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 Interpretation
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.
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 2 & 11 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.
Claims 2 & 11 recite the limitation "the support" in lines 2 & 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0265197) in view of Conrad (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0177365).
Concerning claims 1 & 10, Lin discloses a storage device and method of storing organic waste (Abstract) comprising:
A removable bin (numeral 2 and/or internal bin of paragraph 22) containing the organic waste in said bin (2); and
Positioning a cover (3) over the bin (Figures 1 & 3), the cover comprising and configured to:
A first recirculation fan (30) that recirculates air throughout the bin (paragraphs 27 & 31);
An ozone generator (40) that disperses ozone into the bin (paragraphs 28 & 31);
A second exhaust fan (20) that discharges air from the bin through an exhaust port (numeral 12; paragraphs 26 and 31); and
An intake port (numeral 13; paragraphs 27 & 31).
Lin does not appear to disclose a filter positioned in a flow path between the exhaust fan and the exhaust port to discharge air from the bin via said filter. Conrad discloses a storage device that includes a removable bin (20), a cover (100), and an exhaust fan (204) configured to discharge air from the bin and through an exhaust port (212) to an air treatment device (210) as set forth in paragraphs 169-172 (Figures 1, 2 and 10-12; paragraphs 196-202). The reference continues to disclose a filter (202) positioned in a flow path between the exhaust fan (204) and the exhaust port (212) to discharge air from the bin via said filter in order to prevent any dust or debris from damaging the fan (paragraphs 105, 113, 197 and 198). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a filter positioned in a flow path between the exhaust fan and the exhaust port of Lin filter in order to prevent any dust or debris from damaging the fan as exemplified by Conrad.
Therefore, claims 1 & 10 are not patentable over Lin in view of Conrad.
Regarding claims 2 & 11, Lin continues to disclose that the cover (3) is affixed to the support (2) and wherein the bin (i.e., internal bin) removably nests within the support (paragraph 22) as shown by numerals 4 & 5 in Figure 3.
Concerning claims 4 & 13, Lin further discloses that the intake port (13) comprises a ducted flow path through the cover (paragraph 25), and wherein the ducted flow path is configured to require intake air to pass through the bin before reaching the recirculation fan or the exhaust fan (Figure 3).
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Lin also discloses that the exhaust fan (20) is configured to generate a negative pressure within the bin relative to an ambient atmospheric pressure (Figure 3; paragraphs 26 & 31).
Concerning claims 6 & 15, Lin further discloses a controller (53) that adjusts the speed of the first recirculation fan (30), the second exhaust fan (20) and a power level of the ozone generator to adjust the amount of ozone dispersion (paragraphs 28, 29 and 32).
Regarding claim 8, Lin continues to disclose that the controller is configured to stop the first recirculation fan (30), the second exhaust fan (20), and the ozone generator (40) when the cover (3) is separated from the bin (paragraphs 29-32).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0265197) in view of Conrad (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0177365) as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Ritter (U.S. Patent No. 2,759,625).
Regarding claims 3 & 12, Lin is relied upon as set forth above. Lin does not appear to disclose that the cover is affixed to a telescoping arm of the support, and wherein the telescoping arm is configured to move and position the cover relative to the bin. Ritter discloses a storage device that includes a removable bin (10), a cover (13) configured to fit over the bin (Figures 1 & 2), and a support (numerals 17-29) affixed to the cover as shown in Figures 1-4. The reference continues to disclose that the cover is affixed to a telescoping arm of the support, and wherein the telescoping arm is configured to move and position the cover relative to the bin (column 1, line 56 to column 2, line 47) in order to successfully move the cover on and off the bin without the use of hands (column 1, lines 24-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to affix the cover of Lin with a telescoping arm of the support, and wherein the telescoping arm is configured to move and position the cover relative to the bin in order to successfully move the cover on and off the bin without the use of hands as exemplified by Ritter.
Thus, claims 3 & 12 are not patentable over Lin in view of Conrad and Ritter.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0265197) in view of Conrad (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0177365) as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of Golkowski et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0023250).
Lin is relied upon as set forth above. Lin does not appear to disclose a pressure sensor that measures a difference in pressure inside the bin from ambient pressure, wherein the controller adjusts the speed of the second exhaust fan based on the difference in the pressure. Golkowski discloses a storage device that includes a bin (10) for receiving dirty and contaminated items, a first recirculation fan (14) configured to recirculate air throughout the bin, a second exhaust fan (16) configured to discharge air from the bin through an exhaust port, and an ozone generator configured to disperse ozone into the bin (paragraphs 185-187). The reference continues to disclose a pressure sensor that measures a difference in pressure inside the bin from ambient pressure, wherein the controller adjusts the speed of the second exhaust fan based on the difference in the pressure in order to ensure the desired pressure is kept within the bin during operation (paragraphs 331 and 437). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device and method of Lin with a pressure sensor that measures a difference in pressure inside the bin from ambient pressure, wherein the controller adjusts the speed of the second exhaust fan based on the difference in the pressure in order to ensure the desired pressure is kept within the bin during operation as exemplified by Golkowski.
Thus, claims 7 and 16 are not patentable over Lin in view of Conrad and Golkowski.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0265197) in view of Conrad (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0177365) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gaynor (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0008582).
Lin is relied upon as set forth above. Lin does not appear to disclose a gas sensor configured to measure a concentration of ozone within the bin, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the power level of the ozone generator based on the measured concentration of ozone. Gaynor discloses a storage device that includes a bin (101), a cover (102), and an ozone generator (104) configured to dispense ozone into the bin (paragraphs 33-38). The reference continues to disclose a gas sensor configured to measure a concentration of ozone within the bin, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the power level of the ozone generator based on the measured concentration of ozone in order to ensure that the appropriate amount of ozone is provided in the bin to successfully sanitize items therein (paragraphs 44 and 68-71). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a gas sensor configured to measure a concentration of ozone within the bin, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the power level of the ozone generator based on the measured concentration of ozone in Lin in order to ensure that the appropriate amount of ozone is provided in the bin to successfully sanitize items therein as exemplified by Gaynor.
Therefore, claim 9 is not patentable over Lin in view of Conrad and Gaynor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
