beneficiary to Globosoft, to facilitate the control and allow the user to operate the apparatus from a distance.
Regarding claim 19,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft is silent about an antenna in electrical communication with the control system, the antenna configured to allow wireless communication between the control system and other devices over a communications network.
Globosoft and Strutz disclose both art in the same field of endeavor (i.e. material comminuting) and are concerned of a similar problem (i.e. food processing).
Strutz, in a similar art, teaches an antenna in electrical communication with the control system (control circuitry, as recited in Para.[0040]), the antenna configured to allow wireless communication between the control system and other devices (touch pad) over a communications network (as recited in Para.[0040]).
Strutz teaches an antenna for wireless communication to allow the user to control and get status of the apparatus from a distance, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to add to the apparatus of Globosoft, an antenna for wireless communication as taught by Strutz as it would be beneficiary to Globosoft, to facilitate the control and allow the user to operate the apparatus from a distance.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Globosoft in Youtube.com in view of Yoshikawa as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in further view of Jacobsen et al. US. Publication (2016/0295906) hereinafter Jacobsen.
Regarding claim 8,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 1,
Globosoft discloses an RF component (heating element/resistor, as recited in Para.[0008]) in electrical communication with the controller to heat the waste food items (as recited in Para.[0007]-[0008]), however Globosoft is silent about wherein the RF component transmits microwaves into the bucket.
Globosoft and Jacobsen disclose both art in the same field of endeavor (i.e. material comminuting) and are concerned of a similar problem (i.e. food processing).
Jacobsen, in a similar art, teaches wherein the RF component (magnetron element 122) transmits microwaves into the bucket (roasting chamber element 118, as recited in Para.[0091]).
Jacobsen teaches the magnetron to generate heat to a chamber, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to replace the resistor of Globosoft with a magnetron such that it transmits microwaves. Examiner notes both references clearly teach heating elements. Accordingly, it has been held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly, a simple substitution of Globosoft’s heating element with that of Jacobsen will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made.
Regarding claim 14,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft discloses an RF component (heating element/resistor, as recited in Para.[0008]) in electrical communication with the control system to heat the waste food items (as recited in Para.[0007]-[0008]), however Globosoft is silent about wherein the RF component transmits microwaves into the bucket.
Globosoft and Jacobsen disclose both art in the same field of endeavor (i.e. material comminuting) and are concerned of a similar problem (i.e. food processing).
Jacobsen, in a similar art, teaches wherein the RF component (magnetron element 122) transmits microwaves into the bucket (roasting chamber element 118, as recited in Para.[0091]).
Jacobsen teaches the magnetron to generate heat to a chamber, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to replace the resistor of Globosoft with a magnetron such that it transmits microwaves. Examiner notes both references clearly teach heating elements. Accordingly, it has been held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly, a simple substitution of Globosoft’s heating element with that of Jacobsen will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Globosoft in Youtube.com in view of Yoshikawa as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Delgado et al. US. Patent (9,308,535) hereinafter Delgado.
Regarding claim 13,
The prior art Globosoft as modified by Yoshikawa discloses all limitations in claim 10,
Globosoft does not disclose a sensor component in electrical communication with the control system, wherein the sensor component generates sensor data based on characteristics of the waste food items; and the control system determines operation of the drying component based on the sensor data.
Delgado, in a similar art, teaches an organic material processor (as shown in fig.1-8) with a sensor component (100) in electrical communication with the control system (106), wherein the sensor component (100) generates sensor data based on characteristics (temperature) of the waste food items (see col.6 lines 50-62); and the control system (106) determines operation of the drying component (50,69) based on the sensor data (see col.6 lines 44-62).
Delgado teaches the sensor to monitor the temperature of the heating elements to a predetermined range (see col.6 lines 44-62), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the food recycling unit of Globosoft with a temperature as taught by Delgado, as it would be beneficiary to Globosoft, to be able to monitor the temperature of the heating elements to a predetermined range and effectively produce compost in a continuous way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith O. BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Christopher L. Templeton can be reached at (571)270 1477. 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.
January 7, 2026
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725