Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is drawn to a computer readable medium. The BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a “machine-readable medium” were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves)
Claims 3-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to “comparing test results” and showing “possible sameness” without significantly more. Examiner considers the “comparing test results” and showing “possible sameness” to encompass mental steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because once the mental step/determination is done, no further step or integration is performed. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the prior art (as discussed below) teaches the limitations of claim 1.
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)(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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perrson (US 2019/0192996).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, Persson teaches receiving a waste oil in a receiving tank (5); forwarding waste oil from a first one of at least one receiving tank to treatment tank (7) the oil treatment comprising a decanter/centrifuge, and measuring at least one property of the oil by censor 11 which measures density before treatment [0025-0030], see figure. Perrson adjusts one or more settings of the oil treatment based on the density and it’s correspondence to a threshold [0030]. The centrifuge/decanter purifies the waste oil, which would decrease water content/sludge content/and particle size [0026]. Perrson teaches that depending on if the detected property corresponds to a threshold, the product may be transferred to another destination or another part of the system for purification [0030].
Perrson teaches that there can be 2 water storage tanks (15 and 22). Perrson teaches that depending on what the measurement is, streams can be sent to either of the water storage tanks or further treatment in the preparation tank (5) [0031].
Regarding claim 2, Perrson teaches measuring density or determining water content [0029-0031].
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson (US 2019/0192996) in view of Coutinho (US 2008/0221226).
Regarding claims 3-4, Perrson teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Perrson does not explicitly disclose sending the products to external laboratory.
However, Examiner notes that it is conventional in the art to use external laboratories to measure properties for commercial sale. Coutinho teaches sending products to external laboratories to text additional properties and to monitor process efficiency [0039-0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used well known laboratories/as disclosed by Coutinho, in order to determine the properties of the products obtained, so they may be accurately described for sale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson (US 2019/0192996.
Regarding claim 11, Perrson teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Perrson teaches measuring properties and controller used to adjust the process.
While Perrson does not explicitly disclose computer readable medium, Examiner notes that computer readable mediums such as compact disks, hard disk drives, and usb drives, are well known in the art to perform control processes as described by Perrson.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to appropriately select a well known computer readable medium, in order to implement the process control process described by Perrson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights