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 .
Claim Status
Claims 5-12 are pending:
Claims 5-12 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2022-035823, filed on 03/09/2022.
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 5-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Dependent claims are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected claim 5.
Claim 5 recites “causing a raw material including harvest residues produced in an agricultural field to undergo methane fermentation to return fermentation residues produced from the methane fermentation to the agricultural field and to utilize biogas produced from the methane fermentation as an energy source”; the scope of claim 5 is unclear because the preamble requires “causing…” and “to utilize….as an energy source” however these steps are not recited as operative steps in the body of the claim and the adjusting step in the body requires the “methane fermentation” from the step recited in the preamble thus rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 102531801) and Rolli (USPN 11,039,580).
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches anaerobic treatment method of causing a raw material including harvest residues produced in an agricultural field to undergo methane fermentation to return fermentation residues produced from the methane fermentation to the agricultural field (“complete anaerobic fermentation in the fermentation room at 28-32 ℃ for 14-20 days to obtain acidic bio-organic fertilizer”, see pg. 2; “a large amount of crop straws and pig farm manure and other wastes…the raw materials are cheap and easy to obtain, and the cost is low; the prepared acidic biological organic fertilizer”, see pg. 2)…, comprising: adjusting a cut length of the harvest residues to be supplied to the methane fermentation based on information about demand for the fermentation residues or the biogas (“[t]he straw crushing length is selected according to the purpose of the fertilizer. The length of the straw for the bottom fertilizer is 5-8 mm, and the length of the straw for the seedling fertilizer is 3 mm”, see pg. 3).
Han does not teach utilizing biogas produced from the methane fermentation as an energy source.
In a related field of endeavor, Rolli teaches an agroindustrical process with minimal environmental impact (see ABS) comprising the step of utilizing biogas produced from the methane fermentation as an energy source (“biogas production unit provides an anaerobic digestion that includes the breakdown, by microorganisms, of complex organic substances, such as lipids, proteins, glucids, and of the recombination of the carbon and hydrogen contained therein in order to form methane and carbon dioxide”, see C3/L18-25 and “in the form of heat energy and electric energy obtained with the combustion of the combustible component of the biogas”, see C3/L40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Han by incorporating the step of utilizing biogas as an energy source as disclosed by Rolli because it minimizes the environmental impact generated by an argo-industrial process (Rolli, see C3/L35-50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the closest prior art references of record are Han (CN 102531801) and Rolli (USPN 11,039,580).
The combination of Han and Rolli does not teach (1) “adjusting a cut length or average cut length of the harvest residues to be supplied to the methane fermentation to be shortened in response to an increase in demand for the fermentation residues or the biogas” as required by claim 6, (2) “adjusting a cut length of the harvest residues using a previously determined relationship between a length of the harvest residues and a hydraulic retention time (HRT) required for the methane fermentation” as required by claim 7 and (3) “storing the harvest residues separately in a plurality of cut lengths and, based on the information about demand for the fermentation residues or the biogas, selecting or mixing the harvest residues such that the harvest residues with a predetermined cut length are supplied to the methane fermentation” as required by 9. Dependent claim 11 is allowable due to claim 7. Dependent claims 8, 10 and 12 are allowable due to claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights