DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 7/16/2024 and 12/13/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-1 objected to because of the following informalities:
". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “which comprises a paddle” in line 1 read “further comprising a paddle”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “wherein the composter comprises a paddle storage location” in line 2 read “wherein the composter further comprises a paddle storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “the storage location” in line 3 read “the paddle storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “the storage location” in line 1 read “the paddle storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “the storage location” in line 1 read “the paddle storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “the composter comprises a measuring cup” in lines 1-2 read “the composter further comprises a measuring cup”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “the composter comprises a cup storage location” in line 3 read “the composter further comprises a cup storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “holding the cup in the storage location” in line 4 read “holding the measuring cup in the cup storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “which comprises a paddle” in line 1 read “further comprising a paddle”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “wherein the composter comprises a paddle storage location” in line 2 read “wherein the composter further comprises a paddle storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “the storage location” in line 3 read “the paddle storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “the measuring cup comprises two arms” in line 2 read “the measuring cup further comprises two arms”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “using the cup” in line 2 read “using the measuring cup”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “which comprises a paddle” in line 1 read “further comprising a paddle”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “wherein the composter comprises a paddle storage location” in line 2 read “wherein the composter further comprises a paddle storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “the storage location” in line 3 read “the paddle storage location”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “the cup” in line 5 read “the measuring cup”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended that “the cup” in line 6 read “the measuring cup”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “screw fittable” in line 2 read “screwed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “the telescopic tube comprises a stop portion” in lines 1-2 read “the telescopic tube further comprises a stop portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that “the composter being one comprising” in line 2 read “the composter comprising”. 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 limitations are:
"paddle securing features" in claims 2, 6, and 9;
“cup securing features” in claim 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 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 6 recites the limitation "the storage location" in line 3. It is unclear whether “the storage location” refers to the “paddle storage location”, the “cup storage location”, or another structure.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the storage location" in line 3. It is unclear whether “the storage location” refers to the “paddle storage location”, the “cup storage location”, or another structure.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the storage location" in line 3. It is unclear whether “the storage location” refers to the “paddle storage location”, the “cup storage location”, or another structure.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "its" in line . It is unclear whether “its storage location” refers to the “paddle storage location”, the “cup storage location”, or another structure.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the composter housing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the housing of the composter” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the housing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 211035729) (already of record) (machine translated).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a composter (abstract “composting bin”) comprising a holding portion for holding material to be composted (compost bucket body 1), a tank portion for collecting leachate formed during composting (Fig. 2 filter plate 5) and a drain port for allowing flow of collected leachate out of the tank portion (faucet 4).
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. discloses a composter which comprises a paddle for tamping down material added to the composter (pressure mesh 6), wherein the composter comprises a paddle storage location for the paddle and paddle securing features for holding the paddle in the storage location (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al. discloses a composter in which the storage location is provided on a lid of the composter (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al. discloses a composter in which the storage location is provided on an underside of the lid (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 211035729) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Lancien (US 2020/0407287 A1) (already of record) and Souris et al. (US 2021/0235931 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. discloses a composter (see claim 1 above), but does not disclose a measuring cup or a measuring cup storage location. However, Lancien discloses a composter in which the composter comprises a measuring cup (para. 0052 “measuring cup”) which measures the required dose of chemicals to facilitate the fermentation process (para. 0052). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Lancien configuration of a measuring cup in Wang et al.' s device with a reasonable expectation that it would allow a user to measure the required dose of chemicals for each batch of compost to facilitate fermentation. This method for improving Wang et al.' s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lancien. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Lancien to include a measuring cup.
Lancien does not disclose a cup storage location for the measuring cup and comprising cup securing features for holding the cup in the storage location. However, Souris et al. teaches that a measuring cup storage feature is known (para. 0083). Though Lancien does not explicitly teach measuring cup storage, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement measuring cup storage because the substitution of one known element for another would have predictably resulted in a composting device that keeps accessories that are used in conjunction with the composting device (para. 0083), with reasonable expectation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. with the teachings of Lancien and Souris et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding the invention of Souris et al. being directed to a portable heating device, the problem faced by the inventor is storing a measuring cup in a container, and Souris et al.’s configuration of a measuring cup storage is reasonably pertinent to solving this problem.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 211035729) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Lancien (US 2020/0407287 A1) (already of record) and Souris et al. (US 2021/0235931 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tong (US 2024/0081565 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang et al. teaches a composter comprising a measuring cup with measuring cup storage (see claim 5 above), but does not explicitly teach that the measuring cup comprises two arms which can act as a handle for a user when using the cup. However, Tong teaches that an attachable/detachable tool with two arms is known (para. 0010). Though modified Lancien does not explicitly teach a measuring cup with two arms, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement two arms as a handle because the substitution of one known element for another would have predictably resulted in a composting device that allows the measuring cup to be detachably connected to the storage location (para. 0010), with reasonable expectation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Wang et al. with the teachings of Tong to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding the invention of Tong being directed to a portable tableware set, the problem faced by the inventor is detachably storing a tool with a two-arm configuration, and Tong’s configuration of a tool with two-arms is reasonably pertinent to solving this problem.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 211035729) (already of record) (machine translated) in view of Phillips (US 1,912,304) (already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al. discloses a composter in which the drain port is provided with a tap for controlling flow of liquid out of the tank portion (Figs. 1 and 5), but does not disclose that the tap is an extendible tap moveable between a retracted position and an extended position. However, Phillips teaches an extendable tap (Figs. 4-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Phillips configuration of an extendable/retractable tap in Wang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would open the tap and provide a free passage of fluid flow (p. 1, lines 11-18; p. 2, line 100). This method for improving Wang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Phillips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Phillips to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. discloses a composter comprising a tap (Figs. 1 and 5), but does not disclose an extendible telescoping tap, which comprises a main tap body for mounting in the composter housing and a telescopic tube which carries a tap valve and is mounted for telescoping movement relative to the main tap body. However, Phillips teaches an extendible telescoping tap (p. 1, lines 12-18). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Phillips configuration of an extendible telescoping tap in Wang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would open the tap and provide a free passage of fluid flow (p. 1, lines 11-18; p. 2, line 100). This method for improving Wang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Phillips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Phillips to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al. discloses a composter comprising a tap (Figs. 1 and 5) mounted in an aperture in a wall of the composter housing (Fig. 1), but does not disclose a telescoping tap. However, Phillips teaches an extendible telescoping tap (p. 1, lines 12-18). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Phillips configuration of an extendible telescoping tap in Wang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would open the tap and provide a free passage of fluid flow (p. 1, lines 11-18; p. 2, line 100). This method for improving Wang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Phillips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Phillips to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al. discloses a composter comprising a tap (Figs. 1 and 5), but does not disclose in which the main tap body carries a thread via which the main tap body and hence the telescoping tap is screwed to the housing. However, Phillips teaches an extendible telescoping tap (p. 1, lines 12-18) that can be screwed into a container (p. 2, lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Phillips configuration of an extendible telescoping tap in Wang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would open the tap and provide a free passage of fluid flow (p. 1, lines 11-18; p. 2, line 100). This method for improving Wang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Phillips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Phillips to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al. discloses a composter comprising a tap (Figs. 1 and 5), but does not disclose a telescopic tap. However, Phillips teaches an extendible telescoping tap (p. 1, lines 12-18). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Phillips configuration of an extendible telescoping tap in Wang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would open the tap and provide a free passage of fluid flow (p. 1, lines 11-18; p. 2, line 100). This method for improving Wang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Phillips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Phillips to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al. discloses a composter comprising a tap (Figs. 1 and 5), but does not disclose a telescopic tube comprising a stop portion which abuts against a retaining shoulder in the main tap body to hold the telescopic tube against further extension when the extended position is reached. However, Phillips teaches a telescopic tap (p. 1, lines 12-18) comprising a stop portion to keep the tap from extending further (p. 2, lines 80-100 “pins”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Phillips configuration of a telescopic tap comprising pins to keep the tube from extending further in Wang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would open the tap and provide a free passage of fluid flow (p. 1, lines 11-18; p. 2, line 100). This method for improving Wang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Phillips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Phillips to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Wang et al. discloses a composter comprising a tap (Figs. 1 and 5) mounted in an aperture in a wall of the composter housing (Fig. 1), but does not disclose a stop portion and retaining shoulder. However, Phillips teaches a telescopic tap (p. 1, lines 12-18) comprising a stop portion to keep the tap from extending further (p. 2, lines 80-100 “pins”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Phillips configuration of a telescopic tap comprising pins to keep the tube from extending further in Wang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would open the tap and provide a free passage of fluid flow (p. 1, lines 11-18; p. 2, line 100). This method for improving Wang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Phillips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Phillips to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Wang et al. discloses a composter tap, which comprises a main tap body for mounting (Fig. 1) in a composter housing of a composter (abstract “composting bin”), the composter comprising a holding portion for holding material to be composted (compost bucket body 1), a tank portion for collecting leachate formed during composting (Fig. 2 filter plate 5) and a drain port for allowing flow of collected leachate out of the tank portion (faucet 4), but does not disclose a telescopic tap. However, Phillips teaches an extendible telescoping tap (p. 1, lines 12-18). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Phillips configuration of an extendible telescoping tap in Wang et al.’s device with a reasonable expectation that it would open the tap and provide a free passage of fluid flow (p. 1, lines 11-18; p. 2, line 100). This method for improving Wang et al.’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Phillips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang et al. and Phillips to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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 as well as overcoming the indefinite rejections above.
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al. modified by Lancien and Souris et al. provide the closest prior art (see claim 5 above), as Wang et al. discloses a composter comprising a paddle for tamping down material added to the composter (pressure mesh 6), wherein the composter comprises a paddle storage location for the paddle and paddle securing features for holding the paddle in the storage location (Fig. 2) and Lancien discloses a composter in which the composter comprises a measuring cup (para. 0052 “measuring cup”) for use in measuring leachate produced in the composter and/or measuring composting agent for addition to the composter (para. 0052 “used to measure the required “dose” needed for each batch of compost”). However, none of Wang et al., Lancien, or Souris et al. fairly teach a composter comprising the measuring cup mountable on the paddle to introduce the measuring cup into the cup storage location, and no prior art could be found to teach an obvious combination of these limitations. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose, teach, or suggest the noted features within the claim environment.
Claim 7 would be allowable for the same reason as the base claim (claim 6) upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al. modified by Lancien, Souris et al., and Tong provide the closest prior art (see claim 8 above), as Wang et al. discloses a composter comprising a paddle for tamping down material added to the composter (pressure mesh 6), wherein the composter comprises a paddle storage location for the paddle and paddle securing features for holding the paddle in the storage location (Fig. 2) and Lancien discloses a composter in which the composter comprises a measuring cup (para. 0052 “measuring cup”) for use in measuring leachate produced in the composter and/or measuring composting agent for addition to the composter (para. 0052 “used to measure the required “dose” needed for each batch of compost”). However, none of Wang et al., Lancien, Souris et al., or Tong fairly teach a paddle comprising a pair of channel portions each of which is arranged to accept a respective portion of the two arms of the measuring cup when the cup is in its storage location wherein the interaction of the channel portions and the arms hold the cup against the paddle, and no prior art could be found to teach an obvious combination of these limitations. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose, teach, or suggest the noted features within the claim environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA whose telephone number is (703)756-5517. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/ASHLEY LOPEZLIRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights