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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the term “processer” appears to be a minor spelling error and should be “processor” instead. For purposes of examination, this term will be interpreted as a processor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 7-17, 21, 23-32, 38, 39 and 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maghas et al. (US 2018/0057374 A1 – hereafter ‘374) in view of Yeh et al. (US 2021/0395125 A1 – hereafter ‘125).
‘374 (Maghas) discloses an apparatus for waste recycling (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 1:
“A waste recycler”: ‘374 discloses a waste recycling appliance (appliance 10; Fig. 1; [0014]).
“at least one processor”: ‘374 discloses a controller (controller 18; Fig. 1; [0014]) which would include a processor.
“a vessel”: ‘374 discloses a waste recycle bin (bin 24; Fig. 2; [0019]).
“a temperature control element”: ‘374 discloses a heat exchanger (heat exchanger 34; Fig. 2; [0025]) that is being interpreted as the temperature control element of the instant application.
“a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to be configured to:”: The controller of ‘374 would include a computer-readable storage medium that includes instructions that are executed by a processor.
“receive an indication that an enzyme will be added to the vessel for processing waste in the vessel”: ‘374 discloses that the controller receives signals from the vessel in order to adjust processing parameters ([0026]).
“select an enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste”: ‘374 discloses that the processor allows enzymes to enter form enzyme dispenser inlets ([0017]; [0022]).
“process, via the temperature control element, the waste and the enzyme in the vessel according to the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle.”: ‘374 discloses that the controller operates the system to process the waste ([0022]).
While the controller of ‘374 operates the system, specific steps of adding and selecting specific enzymes are not explicitly disclosed within ‘374.
‘125 discloses a system for waste treatment (Abstract) that for claim 1 includes using controllers such as a programmable logic controller (PLC 160) or microprocessors ([0036]) that operates the flow between various tanks. These tanks can be a buffer tank or a waste tank where singles from sensors are used to operate pumps to move material from various reservoirs to the reactor tanks. The buffer tank can include enzymes that are used to break down the waste ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the instructions and processors of ‘125 within ‘374 in order to process waste in the reactor tank. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to use extracellular enzymes to break down large complex organics such as carbohydrates into simpler organic monomers ([0044]).
For claim 2, the bin of ‘374 is being interpreted as a bucket (Fig. 2; bin 24; [0022]) as this bin has a bucket shape.
For claim 3, ‘374 discloses a reducing mechanism (mechanism 60; Fig. 2; [0022]) that is also a grinder.
For claim 4, ‘374 discloses that the heat exchanger includes heat conducting elements (elements 46; Fig. 2; [0025]) that can heat the vessel.
For claim 5, the specific enzyme is drawn to material operated on by an apparatus which does not structurally define the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP §2115.
For claim 7, the system of modified ‘374 is fully capable of breaking down plastics. . See also MPEP §2115.
For claim 8, the system of ’374 breaks down food waste ([0021]) and would be capable of breaking down food waste with a fat content. See also MPEP §2115.
For claim 9, the specific enzyme is drawn to material operated on by an apparatus which does not structurally define the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP §2115.
For claim 10, ‘374 differs from the step of holding the temperature as part of a pretreatment.
For claim 10, ‘125 discloses holding the temperature in the first reactor tank ([0046]) where this is being interpreted as the pretreatment step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 1.
For claim 11, ‘374 differs from the step of holding the temperature as part of a treatment step.
For claim 11, ‘125 discloses holding the temperature in the second reactor tank ([0046]) where this is being interpreted as the pretreatment step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 1.
For claim 12, ‘374 differs from the step of holding the temperature as part of a denaturing the enzyme.
For claim 12, ‘125 discloses holding the temperature in the first reactor tank ([0046]) where this is being interpreted as the denature step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 1.
‘374 differs from the limitation of claim 13.
For claim 13, ‘125 discloses that the temperature can be 50°C or higher ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 1.
For claim 14, ‘374 discloses the step of cooling the vessel where this would be during an enzyme-mediated step ([0030]).
For claim 15, this cooling step would be capable of minimizing evaporation.
For claim 16, ‘374 discloses using a fan to provide air to the vessel ([0020]).
For claim 17, ‘374 flow air over water ([0034]) which would maintain moisture in the vessel.
‘374 differs from claim 21.
‘125 discloses a system for waste treatment (Abstract) that for claim 21 includes using controllers such as a programmable logic controller (PLC 160) or microprocessors ([0036]) that operates the flow between various tanks. These tanks can be a buffer tank or a waste tank where singles from sensors are used to operate pumps to move material from various reservoirs to the reactor tanks. The buffer tank can include enzymes that are used to break down the waste ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the instructions and processors of ‘125 within ‘374 in order to process waste in the reactor tank. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to use extracellular enzymes to break down large complex organics such as carbohydrates into simpler organic monomers ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 1.
‘374 (Maghas) discloses an apparatus for waste recycling (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 23:
“A method of operating a waste recycler that receives an enzyme in a vessel containing waste, wherein the enzyme causes a breakdown of at least part of the waste in the vessel ‘374 discloses a a method of using a waste recycling appliance (appliance 10; Fig. 1; [0014]). This includes using an enzyme to break down waste ([0017]; [0022]).
““receive an indication that an enzyme will be added to the vessel for processing waste in the vessel”: ‘374 discloses that the controller receives signals from the vessel in order to adjust processing parameters ([0026]).
“select an enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste”: ‘374 discloses that the processor allows enzymes to enter form enzyme dispenser inlets ([0017]; [0022]).
“process, via the temperature control element, the waste and the enzyme in the vessel according to the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle.”: ‘374 discloses that the controller operates the system to process the waste ([0022]).
While the controller of ‘374 operates the system, specific steps of adding and selecting specific enzymes are not explicitly disclosed within ‘374.
For claim 23, ‘125 discloses a system for waste treatment (Abstract) that for claim 1 includes using controllers such as a programmable logic controller (PLC 160) or microprocessors ([0036]) that operates the flow between various tanks. These tanks can be a buffer tank or a waste tank where singles from sensors are used to operate pumps to move material from various reservoirs to the reactor tanks. The buffer tank can include enzymes that are used to break down the waste ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the step of using the enzyme of ‘125 within ‘374 in order to process waste in the reactor tank. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to use extracellular enzymes to break down large complex organics such as carbohydrates into simpler organic monomers ([0044]).
For claim 24, ‘374 differs from the step of holding the temperature as part of a pretreatment.
For claim 24, ‘125 discloses holding the temperature in the first reactor tank ([0046]) where this is being interpreted as the pretreatment step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 23.
For claim 25, ‘374 differs from the step of holding the temperature as part of a treatment step.
For claim 25, ‘125 discloses holding the temperature in the second reactor tank ([0046]) where this is being interpreted as the pretreatment step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 23.
For claim 26, ‘374 differs from the step of holding the temperature as part of a denaturing the enzyme.
For claim 26, ‘125 discloses holding the temperature in the first reactor tank ([0046]) where this is being interpreted as the denature step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 23.
‘374 differs from the limitation of claim 27.
For claim 27, ‘125 discloses that the temperature can be 50°C or higher ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the temperature of ‘125 within ‘374 using the same reasoning as claim 23.
For claim 28, ‘374 discloses the step of cooling the vessel where this would be during an enzyme-mediated step ([0030]).
For claim 29, this cooling step would be capable of minimizing evaporation.
For claim 30, the bin used by ‘374 is being interpreted as a bucket (Fig. 2; bin 24; [0022]) as this bin has a bucket shape.
For claim 31 ‘374 discloses using a reducing mechanism (mechanism 60; Fig. 2; [0022]) that is also a grinder.
For claim 32, ‘374 discloses the step where the heat exchanger includes heat conducting elements (elements 46; Fig. 2; [0025]) that can heat the vessel.
For claim 38, ‘374 discloses using a fan to provide air to the vessel ([0020]) which is an air circulation characteristic.
For claim 39, ‘374 discloses the step where the flow of air over water ([0034]) which would maintain moisture in the vessel.
‘374 (Maghas) discloses an apparatus for waste recycling (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 45:
“A waste recycler”: ‘374 discloses a waste recycling appliance (appliance 10; Fig. 1; [0014]).
“at least one processor”: ‘374 discloses a controller (controller 18; Fig. 1; [0014]) which would include a processor.
“a vessel”: ‘374 discloses a waste recycle bin (bin 24; Fig. 2; [0019]).
“a temperature control element”: ‘374 discloses a heat exchanger (heat exchanger 34; Fig. 2; [0025]) that is being interpreted as the temperature control element of the instant application.
“a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to be configured to:”: The controller of ‘374 would include a computer-readable storage medium that includes instructions that are executed by a processor.
“receive an indication that an enzyme will be added to the vessel for processing waste in the vessel”: ‘374 discloses that the controller receives signals from the vessel in order to adjust processing parameters ([0026]).
“select an enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste”: ‘374 discloses that the processor allows enzymes to enter form enzyme dispenser inlets ([0017]; [0022]).
“process, via the temperature control element, the waste and the enzyme in the vessel according to the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle.”: ‘374 discloses that the controller operates the system to process the waste ([0022]).
While the controller of ‘374 operates the system, specific steps of adding and selecting specific enzymes are not explicitly disclosed within ‘374.
‘125 discloses a system for waste treatment (Abstract) that for claim 45 includes using controllers such as a programmable logic controller (PLC 160) or microprocessors ([0036]) that operates the flow between various tanks. These tanks can be a buffer tank or a waste tank where singles from sensors are used to operate pumps to move material from various reservoirs to the reactor tanks. The buffer tank can include enzymes that are used to break down the waste ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the instructions and processors of ‘125 within ‘374 in order to process waste in the reactor tank. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to use extracellular enzymes to break down large complex organics such as carbohydrates into simpler organic monomers ([0044]).
Claims 46-47 are drawn to the material operated on by an apparatus which does not structurally define the claims invention over the prior art. See MPEP §2115.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 18-20, 22, 33-37 and 40-44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claim 6, the prior art fails to teach or fairy suggest where the computer-readable storage medium stores instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to be configured to: modify an existing waste processing cycle to generate the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle or select the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle from a plurality of waste processing cycles.
For claim 18, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the computer-readable storage medium stores instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to be configured to: select the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste from a group of processing cycles comprising a first enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste when the waste includes a biodegradable plastic, a compostable plastic, or a petroleum-based plastic, and a second enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste when the waste includes one of fat, oil and grease.
Claims 19 and 20 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 18.
For claim 22, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the computer readable storage medium stores instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to be configured to: receive user input, via a button, touch-sensitive screen, speech input, motion input, remote input, or multimodal input, providing the indication that the enzyme will be added to the vessel.
For claim 33, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the enzyme is part of a hydrolase enzyme class.
For claim 34, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where modifying an existing waste processing cycle to generate the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle or select the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle from a plurality of waste processing cycles.
For claim 35, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the enzyme is operable to biodegrade at least one of a biodegradable plastic, a compostable plastic, a petroleum plastic, fat, oil and grease.
Claim 36 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 35.
For claim 37, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the enzyme comprises one or more of a lipases, proteases, proteinase K, PLA (Polylactic acid) depolymerase, esterase, cutinase, cellulases, amylases, liganases, proteinases, glucosidases, xylanases, peptidases, Phospholipases, chitinases, PLA, PHB (Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)), PHA (Polyhydroxyalkanoate), PBS (Polybutylene succinate), PBSA (2-phenylbenzimidazole-5-sulfonic acid), and PBAT (polybutylene adipate terephthalate) depolymerase.
For claim 40, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the step of selecting the enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste from a group of processing cycles comprising a first enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste when the waste includes plastics and a second enzyme-mediated waste processing cycle for processing the waste when the waste includes one of fat, oil and grease.
Claims 41 and 42 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 40.
For claim 43, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the step of receiving the indication that the enzyme will be added to the vessel for processing waste in the vessel based on data from a sensor that senses plastics, fat, oil or grease in the waste.
For claim 44, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the step of receiving user input, via a button, touch-sensitive screen, speech input, motion input, remote input, or multimodal input, providing the indication that the enzyme will be added to the vessel.
The closest prior art is Maghas et al. (US 2018/0057374 A1) that discloses a waste recycler that adds an enzyme to the waste, but does not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 6, 18-20, 22, 33-37 and 40-44.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crepeau et al. (US 2020/0353474 A1) that discloses a food recycler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
