DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
The remarks filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are allowed.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the current rejections below.
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 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) 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):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” 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 entirely performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” 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 the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for entirely performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” 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). The rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites a function without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function, and when there is no evidence from the prior art that the claim limitation is a term of art known to be used to represent sufficiently definite structure.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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) because the claim limitation(s) use(s) a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is:
“a flow path opening/closing part configured to open and close a flow path between the discharge pipe and the deodorizer based on pressure of a protrusion on the second end portion of the discharge pipe against the flow path opening/closing part” (clm. 1); the term “part” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “opening” and “configured to open and close …”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure is element 2642 in fig. 11A and described in ¶ 94 of the specification.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as entirely performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement; any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for being dependent on a rejected base claim. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In re claim 7: the claim recites “wherein the controller determines an end time of a treating process based on humidity in the chamber and current, current flowing through the driving device, and a corresponding torque of the driving motor.” However, the specification does not state that torque is used to determine an end time of a treating process, only humidity and current are used (see, e.g., fig. 14, 16 and ¶¶ 8, 29, 124, 143. Although ¶ 11 states the controller may control the operation of the fan based on the torque of the stirring motor, and ¶ 116 states “the controller 15 may estimate the torque of the driving motor 181 using the current Z flowing through the driving motor 181” these paragraphs do not explicitly state or even imply that torque is used to determine the end time. Therefore, said recitation enters new matter into the disclosure.
In re claim 12: the claim recites “determining whether to terminate treating the food waste according to the detected humidity, the detected magnitude of the current flowing through the driving motor, and the corresponding torque of the driving motor.” However, the specification does not state that torque is used to determine whether to terminate treating the food waste, only humidity and current are used (see, e.g., fig. 14, 16 and ¶¶ 8, 29, 124, 143. Although ¶ 11 states the controller may control the operation of the fan based on the torque of the stirring motor, and ¶ 116 states “the controller 15 may estimate the torque of the driving motor 181 using the current Z flowing through the driving motor 181” these paragraphs do not explicitly state or even imply that torque is used to determine whether to terminate treating the food waste. Therefore, said recitation enters new matter into the disclosure.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Pertinent Prior Art
Art has not been applied to claims 7-15. The applicant is required to clarify the claims in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention, the scope of the protection sought, and the proper application of the prior art.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 5,687,918 A; US 2023/0081670 A1; US 2022/0001389 A1; and US 2020/0353474 A1 are pertinent to claims 7-15 as all teach devices that either explicitly process food waste or are capable of processing food waste, and all are configured to operate based on humidity, current, and torque.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-6 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, as exemplified by Dong et al. (CN 111 069 242), Kim (KR 10-0710028), and Song (KR 10-0859973), fails to anticipate or render obvious a food waste disposer having all of the features recited in claim 1, at least because said references do not teach “a flow path opening/closing part configured to open and close a flow path between the discharge pipe and the deodorizer based on pressure of a protrusion on the second end portion of the discharge pipe against the flow path opening/closing part” (also see the arguments on pg. 8 of the applicant’s response). None of the other cited prior art references make up for the shortfalls of Dong and Kim. Indeed, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious a food waste disposer having all of the features recited in claim, whether the references are taken alone or in any proper combination.
Conclusion
The applicant’s amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). The applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights