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.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a moveable closure means configured to selectively seal the inlet” in claim 10. The written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function as a plunger or cover; a roller arrangement; and/or a pair of rollers.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 4, 10 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the base wall and" in Line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lid" in Line . 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 1-3, 9, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kikushima JP 2001104929 A. JP 2001104929 A is a published patent application henceforth to be referred to as the Kikushima patent.
Regarding claim 1, Kikushima discloses a waste processing apparatus comprising a chamber (Kikushima – 7; FIG. 1) having a first opening through which a portion of waste is received into the chamber (Kikushima Para [0007]: a rotating drum for storing used disposable diapers); and a heating member (Kikushima – 22; FIG. 1) adapted to provide heat to the portion of waste in the chamber (Kikushima Para [0029]: heater 22 is turned on, and the water in which the used diapers stored in the rotating drum 7 are immersed is heated).
Regarding claim 2, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the chamber (Kikushima – 7) is rotatable (Kikushima Para [0017]: a rotating drum 7 rotatably mounted inside the outer body 6).
Regarding claim 3, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the chamber (Kikushima – 7) comprises a base and a side wall extending away from the base (See Kikushima FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kikushima FIG. 1
Regarding claim 9, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), further comprising a lid (Kikushima – 2; FIG. 1) for selectively closing the first opening (Kikushima Para [0017]: an opening/closing lid 2 on its front).
Regarding claim 11, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one blade member (Kikushima – 12; FIG. 1) arranged to project into the chamber (Kikushima – 6), wherein the at least one blade member (Kikushima – 12) is actuatable so as to agitate the portion of waste in the chamber (Kikushima Para [0019]: stirring protrusions 12 are formed axially on the inner circumferential wall of the rotating drum 7 to catch and agitate used disposable diapers during rotation…. The stirring protrusions 12 can have any shape that promotes the dismantling and separation of the disposable diapers by stirring them. For example, they can be…a plate-shaped stirring blade).
Regarding claim 16, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the heating member (Kikushima – 22) is adapted to provide heat for a predetermined period of time (See Kikushima [0029] for heating during sterilization process and Para [0043]: sterilization by heating and separation/disassembly are performed in parallel, so the processing time can be shortened).
Regarding claim 18, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the heating member (Kikushima – 22) provides heat to increase a temperature of the portion of waste to at least 50°C, preferably at least 70°C (Kikushima Para [0021]: the heating temperature of the heating means is appropriately set to 40 to 100 degrees Celsius, and the wastewater containing filth contained in the rotating drum 7 is heated and sterilized).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikushima in view of Nomizu et al. JP H11239539 A. JP H11239539 A is a published patent application henceforth to be known as the Nomizu patent.
Regarding claim 4, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus comprising a chamber (Kikushima – 7), wherein the chamber comprises a base and a side wall extending away from the base (See claim 1 rejection above), however Kikushima fails to disclose wherein the base wall and / or the side wall is metallic.
Nomizu teaches a metal grinding container (Nomizu – 8; FIG. 1), wherein the base and the side wall are metal (Nomizu Para [0009]: A metal grinding container 8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chamber disclosed by Kikushima, to be a metallic container, as taught by Nomizu, given that it is well known in the art that certain metals exhibit heat resistance properties.
Claims 5-7, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikushima in view of Hurlin et al. WO 2016/012334 A1. WO 2016/012334 A1 is a published patent application henceforth to be referred to as the Hurlin patent.
Regarding claim 5, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus comprising a chamber (Kikushima – 7)(See claim 1 rejection above), however, Kikushima fails to disclose wherein the chamber is configured to form a passageway and the portion of waste passes through the passageway as the heating member provides heat.
Hurlin teaches a treatment chamber (Hurlin – 22; FIG. 7) configured to form a passageway (See Hurlin FIG. 1) and wherein a portion of waste passes through the passageway as a heating member (Hurlin – 221; FIG. 7) provides heat (Hurlin Para [0059]: a second system 21; 22 for the continuous treatment of products by thermal input, for raising the temperature of waste). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chamber disclosed by Kikushima, to be configured to form a passageway, wherein a portion of waste passes through the passageway as a heating member provides heat, as taught by Hurlin, to provide a continuous heat treatment system (Hurlin Para [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), however Kikushima fails to disclose a waste processing apparatus further comprising a second opening configured to discharge the portion of waste from the chamber.
Hurlin teaches a continuous waste treatment installation comprising a second opening configured to discharge a portion of waste from the chamber (See Hurlin FIG. 7A below). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waste processing apparatus disclosed by Kikushima, to include a first and a second opening, as taught by Hurlin, to provide a continuous waste treatment system (Hurlin Para [0057]).
PNG
media_image2.png
392
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hurlin FIG. 7A
Regarding claim 7, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), however Kikushima fails to disclose a waste processing apparatus further comprising a conveyor assembly to convey the portion of waste from the first opening to the second opening. Hurlin teaches a conveyor assembly 223a, 223b to convey the portion of waste from the first opening to the second opening (See Hurlin FIG. 7A above). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waste processing apparatus disclosed by Kikushima, to include a conveyor assembly to convey a portion of waste from the first opening to the second opening, as taught by Hurlin, to provide a continuous waste treatment system (Hurlin Para [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 rejection above), ), however Kikushima fails to disclose a waste processing apparatus further comprising at least one contacting element, wherein each contacting element is adapted to at least partially disintegrate the portion of waste.
Hurlin teaches at least one contacting element (See Hurlin FIG. 7B below), wherein each contacting element is adapted to at least partially disintegrate the portion of waste (Hurlin Para [0058]: a first system 10 for shredding or even mixing products). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waste processing apparatus disclosed by Kikushima, to include at least one contacting member adapted to at least partially disintegrate a portion of waste, as taught by Hurlin, where it is known within the art to reduce the size of waste into granules of sufficient small size (See Hurlin Para [0006]).
PNG
media_image3.png
344
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hurling FIG. 7B
Regarding claim 13, Kikushima in view of Hurlin discloses the waste processing apparatus comprising the at least one contacting element (See claim 12 rejection above), the waste processing apparatus further comprising a shredding assembly (Hurlin – 10; FIG. 7), wherein the shredding assembly has at least one contacting element moveably mounted therein (See Hurlin FIG. 7B above)(Hurlin Para [0058]: a first system 10 for shredding or even mixing products).
Regarding claim 14, Kikushima in view of Hurlin discloses the waste processing apparatus comprising the shredding assembly (See claim 13 rejection above), wherein the shredding assembly is positioned at an entrance to the first opening (See Hurlin FIG. 7B above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikushima in view of Hurlin et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Niu CN 206359004 U. CN 206359004 U is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Niu patent.
Regarding claim 8, Kikushima in view of Hurlin discloses the waster processing apparatus comprising the conveyor assembly to convey the portion of waste from the first opening to the second opening (See claim 7 rejection above) through the chamber (See Hurlin FIG. 7A above), however, Kikushima in view of Hurlin fails to disclose wherein the conveyor assembly comprises a pair of moveable belts oriented to cooperatingly engage the portion of waste.
Niu teaches a waste treatment conveyor assembly (Niu – 31; FIG. 1) comprised of a pair of moveable belts (Niu – 311; FIG. 1) oriented to cooperatingly engage the portion of waste (Niu Para [0035]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conveyor assembly disclosed by Kikushima in view of Hurlin, to include a pair of moveable belts oriented to cooperatingly engage the portion of waste and convey the portion of waste, as taught by Niu, to provide a means to greatly improve production efficiency (See Niu Para [0035]: The main conveyor 31 is designed to collect semi-finished products in a unified manner, reduce manpower, and make the use of machinery more convenient and faster, which can greatly improve production efficiency).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikushima in view of Harkess et al. US 2010/0301147 A1. US 2010/0301147 A1 is a published patent application henceforth to be referred to as the Harkess patent.
Regarding claim 10, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 above), comprising a lid (Kikushima – 2), however Kikushima fails to disclose an inlet having a moveable closure means configured to selectively seal the inlet.
Harkess teaches a apparatus for processing medical waste, wherein the apparatus comprises an inlet having a moveable closure means (Harkess – 4; FIG 2) configured to selectively seal the inlet (Harkess Para [0031]: a cover 4 may be used to provide a seal, which may be implemented as a fluid-tight seal). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waste processing apparatus disclosed by Kikushima, to include an inlet having a moveable closure means configured to selectively seal the inlet, as taught by Harkess, to prevent the escape of liquids, germs, and other substances from the chamber (Harkess Para [0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus (See claim 1 above), however, Kikushima fails to disclose the waste processing apparatus further comprising a conduit for extracting air from chamber so as to maintain negative pressure within the chamber during use, and optionally, wherein the conduit is fluidly connected to a filter element.
Harkess teaches a apparatus for processing medical waste, wherein the apparatus comprises a conduit (See Harkess FIG. 2 below) for extracting air from chamber (Harkess – 3; FIG. 2) so as to maintain negative pressure within the chamber (Harkess – 3) during use, and optionally, wherein the conduit is fluidly connected to a filter element (Harkess Para [0031]: suction system 9 may further include a suction pump and at least one filter (e.g., a hepa-filter)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waste processing apparatus disclosed by Kikushima, to include a conduit for extracting air from the chamber, wherein the conduit is fluidly connected to a filter element, as taught by Harkess, to provide a means to inhibit the emission of germs or other substances into the atmosphere (Harkess Para [0031]).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Harkess FIG. 2
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikushima in view of Hurlin et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lin et al. CN 207056704 U. CN 207056704 U is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Lin patent.
Regarding claim 15, Kikushima in view of Hurlin discloses the waste process apparatus comprising at least one contacting element (See claim 12 rejection above), however, Kikushima in view of Hurlin fails to disclose wherein the at least one contacting element is mounted on a blade member.
Lin teaches a blade provided with serrated blades on their sides (Lin Para [0025]: The centrifugal blade and the stator blade are provided with serrated blades on their sides). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one contacting element disclosed by Kikushima in view of Hurlin, to be mounted on a blade member, as taught by Lin, to further improve the crushing effect of the blade member (Lin Para [0025]: The centrifugal blade and the stator blade are provided with serrated blades on their sides to further improve the crushing effect).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikushima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kagami et al. JP H08145567 A. JP H08145567 A is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Kagami patent.
Regarding claim 17, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus comprising a heating member (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Kikushima fails to disclose wherein the heating member is adapted to provide heat intermittently.
Kagami teaches a waste treatment device comprised of a heating member (Kagami – 3; FIG. 8) adapted to heat intermittently (Kagami Para [0003]: the heating device (3) intermittently generates heat). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating member of the waste processing apparatus disclosed by Kikushima, to heat intermittently, as taught by Kagami, so as to maintain the temperature inside the chamber at the set temperature (Kagami Para [0003]).
Regarding claim 19, Kikushima discloses the waste processing apparatus comprising a heating member (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Kikushima fails to disclose wherein the heating member is arranged so that at least a portion of the heating member projects into the chamber.
Kagami teaches a waste treatment device comprised of a heating member (Kagami – 3; FIG. 8) arranged so that at least a portion of the heating member (Kagami – 3) projects into the chamber (See Kagami FIG. 8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating member of the waste processing apparatus disclosed by Kikushima, to be arranged so that at least a portion of the heating member projects into the chamber, as taught by Kagami, so that the heating member generates heat to maintain the temperature inside the chamber (See Kagami Para [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hino WO 0300167 A1. Hino discloses a waste processing apparatus comprising a chamber having a first opening through which a portion of waste is received into the chamber, wherein the chamber comprises a base and a sidewall; a lid; at least one contacting element; a shredding assembly having at least one contacting element moveably mounted therein; and a heating member adapted to provide heat to the portion of waste in the chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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, Christopher 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. 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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
