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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/639,787 application filed on April 18, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered. All claims are directed toward an apparatus.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2024, 11/11/2025 & 2/26/2026. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 are apparatus claims requiring only the positively recited structural components, although structured with physical features that can perform the stated functions or accomplish the intended uses. Functional limitations state either an intended use or operation, a manner of operating a device, apparatus or system, or what the apparatus/system does. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Of course, in the patentability analysis of these apparatus/system claims, functional features are considered/not ignored and Applicant can and should employ such language where appropriate and helpful. However, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, or if such apparatus can operate in the manner described, then it meets the claim limitation (MPEP §§ 2114, 2173.05(g)).
The recited sludges and air, for example, are considered materials potentially contained within, transient or passing through, generated or produced, or otherwise worked upon by the apparatus rather than structural components of the apparatus.
According to the MPEP §2115 [R-2], a material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims: Expressions relating an apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
In summary, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. However, specific limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §§2111, 2173.01 I. Unless otherwise specified, any citation to Applicant’s specification will generally refer to the original and any substitute or amended specification rather than a published application.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Alternatively or in addition, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements and/or essential structural cooperative relationships of elements and/or essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections, essential elements or essential steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 1 follows, with the underlined portions either causing or intended to assist in an understanding of the indefiniteness rejection.
Claim 1: A sludge treatment apparatus comprising:
a dryer which dries first sludges and discharges second sludges which are dried first sludges;
a burner which burns the second sludges; and
a serial pipe connected to the burner,
wherein the dryer has air inlets through which air is introduced into the dryer, and the serial pipe is disposed adjacent to the dryer.
The structural relationship between all the elements of claim 1 and 18 is unclear. Examiner notes that these are apparatus claims where the noted sludges are not a required feature. In the absence of sludges, it would be unclear how to interpret the relationship between the dryer and the burner.
The language “a dryer which dries first sludges and discharges second sludges which are dried first sludges can create confusion, since it is awkward and unclear.
The language “disposed adjacent to the dryer" does not explain how close the serial pipe is or how it interacts with the dryer.
It is unclear what the pipe connects the burner to.
There are no details of the source, control, or purpose of the incoming air in the phrase “air inlets through which air is introduced."
Claim 18 has similar issues.
Claim 6 recites: The sludge treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dryer dries the first sludges such that a water content of the second sludges is 8 % to 15 %.
Claim 10 recites: “The sludge treatment apparatus of claim 7, wherein the feed screw transfers the second sludges at different speeds according to time.” This appears to be merely a manner of operating the apparatus or a process. Thus the additional structure, if any, associated with this feature is unclear.
Claims 2-17 and 19-20 depend on claims 1 and 18.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “The sludge treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the serial pipe is disposed adjacent to the dryer,” however disposing the serial pipe adjacent to the dryer is already included in base claim 1. As such, claim 5 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janicki (US20160138433).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, 10 and 13-20, Janicki discloses a sludge treatment apparatus (Abstract, Fig. 1) comprising:
a dryer which dries first sludges and discharges second sludges which are dried first sludges ([[0033], 0040], [0041], [0044], [0048], where the dryer can be the conveyor or sludge dryer assembly);
a burner which burns the second sludges ([0041], [0045], Fig. 1); and
a serial pipe connected to the burner ([0046], [0051]),
wherein the dryer has air inlets through which air is introduced into the dryer, and the serial pipe is disposed adjacent to the dryer ([0078], [0082]-[0084]).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 18: Claim 18 is an independent apparatus claim that includes many of the same or similar major elements as those recited in claim 1 and additionally recited a liquid excrement treatment device. As such, in the interest of convenience and brevity, Examiner applies at least portions of the claim 1 analysis and rationale herein, without repeating all text and/or claim mapping in their entirety.
Therefore, regarding claim 18, Janicki discloses an excrement treatment apparatus comprising:
a solid excrement treatment device (claim 1 analysis); and
a liquid excrement treatment device ([0040], [0090]),
wherein the solid excrement treatment device comprises:
a dryer which dries first sludges and discharges second sludges which are dried first sludges (claim 1 analysis);
a burner which burns the second sludges (claim 1 analysis); and
a serial pipe connected to the burner, the dryer has air inlets through which air is introduced into the dryer, and the serial pipe is disposed adjacent to the dryer (claim 1 analysis);
Claim 2: The sludge treatment apparatus further comprises a heat transfer case disposed adjacent to the serial pipe, wherein the heat transfer case increases efficiency of transferring heat generated in the serial pipe to the dryer ([0082]); Claim 5: The serial pipe is disposed adjacent to the dryer (claim 1 analysis); Claim 6: The dryer dries the first sludges such that a water content of the second sludges is 8 % to 15 % ([0053], where this is a manner of operating the apparatus and does not change its structure, and where the apparatus is capable of this functionality); Claim 7: The sludge treatment apparatus further comprises a feeder between the dryer and the burner, wherein the feeder comprises: a storage area in which the second sludges discharged from the dryer are stored; and a feed screw which transfers the second sludges from the storage area to the burner ([0079], Fig. 1, 18, 19, where use of an auger (screw) is the typical method of sludge conveyance); Claim 10: The feed screw transfers the second sludges at different speeds according to time (this is a manner of operating the apparatus and does not change its structure); Claim 13: The sludge treatment apparatus further comprises: a first exhaust pipe connected to the dryer; a first exhaust fan connected to the first exhaust pipe; a second exhaust pipe connected to the serial pipe; and a second exhaust fan connected to the second exhaust pipe ([0079], [0084], [0088], Figs 1-10); Claim 14: The dryer comprises: a dryer housing defining a drying chamber; drying screws disposed in the drying chamber; and drying air inlets passing through the dryer housing (Figs. 1-10); Claim 15: The drying air inlets pass through a lower portion of the dryer housing (Figs. 1-10); Claim 16: The drying screws are provided with flow holes through which air flows in the drying chamber (Figs. 1-10). Claims 17 and 19: The temperatures in the burner and the serial pipe are 650 °C or higher such that noxious gas generated by burning the second sludges is burned in the burner and the serial pipe ([0073], where this is a manner of operating the apparatus rather than a structural feature); and Claim 20: The dryer comprises: a dryer housing defining a drying chamber; drying screws disposed in the drying chamber; and drying air inlets passing through the dryer housing (Fig. 1, where drying screw are augers).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janicki (US20160138433), as applied to claims 1 and 18 above.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 8, 9 and 11-16, Janicki discloses the sludge treatment apparatus of claim 2, except wherein the heat transfer case surrounds the dryer and the serial pipe.
However, when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the heat transfer case at a suitable location and one that optimizes heat transfer, where one potential location for such functionality would be surrounding the dryer and the serial pipe.
Regarding claim 4, Janicki discloses the sludge treatment apparatus of claim 1, except wherein the serial pipe has a thickness of 2.8 mm or more.
At the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely experiment with appropriate thickness and to choose a suitable thickness for the intended purpose.
Regarding claim 8, Janicki discloses the sludge treatment apparatus of claim 7, except wherein the feeder further comprises an agitator disposed on the feed screw, and the agitator mixes the second sludges.
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an agitator to assist in mixing the sludge.
Regarding claim 9, Janicki discloses the sludge treatment apparatus of claim 7, wherein the feeder further comprises an inclined input passage between the storage area and the burner, and the inclined input passage is inclined such that one end of the inclined input passage adjacent to the storage area is higher than another end of the inclined input passage adjacent to the burner.
However, Janicki discloses that the conveyor extends upwardly at an angle ([0046]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly use an inclined input passage for the feeder.
Regarding claim 11, Janicki discloses the sludge treatment apparatus of claim 1, except wherein the burner comprises: a burning drum defining a burning chamber communicating with the serial pipe; and a Coanda nozzle disposed in the burning chamber, and the Coanda nozzle returns burning gas moving toward the serial pipe into the burning chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use traditional structures such as a burning chamber with a Coanda nozzle where such structures are shown to be effective for burning materials.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 12: The Coanda nozzle comprises: a return passage; and a compressed air passage surrounding the return passage, and the return passage has a streamlined shape ([0083]).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
Prosecution Insights