RYW Holdings Pty Ltd - [2022] APO 20

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
RYW Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] APO 20

Patent Application: 2019284145

Title:Waste Management and Processing System

Patent Applicant:                   RYW Holdings Pty Ltd
Delegate:  R Subbarayan
Decision Date:  25 March 2022
Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 18 October 2021

Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner’s objections – manner of manufacture – inventive step – manner of manner objection cannot be maintained – lack of inventive step objection cannot be maintained – application remitted back to examination for further searching – application to proceed to acceptance if no new prior art found

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Wallington-Dummer

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2019284145

Title:Waste Management and Processing System

Patent Applicant: RYW Holdings Pty Ltd
Date of Decision: 25 March 2022
DECISION
The invention of the amended claims is for a manner of manufacture and the examiner’s objection under this ground cannot be maintained.
The invention of the amended claims does not lack an inventive step in light of the CGK and combined disclosure of prior art documents D1 and D2 and this objection also cannot be maintained in its current state.
I refer the application back to the examination section to further investigate whether the feature of curing in stackable aeration crates is disclosed in any other prior art document and if so whether a revised inventive step objection is appropriate. If not, the application should proceed to acceptance.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND

Patent application 2019284145 in the name of RYW Holdings Pty Ltd (the applicant) was filed on 30 December 2019 and claims an earlier priority date of 22 August 2019. The applicant requested expedited examination of the application on 30 December 2019.
A first examination report was issued on 30 March 2020 with objections on the grounds of unity of invention, manner of manufacture, clarity, support and inventive step.
The applicant responded on 4 August 2020 with proposed amendments that they submitted overcomes all the objections.
A second examination report was issued on 28 August 2020 with objections on the grounds of unity, manner of manufacture, support, disclosure, clarity and inventive step.
The applicant responded on 12 January 2021 with proposed amendments that they submitted overcomes all the objections.
A third examination report was issued on 3 February 2021 with objections on the grounds of manner of manufacture, support and novelty.
The applicant responded on 26 March 2021 with proposed amendments that they submitted overcomes all the objections.
On 30 March 2021 which was the final date for the acceptance of the application, the applicant filed a request under section 223(2)(b) for an extension of time of 3 months to gain acceptance on the basis of the impact of COVID-19. This request was allowed on 31 May 2021 and the applicant advised accordingly.
A fourth examination report was issued on 20 April 2021 with objections on the grounds of allowability of amendments, manner of manufacture, clarity and inventive step.
The applicant responded on 20 May 2021 and 15 June 2020 with proposed amendments that they submitted overcomes all the objections.
A fifth examination report was issued on 29 June 2021 with objections on the grounds of allowability of amendments, manner of manufacture and inventive step.
The applicant responded on 29 June 2021 with a request to be heard on the outstanding examiner objections.
The Commissioner advised the applicant on 3 August 2021 that the hearing would be through written submissions and invited written submissions.
The applicant filed their written submissions on 18 October 2021. The written submissions were also accompanied by further proposed amendments which the applicant submits overcomes the allowability of amendments objection raised in the fifth examination report.
In response to the Commissioner’s letter of 3 December 2021 inviting the applicant to file further submissions in light of the recent Full Court decision in Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202, the applicant filed further written submissions on 23 December 2021 and 12 January 2022.
APPLICABLE LAW
The present application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (“the Act”) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (“the Raising the Bar Act”). Thus, the standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance of probabilities (subsection 49(1)). I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act. If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application.
SPECIFICATION
The specification describes a waste management and processing system that “allows complete separation of organic (compostable) and non organic (non compostable) waste streams” and to “provide targeted compost in controlled small batches”.[1]
[1] Specification at [0001]
The specification identifies a number of problems with known waste collection and processing systems.
·While it is known to provide separate bins for organic and non-organic waste, cross-contamination still happens and as the contaminated waste streams are compacted on collection, it is almost impossible to decontaminate them at the waste management and processing centre. As a result large volumes of both organic and other recyclable materials are taken to landfill, resulting in environmental damage as well as loss of potential revenue. The specification notes that compaction on collection is the norm as the waste is “of too low a value to be viably transported in an uncompacted state”[2].
·Because of this compaction at collection, it is difficult to subsequently collect data on cross-contamination of the waste streams for reporting back to the individual 'source' of the waste, such as a business or household.
·Raw compostable waste stored within commercial centres and waste dumps can lead to leachate leaking into the local environment and can also be a source of bad odour.
·Both outdoor and ‘in vessel’ composting systems typically store the compost in piles or windrows for curing and storage in the open where it is exposed to the elements and this lowers the quality and consistency of the final product.
[2] Specification at [0003]
Some of the objects of the invention are then mentioned.
“[0009] The aim of the present invention is to separate compostable waste streams from non-compostable waste streams prior to compaction so that all waste material can be processed and recycled into useful products.
[0010] ….A further purpose of the present invention is to provide a controlled environment in which waste can be processed safely, hygienically and largely without odour or leachate at all stages of the process.
[0011]….to generate aerobic compost (including compost tailored to particular types of plants by inoculation of biological matter), and other useable materials in an industrial environment.
[0012] The further aim of the system is to collect data on cross-contamination of compostable and non-compostable waste streams on a 'per Customer' basis and provide ongoing feedback via accurate data to the customer and other parties to improve waste separation in an ongoing fashion”.
A summary of the invention follows which basically mirrors the amended independent claims.
The specification then describes certain preferred embodiments with reference to a number of figures of which figures 5A and 5B are reproduced below. Figure 5A gives a general overview of the entire system while figure 5B is the process flow map of the system.
The complete waste management system includes the following sub-systems:
A waste collection system 1501;
A waste separation and data processing facility 1502;
A client reporting, education and behavioural change system 1503;
A food waste processing and composting system 1504;
A packaging waste recycling system 1505; and
A waste water processing system 1506.
The waste management and processing system starts with a number of trackable waste collection bins 16 located at a source where waste is generated. The trackable bins 16 include separate compostable and non-compostable collection bins. The trackable bins are collected and transferred by a vehicle or other means to a preliminary waste processing facility that is located at or close to the waste source. The facility can be in the form of a transportable module capable of fitting on a truck or semi-trailer or it can also be located in the basement or maintenance area of a building where large quantities of waste is generated. The specification refers to this facility as a ‘Recyclopod’.
At this preliminary waste processing facility the waste is processed and sorted into compostable and non-compostable waste streams. This involves a decontamination process in which the compostable waste in the trackable compostable waste bins is removed and decontaminated by identifying and removing non-compostable waste to form a decontaminated compostable waste stream. The removed non-compostable waste is added to the non-compostable waste from the non-compostable bins to form a non-compostable waste stream. The non-compostable stream is then separated into individual material types such as paper, cardboard, glass, aluminium or plastics for further recycling and any waste that cannot be recycled is transferred to a landfill site.
At this facility liquid waste from all waste streams as well as water from washing the bins is collected and a portion of it is used for the growth of biological inoculant (compost tea) that can be used in the composting process.
Also at the facility, data relating to the waste, such as weight and type of the waste and the types and amounts of cross contaminants, is also collected. A report based on the collected data can be generated and sent to the waste generating source for information and necessary action.
The compostable waste stream is compacted and then transported by trucks to a central waste processing facility which is generally located remote from the source. At this central facility the compostable waste is subjected to a process of biological composting in an industrial composting unit such as an ‘in vessel’ bioreactor. The composting process includes the following stages:
a)a pasteurisation stage where the waste is heated to a temperature in the range of 55-65 degrees thereby to produce pasteurised compostable material,
b)an inoculation stage in which the pasteurised compostable material is inoculated with a biological inoculant to produce an inoculated compostable material and
c)a curing stage in which the inoculated compostable material is cured in small batches in aeration crates with monitoring of temperature, moisture content and microbiology content to produce biological compost. During the curing stage, warm/cold air and additional moisture may be introduced into the crates to maintain the optimal conditions for curing. The compostable material may also, if needed, be returned to the mixer for agitation and/or for adding moisture. The crates may be stacked and stored within the facility without being exposed to the elements.
Once fully cured, the biological compost is then packaged and distributed.
The specification also provides the following description of the aeration crate that is used for curing with reference to figure 2A that is reproduced below.
“[000149] Figure 2A is an example embodiment of an aeration crate. Figure 2A comprise a polymer frame 28 supporting an aerating mesh enclosure 29 and may be provided with a hinged discharge lid 30 at the base. The aeration crate 26 are further provided with forklift tine receiving structures 32 which permit the aeration crates to be readily handled and, as shown in Figure 1, arranged in stacks 34 within the facility building 22. To add moisture, biological inoculant or turn the compost to create aeration, the compost is tipped into a hopper, conveyor and/or screw auger 43 for feeding to a compost mixer 44. Compost is then turned by the compost mixer 44, then placed back into aeration crate 41 and onto shelving and stacked 34. The aeration crate can come in different shapes and sizes. For example, an aeration crate can be shaped in a cylindrical or cubic form. The volume of the aeration crate can also come in different sizes. An aeration crate of 1 cubic metre is preferred in the present invention for easy handling by forklifts and easy storage”.
The specification highlights the advantages of processing the waste initially in the near source facility and then subsequently in the central processing facility.
[000188] The advantage of a Recyclopod is that uncompacted waste produced by Customers waste streams can be transported to the RecycloPod within individual bins individually tagged to the customer without the use of heavy equipment such as trucks. Instead, compostable and non compostable waste streams in their uncompacted state reach the RecycloPod by walking, elevators, trolleys, buggies, vans, utilities or other light commercial vehicles etc. The RecycloPod decontaminates and separates the waste into various streams, which can then be effectively compacted.
[000190] The advantage of the system is that waste is separated into useful commodities and compacted BEFORE it is transported by heavy vehicle. A further advantage of this system is that waste to be transported from the RecycloPod is able to be handled with a forklift and a normal truck, rather than a compactor truck. Overall, the system allows compacted waste to be transported without destroying its usefulness, and allows collection of materials directly from the RecycloPod by a third party, or for transport to the composting facility without specialist equipment.
[000191] A final feature of the RecycloPod is that is it small and therefore often able to be located within existing buildings, is clean, hygienic and produces no foul odours.
[000219] It is a feature of this invention that the above processes do not necessarily take place in one location. One of the significant challenges of waste management is that waste is a high-volume, low value product, and it is therefore uneconomic to transport. Overwhelmingly, the current solution to this is to compact waste in a compactor truck for transport. As mentioned above, once compacted, the opportunity for gathering data on the waste, and for separating the waste streams into useful products, is lost. This invention takes a different approach to the challenge of transporting waste, which allows it to separate and process waste into useful products in small facilities which can be co-located with the source of the waste.
It is clear from the above discussion that the invention as described includes a number of aspects such as trackable bins for collecting data on cross-contamination in the bins for reporting purposes, initial processing at or near the source of waste collection, collection of waste water for growing inoculants, transportation and final processing at a remote central facility where the compostable waste stream is converted to biological compost, curing of the compost in small batches in aeration crates and the construction of the aeration crates.
The specification as filed ends with 98 claims, with the independent claims being directed to one or more of the various aspects that I have identified above. The applicant filed various iterations of amended claims during the examination process and the amendments proposed with the written submissions for the hearing includes a new claim set with just 17 claims. The independent claims 1 and 17 in this claim set read as follows with added reference characters:
1. A biological compost generation system of waste management and biological compost generation comprising:
(a) an at source waste collection and waste separation system wherein waste is collected from at least one source in a separated compostable waste stream and non-compostable waste stream; the waste streams collected at source in respective separate trackable compostable waste bins, and trackable non-compostable waste bins; each stream placed in the separate trackable bins at the source; and wherein the trackable bins contain source separated compostable and non-compostable waste streams from the at least one source;
(b) a near source sorting and decontamination facility which receives and processes the contaminated compostable and non-compostable waste from the separate trackable compostable and non-compostable bins; and
(c) a decontamination stage at the near source sorting and decontamination facility for further processing the waste from the trackable bins into a sorted and decontaminated compostable stream and a sorted and decontaminated non-compostable stream; whereby compostable waste received in the trackable compostable waste bins is removed from each bin and is decontaminated at the near source sorting and decontamination facility; the decontamination including identifying non-compostable waste in the compostable waste from the trackable compostable waste bin and transferring the thus identified non-compostable waste to the non-compostable waste stream thereby to form a decontaminated compostable stream;
(d) a waste water collection system in the near source sorting and decontamination facility which processes collected water from the decontamination of the compostable or non-compostable streams into fractions, one fraction being used as a media fraction for the growth of biological inoculant;
(e) a communication and data entry system for collecting data from the decontamination stage and reporting the data to the at least one source from which the waste is collected; the data generated including a report on volume and/or weight of waste collected and details of any contamination; that is, presence of compostable waste in a non-compostable waste bin or of non-compostable waste in a compostable waste bin;
(f) a bulk transportation step from near source to a central processing facility located remotely from the at least one source; wherein the decontaminated and consolidated non-compostable stream is further processed into useable products; and
(g) wherein the decontaminated compostable waste stream is transported to a biological composting system which processes the compostable stream into biological compost, the processing of biological compost including:
(h) a pasteurisation stage whereby the compostable material is pasteurised in an industrial composting unit where the temperature is adjusted to an optimal temperature to achieve pasteurisation, commonly in the range of 55-65 degrees thereby to produce pasteurised compostable material;
(i) an inoculation stage whereby the pasteurised compostable material is inoculated by the addition of beneficial microbiology including a biological inoculant, thereby to produce an inoculated compostable material;
(j) a curing stage wherein the inoculated compostable material is cured in small batches in stackable aeration crates wherein temperature level, moisture content and microbiology content of the inoculated compostable material is monitored until a desired level is achieved thereby to produce the biological compost.
17. A method of generation of biological compost; the method comprising the following
steps:
(a) an at source collection and separation step wherein waste is collected from at least one source in a separated compostable waste stream and non-compostable waste stream; the waste streams collected at source in respective separate trackable compostable waste bins and trackable non-compostable waste bins; each stream placed in the separate trackable bins at the source; and wherein the trackable bins contain source separated compostable and non-compostable waste streams from the at least one source;
(b) a near source sorting and decontamination step which receives and processes the contaminated compostable and non- compostable waste from the separate trackable compostable and non-compostable bins; and
(c) a decontamination stage at the near source sorting and decontamination facility for further processing the waste from the trackable bins into a sorted decontaminated compostable stream and a separated non-compostable stream; whereby compostable waste received in the trackable compostable waste bins is removed from each bin and is decontaminated at the near source sorting and decontamination facility; the decontamination including identifying non-compostable waste in the compostable waste from the trackable compostable waste bin, and transferring the thus identified non-compostable waste to the non-compostable waste stream thereby to form a decontaminated compostable stream;
(d) a waste water collection step in the near source sorting and decontamination facility which processes collected water from the decontamination of the compostable or non-compostable streams into fractions, one fraction being used as a media fraction for the growth of a biological inoculant;
(e) a communication and data entry step for collecting data from the decontamination stage and reporting the data to the at least one source from which the waste is collected; the data generated including a report on volume and/or weight of waste collected and details of any contamination; that is, presence of compostable waste in a non-compostable waste bin, or of non-compostable waste in a compostable waste bin;
(f) a bulk transportation step from near source to a central processing facility located remotely from the at least one source; wherein the decontaminated and consolidated non-compostable stream is further processed into useable products; and
(g) wherein the decontaminated compostable waste stream is transported to a biological composting system located remotely from the at least one source which processes the compostable stream into biological compost, the processing of biological compost including the following steps:
(h) a pasteurisation stage whereby the compostable material is pasteurised in an industrial composting unit where the temperature is adjusted to an optimal temperature to achieve pasteurisation, commonly in the range of 55-65 degrees thereby to produce pasteurised compostable material;
(i) an inoculation stage whereby the pasteurised compostable material is inoculated by the addition of beneficial microbiology including a biological inoculant thereby to produce an inoculated compostable material;
(j) a curing stage wherein the inoculated compostable material is cured in small batches in stackable aeration crates wherein temperature level, moisture content and microbiology content of the inoculated compostable material is monitored until a desired level is achieved thereby to produce the biological compost.
Allowability of the proposed amendments

The amendments proposed on 18 October 2021 proposes to delete description pages 7 to 7J and claims pages 48 to 52 filed with the fifth statement of proposed amendments filed dated 15 June 2021 and substitute therefor new description pages 7 to 7J and new claims pages 48 to 52.
The only amendments to these new description and claims pages are the deletion of the reference to the feature that the biological inoculant that is used in the inoculation step is produced by the
media fraction from the waste water. The inclusion of this feature was the only reason that the proposed amendments of 15 June 2021 were found not allowable. The deletion of this feature in the proposed amendments of 18 October 2021 is to overcome this allowability issue. Clearly this deletion does not make the specification extend beyond the original disclosure. It follows that the proposed amendments of 18 October 2021 are allowable.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
While the examiner’s objections do not suggest that there are any construction issues in contention, I think it is useful to set out the construction that I have ascribed to certain terms in the independent claims.
At source waste collection and waste separation system
I understand this to mean that the waste collection and separation happens at the business, household or other source where waste is generated.
Near source sorting and decontamination facility
The term ‘near source’ is a bit more problematic. Some of the references to this term in the specification are as follows:
[000183] Figure 7B shows a configuration in which small 'RecycloPod' facilities are
installed in proximity to customers or clusters of customers. The Recylopod conducts the sorting, decontamination, data collection and feedback, and some or all of the crushing/compacting and bundling operations, then sends the various waste streams, now decontaminated and in a more compact form, for sale or further processing at the CPF. This configuration is suitable, for example, in a large city in which the space or facilities to conduct recycling, processing and resource recovery are distant, and manoeuvring heavy vehicles within the city creates expense and other difficulties. In this configuration, Waste can be transported to the Recylopods by means other than heavy vehicles as described above, and heavy vehicles are only required to transport compacted, sorted waste. This configuration would also suit a remote community or facility which does not produce enough waste to justify the expense of a CFP but can benefit from sorting and compacting its waste streams.
[000187] For example, a "RecycloPod" can be located in the basement or service/maintenance area of a shopping centre, or building and process all of the waste from the various food businesses within it.
[000188] The advantage of a RecycloPod is that uncompacted waste produced by Customers waste streams can be transported to the RecycloPod within individual bins individually tagged to the customer without the use of heavy equipment such as trucks. Instead, compostable and non compostable waste streams in their uncompacted state reach the RecycloPod by walking, elevators, trolleys, buggies, vans, utilities or other light commercial vehicles etc. The RecycloPod decontaminates and separates the waste into various streams, which can then be effectively compacted.
Based on the above, a fair construction of the term ‘near source’ is that the sorting and decontamination facility is located at or in close proximity to the source of waste generation such that the trackable bins can be transported to the facility without the need for heavy commercial vehicles.
Commonly in the range of 55-65 degrees
I construe the term ‘commonly’ as meaning ‘preferably’ and hence this feature does not place any further limitation on the scope of the claim.
MANNER OF MANUFACTURE
Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provides that an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim, is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.
The classic statement of the law on manner of manufacture is set out in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67, 102 CLR 252 (NRDC) at 269:
"The right question is: 'Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?' "
The Court then went on to set out a test in terms applicable to the facts of that case:
"a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art ... that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour."
In D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 (Myriad) the High Court highlighted the importance of having regard to the substance of the claimed invention and not simply the literal form of the claim.
“Whatever words have been used, the matter must be looked at as one of substance and effect must be given to the true nature of the claim.” (at 144)
In Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202, the majority at [52] cautioned against disregarding features of a claim prematurely in arriving at the substance of the invention.
“….we do agree that, in general, care needs to be exercised in considering the substance of an invention not to discount or disregard those integers of the claim which are part of the common general knowledge. We respectfully therefore also agree with the primary judge that one should eschew an approach which seeks to denude an invention of patentability by prematurely discounting elements of the claim”.
The distinction between a mere scheme or a plan on the one hand, and a patentable invention on the other, has been considered in a number of cases. In Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120 (Grant) the Full Court said:
“Business, commercial and financial schemes as such have never been considered patentable...in the same way that the discovery of a law or principle of nature is not patentable. Sir Robert Finlay A-G observed in Re Cooper’s Application for a Patent (1901) 19 RPC 53 at 54, ‘[y]ou cannot have a Patent for a mere scheme or plan – a plan for becoming rich; a plan for the better government of a State; a plan for the efficient conduct of business’. A law of nature becomes patentable when applied to produce a particular practical and useful result (Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc (2001) 113 FCR 110 at [117]). While a mere scheme or plan is not the proper subject of a patent, an alleged invention which serves a mechanical purpose that has useful results does not become such an unpatentable scheme or plan merely because the purpose is in the carrying on of a branch of business (Re Fishburn’s Application (1938) 57 RPC 245 at 248)”. [14]
“A physical effect in the sense of a concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation is required. In NRDC, an artificial effect was physically created on the land. In Catuity and CCOM as in State Street and AT&T, there was a component that was physically affected or a change in state or information in a part of a machine. These can all be regarded as physical effects. By contrast, the alleged invention is a mere scheme, an abstract idea, mere intellectual information, which has never been held to be patentable, despite the existence of such schemes over many years of the development of the principles that apply to manner of manufacture. There is no physical consequence at all”. [32]
In Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161, the Full Court noted that the physical effect noted in Grant is to be construed in a broad and extended sense and is similar to the “physical phenomenon” noted in NRDC.
“Although the Full Court referred to the need for a “physical effect”, it is abundantly clear that their Honours used the word “physical” in a very broad or extended sense. It is apparent that their Honours did so in an endeavour to demark, as best as words can, the conceptual distinction between, on the one hand, a manner of manufacture and, on the other, “a mere scheme, an abstract idea, mere intellectual information, which has never been held to be patentable …”: see at [32]. We see the Full Court’s reference to, and use of, “physical effect” to be in no way different to the High Court’s reference to, and use of, “physical phenomenon” in the passage from NRDC we have quoted at [38] above”. [88]
They further noted that even the presence of a physical effect may not be enough to make it patentable subject matter.
“But perhaps more importantly for present purposes, the reasons of the plurality in Myriad make it perfectly clear that CCOM should not be taken as laying down a rule or rigid formula to be adhered to when characterising the claimed invention, although recourse to the terminology of an “artificially created state of affairs of economic significance” can be taken as a guide when analysing the true character of the invention that is claimed. Even then, it does not follow that the demonstration of a physical effect mandates patentability”. [90]
In Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 (RPL) at [99-100], the Full Court emphasized the need to distinguish between a technical innovation and a business innovation.
“Relevantly, the Full Court in Research Affiliates said (at [94]) that the distinction to be drawn was between the employment of an abstract idea or law of nature and the idea or law itself and that there is a distinction between a technological innovation which is patentable and a business innovation which is not”.
In Technological Resources Pty Limited v Tettman [2019] FCA 1889, Jagot J held (at [154]) that a method of mining involving a series of process steps to be carried out sequentially, with mined ore being passed from step to step and transformed throughout the process to produce upgraded material was a manner of manufacture as the invention “involves physical steps carried out on a physical product using physical apparatus, to produce a physical and tangible result”.
The Examiner’s Objection
The manner of manufacture objection in the examiner’s fifth examination report reads as follows:
“Claims 1-17 are not for a manner of manufacture within the meaning of Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990.
I have considered your amendments and assertions detailed in your response filed on 15 July 2021 carefully in reaching this decision.
With regards to page 1, of the Applicant's response under Manner of Manufacture, the Applicant has asserted that the claimed system comprises a significant number of steps which are all technical in nature and which work together to provide an output material in the form of biological compost.
While your claimed invention involves features which are technical in nature, and these feature work together to carry out your claimed invention to provide an output material in the form of biological compost; the inclusion of technical features, and an interaction between technical features, which work together to provide a physical product, is not sufficient alone to confer patentability. Specifically, in order to determine patentability, the substance of your claimed invention must be determined. This determination is made with regards to various factors which include the problem solved by your claimed invention and the contribution to the art.
Furthermore, as was noted in Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (No. 3) [2021] FCA 31, the adding of technical but generic details from a specification can not elevate otherwise unpatentable subject matter to patentable subject matter (see Repipe at [65]-[67]).
The problem solved by your claimed invention according to p [0008] of the specification appears to be the permanent burial of undifferentiated waste in landfill, and the need to transport large volumes of waste over large distances. The solution according to claim 1, is in substance, a logistical scheme involving locating functions nearer to other functions to minimize transportation requirements (as per your submissions under Novelty/Inventive Step). There are no improvements to any of the physical processes present in the claim. These physical processes involve collecting separated compostable and non-compostable waste in trackable bins, sorting the waste at a near source facility to move compostable-waste from the non-compostable stream into the compostable waste stream; processing collected water from the decontamination of the waste streams into a media for the growth of biological inoculant; reporting volume and/or weight of waste collected and details of any contamination of waste to a source of waste; transferring the decontaminated non-compostable stream to a processing facility for recycling into useable products; and aerating, pasteurizing, curing and inoculating (with an inoculant provided by the media for the growth of biological inoculant) the compostable material to produce biological compost.
The technical features of your claimed invention, considered individually, were well known in the relevant art at the priority date. Furthermore, the technical features of your claimed invention are merely combined in a manner that does not appear to require any inventive ingenuity; that is, the features are combined simply so that the output of one system is fed as the input to the other (e.g., waste collection system outputs separated trackable waste to the near source facility; the near source facility outputs water from decontamination of the compostable or non-compostable stream to the waste water collection system, and outputs data of waste contamination to the communication and data entry system; the waste water collection system outputs a media fraction for the growth of biological inoculant, etc.).
Therefore, the inventive ingenuity of your claimed invention does not appear to reside in any of the technical features of your claimed invention considered in combination, and your claimed invention does not appear to solve any technical problem in waste differentiation (sorting), or, as a matter of substance, make any improvement to sorted material. Instead, the substance of your claimed invention appears to reside in a mere scheme for sorting undifferentiated waste at a near source facility to generate biological compost and useable products to overcome the problem of transportation over large distances.
Therefore your claimed invention, as a matter of substance, does not define subject matter suitable for a patent”.
The Applicant’s Submissions
The applicant has argued that the claimed invention is a manner of manufacture in line with the authorities and their submissions in this regard can be summarised as follows:
·The invention is not a ‘mere scheme’ because it is not an abstract idea.
·It is in substance, a physical process with a tangible outcome.
·By seeking to identify where the "inventive ingenuity" resides, the examiner has erroneously disaggregated the invention.
·Just because an aspect of the invention involves the collection and reporting of data that does not make the invention a ‘mere scheme’ or unpatentable subject matter.
·The invention is not a mere collocation of known integers as there is a functional interrelationship between the integers of the claimed invention. The system of the invention concerns the collection and processing of waste, with each stage of the system relating to the same waste that was collected/processed in the preceding stage, until the system is completed by the non-compostable waste being processed into useable products and the compostable waste being processed into biological compost.
·The invention involves the creation of an artificially created state of affairs having economic significance that is brought about by human intervention.
·Accordingly, the invention of the amended claims is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.
The Substance of the Invention
The claims as proposed to be amended on 18 October 2021 are for all practical purposes the same as the claims considered by the examiner in the fifth report and hence the reasoning for the manner of manufacture objection still applies to the current amended claims.
Firstly, I would note that both the proposed independent claims, i.e. claims 1 and 17, are directed to a system/method for generation of biological compost. Each of these claims then goes on to define a number of features covering five aspects of the invention that I discussed earlier, namely:
1.The sorting and processing of waste in two stages, i.e. (i) a preliminary waste processing stage that is conducted in a facility close to the source of waste generation where compostable waste is decontaminated by removing non-compostable waste to form a compostable waste stream and a non-compostable waste stream and (ii) a central waste processing stage that is conducted in a facility that is located remote from the source of waste generation where the compostable waste and non-compostable waste streams that have been transported from the preliminary stage are further processed into compost and usable products respectively.
2.A system for data collection and reporting on cross-contamination of the compostable and non-compostable waste at the preliminary processing facility comprising the use of trackable bins for separately storing and transporting the compostable waste and non-compostable waste from the source of waste generation to the facility.
3.A waste water collection system in the preliminary processing facility for collecting water from the decontamination process and using a portion of it for growing biological inoculant.
4.A biological compost generation system at the central processing facility where the decontaminated compostable stream is processed through a number of stages to generate biological compost.
5.The curing stage of the compost generation being carried out in small batches in aeration crates.
In order to identify the substance of the invention it is important to consider the problem being addressed and how the claimed features contribute to solving the problem.
As I discussed earlier, the present invention seeks to address a number of problems with known waste management systems such as (i) difficulties in decontaminating waste streams after they have been compacted (ii) difficulties in data collection and reporting of waste contamination after the waste streams have been compacted, (iii) leachate leaking and bad odour from raw compostable waste and (iv) compost produced by typical methods not being of a high quality.
The problem of difficulties in decontamination is addressed by providing an initial waste processing facility close to the source of waste where the compostable and non-compostable waste streams can be sent without compaction, enabling these waste streams to be more thoroughly decontaminated by removing cross-contaminants. The problem of data collection and reporting is addressed through the use of trackable bins which allows for data on cross-contamination of the waste streams to be collected for reporting to the waste source. The problem of leachate odour is addressed by collecting the waste water and leachate at this facility and using it for producing biological tea. The problem of compost quality is addressed by curing the compost in small batches in aeration crates whereby temperature, moisture and microbiology of the compost can be better monitored and controlled.
The substance of the claimed invention is therefore, in my view, a method of producing biological compost from compostable waste collected at a waste generating source wherein the compostable waste is decontaminated before compaction at a near source facility and then transported to a central waste management facility where it is then subjected to a biological composting process with the final curing of the compost being done in small batches in stackable aeration crates.

Although the claim includes features that relate to the collection of data on cross-contamination and the use of the wastewater for growth of biological inoculant, it is quite clear that these two aspects of the claimed invention make no contribution to the generation of biological compost per se. As both of the independent claims are explicitly defined as being directed to a “biological compost generation system” and a “method of generation of biological compost”, in my view these two aspects of the invention are peripheral to the system and method and do not form part of the substance of the claimed invention.
I would also note that while the claimed invention does lead to improved logistics in relation to transportation of the waste through the use of the initial waste processing facility, in my view this is now only secondary with the thrust of the amended claims being the generation of biological waste through better decontamination of compostable waste streams and better curing. Hence the improved logistics is not the substance of the claimed invention as asserted by the examiner.
Is the Invention a Manner of Manufacture?
While the substance of the invention that I have identified above may conceptually appear to be a scheme for processing compostable waste in two stages before it is composted, it clearly includes a number of features relating to both the decontamination of the compostable waste stream and the subsequent composting process, that in my view are either technical or lead to technical benefits.
·Decontamination of the compostable waste stream before compaction of the waste will certainly be easier and more effective and this will also yield better quality of the final compost.
·The features of pasteurisation, inoculation and curing are all technical features in the processing of the compostable waste into biological compost. Whilst these features/steps in the biological processing of compostable waste may be conventional as asserted by the examiner, that is not a reason to ignore them altogether especially when the claims are specifically directed to the ‘generation of biological compost’. To ignore them would be to adopt “an approach which seeks to denude an invention of patentability by prematurely discounting elements of the claim”.[3]
·As will become clear later in this decision, the feature of curing the compost in small batches in aeration crates does not appear to have been common general knowledge in the art at the priority date or disclosed in the prior art relied cited by the examiner. This feature permits better monitoring and control of the conditions during curing leading to more uniform and better quality of the final compost.
[3] Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202
These are all tangible and observable physical effects that provide benefits in the overall process of generation of biological compost from compostable waste. I would certainly not categorise these features as steps in an abstract scheme for processing compostable waste.
In my view, the claimed invention is for a technical innovation and not for a business innovation in improved logistics.
The applicant has also submitted that while the examiner objected in the third report that the claimed invention is not a manner of manufacture on the basis of being a collocation of known integers, it is unclear whether this is still being pursued in the fifth report and even if it is this cannot be maintained in light of their earlier submissions.
I agree. The fifth examination report states that “the technical features of your claimed invention are merely combined in a manner that does not appear to require any inventive ingenuity; that is, the features are combined simply so that the output of one system is fed as the input to the other” but does not clearly articulate whether the claimed invention is considered to be a mere collocation of known integers. If that was the examiner’s intention, that needs to be supported by reference to prior art or common general knowledge to establish that each of the different aspects/features of the claim is indeed known and an explanation of why there is no working interrelationship between them. This has not been done. While I have found that are some aspects of the system such as the data collection sub-system or the waste water collection sub-system that do not having any working relationship to the compost generation sub-system, clearly there is a working interrelationship between the various features of the waste stream decontamination and compost generation sub-systems. I am therefore not satisfied that the claimed invention is a mere collocation.
In summary, I am satisfied that the invention defined in the proposed amended claims is for a manner of manufacture and the examiner’s objection on this ground should therefore be withdrawn.
INVENTIVE STEP
The statutory basis for inventive step is set out at s7(2) and s7(3) of the Act, and is reproduced below:
(2) For the purposes of this Act, an invention is to be taken to involve an inventive step when compared with the prior art base unless the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed (whether in or out of the patent area) before the priority date of the relevant claim, whether that knowledge is considered separately or together with the information mentioned in subsection (3).
(3) The information for the purposes of subsection (2) is:
(a) any single piece of prior art information; or
(b) a combination of any 2 or more pieces of prior art information that the skilled person mentioned in subsection (2) could, before the priority date of the relevant claim, be reasonably expected to have combined.
The test for obviousness is whether it would have been a matter of routine to proceed to the claimed invention.
“The test is whether the hypothetical addressee faced with the same problem would have taken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not.” (Aicken J in Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12 at [45]; (1981) 148 CLR 262 at 286)
In relation to what level of inventiveness is required to sustain a patent, the Full Federal Court in Garford Pty Ltd v Dywidag Systems International Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 6 stated as follows at [44]:
“The inventiveness required to sustain a patent for a claimed invention is quite small. A “scintilla” of inventiveness is all that is required: Alphapharm at [195]. However, there must still be “some difficulty overcome, some barrier crossed” (per Lockhart J in RD Werner & Co Inc v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 57; (1989) 25 FCR 565 at 574) or some contribution to the art “beyond the skill of the calling” (Allsop Inc v Bintang Ltd [1989] FCA 297; (1989) 15 IPR 686 at 701)”.
Guidance in relation to establishing lack of inventive step based on a combination or mosaic of documents is provided by the High Court in Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Limited (1980) HCA9; 144 CLR 253;
“116. In the case of alleged lack of an inventive step the question of making a mosaic must operate (if at all) in a very different matter. An allegation of want of inventive step is not made out by saying you may take one or two, or twenty-one or twenty-two, prior publications and then select from them appropriate extracts or pieces of information, which will add up to the invention claimed and so demonstrate that it was obvious. So to proceed is to mistake the nature of an invention and the nature of the objection of obviousness. The question is, is the invention itself obvious, not whether a diligent searcher might find pieces from which there might have been selected the elements which make up the patent. If this were not so, there could never be a valid patent for a new combination of old integers. The proper question is not whether it would have been obvious to the hypothetical addressee who was presented with an ex post facto selection of prior specifications that elements from them could be combined to produce a new product or process. It is rather whether it would have been obvious to a non-inventive skilled worker in the field to select from a possibly very large range of publications the particular combination subsequently chosen by the Opponent in the glare of hindsight and also whether it would have been obvious to that worker to select the particular combination of integers from those selected publications. In the case of a combination patent the invention will lie in the selection of integers, a process which will necessarily involve rejection of other possible integers. The prior existence of publications revealing those integers, as separate items, and other possible integers does not of itself make an alleged invention obvious. It is the selection of the integers out of, perhaps many possibilities, which must be shown to be obvious”. (at p293)
“117. It is in relation to this process that the misuse of hindsight is most common. When once an idea or an object or a process or a combination, admittedly novel, has been published, it is very easy to say after perhaps months of search and study in the Patent Office and the public libraries that the integers into which the patent might be dissected could be found scattered amongst the prior documents by a person who already knew the solution to the problem and therefore knew what to look for and what to discard. But that process does not demonstrate lack of an inventive step. The opening of a safe is easy when the combination has been already provided”. (at p293)
“122. It may be noted that even in England where the process of making a mosaic out of prior publications is regarded as permissible under the Patents Act 1949 it is still necessary that the mosaic must be one which "can be put together by an unimaginative man with no inventive capacity" - see per Lord Reid in Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd. v. Mills and Rockley (Electronics) Ltd. (1972) RPC 346, at p 355”. (at p294)
The Office Manual of Practice and Procedure (MPP) notes at 2.5.2.5.5A that in deciding whether two or more documents can be combined, regard should be given to the following:
•whether the skilled worker, while deemed to be aware of and to have carefully read all the documents, would have appreciated the relevance of the documents to the problem.
•whether the nature and content of the documents are such as to make it likely that the person skilled in the art would combine them. For example is there some suggestion or motivation either in the references themselves, or in the knowledge generally available to the person skilled in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings.
•whether the documents come from similar or different technical fields – would the problem have prompted a search in those technical fields?
•whether the art would have taught away from a particular solution or combination at the priority date.
Problems to be solved
As discussed earlier, the specification notes a number of problems with known waste management and processing systems including the following:
a)Difficulty in properly decontaminating waste streams due to compaction of the waste on collection
b)Difficulty in collecting reliable data on cross-contamination of waste streams because of compaction of the waste on collection
c)Odour from leachate and
d)Consistency of quality of compost where the compost is stored in piles/windrows for decomposition and curing.
I am satisfied that these are the problems that the claimed invention seeks to address. However, I should note that as the claimed invention is directed to a “biological compost generation system of waste management and biological compost generation” (my emphasis), the problems that relate to the generation of biological compost are only problems (a) and (d). Problems (b) and (c) clearly have no bearing on the compost generation, although these problems are also addressed in the claimed invention.
Common General Knowledge (CGK)
Interspersed in the examination reports are statements that certain features of the claimed invention are ‘generic’, which I assume is the examiner’s way of saying that these features are CGK in the art. I will first identify what is the CGK relevant to the claimed invention before construing the cited prior art and deciding whether the claimed invention lacks an inventive step in light of the CGK and the prior art.
Processing of waste in a near source facility and then in a remote facility
Although not specifically identified in the examination reports, the use of waste transfer stations in the waste management system was CGK in the art at the priority date. Waste transfer stations are facilities where municipal solid waste that has been collected from various sources is consolidated and processed before being compacted and transported to a central waste processing facility. The processing at the waste transfer stations often includes sorting of the waste into different waste streams such as compostable waste stream, recyclable waste stream and landfill waste stream with the different waste streams then being compacted and transported to the central waste processing facility where the waste streams are further processed into useful products such as compost, waste to energy and recycled products so that only minimal amount of waste is sent to landfill. Waste transfer stations are usually located centrally to waste collection routes and are therefore generally close to the source of waste. A good overview of waste transfer stations is provided in the following article.
Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making published by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
of waste water collected from waste stream for growth of biological inoculant
The examiner has stated that this feature is “a generic way of treating waste water”. The applicant has not disputed this. A quick search of the internet reveals that the generation of compost tea from compostable waste streams is indeed a very well-known practice. I am satisfied that the using the waste water collected from the waste as a medium for growth of biological inoculant was CGK in the art at the priority date.
Measuring volume and weight of waste collected
The examiner has asserted that this feature is well known in the art and has supported this with reference to prior art D3. The applicant has again not disputed this. Weighing of wastes in waste transfer and waste processing stations is commonplace. The specification also admits that weighing of individual bins was known in the art[4]. I am satisfied that this feature was CGK in the art at the priority date.
[4] Specification at [00015]
Generation of biological compost from compostable waste
Industrial processes for conversion of compostable waste including household waste into biological compost were commonplace well before the priority date. The typical steps in the process include decontamination of the compostable waste, mixing, pasteurising, inoculation of biological inoculant if required and finally curing. All of these steps in general were CGK.
Curing of compost in stackable aeration crates
Although the examiner has stated that this feature is disclosed in prior art D2, he has not asserted that this feature was CGK in the art. Whilst the most common method for curing of compost in an industrial scale is to place the compost in piles or windrows with occasional turning of the compost, curing in bins also appears to be well known, both in backyard composting and in smaller commercial composting. For example, a cursory search identified the following documents that disclose curing in bins.
(a) Aerated Static Pile Composting - Introduction And Overview - Maryland Department Of Agriculture - January 26, 2019 - Peter Moon
Food Waste Composting: Institutional and Industrial Application
>
However, neither of these documents disclose curing in stackable aeration crates. Based on my cursory search, I cannot be clearly satisfied that curing of the compost in small batches in stackable aeration crates was CGK in the art of composting at the priority date.
Consideration
The examiner is of the view that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step in light of the common general knowledge and the combined disclosures of prior art documents D1 and D2.
D1: US 2013/0297518
D1 is titled “Recycling System” and primarily relates to a recycling system for buildings such as apartment buildings or other buildings with tenants. It discloses a system in which waste segregated by tenants in trackable bins is transported to a processing centre 28 located within the building. The trackable bins include separate bins for different waste streams such as recyclable waste, non-cyclable waste and compostable waste. At the processing centre, the waste streams are sorted and data regarding any cross-contamination of waste streams is collected for reporting on compliance back to the tenants. Some highly relevant passages in D1 are as follows (with added emphasis):
“[0063] At the processing center 28, the collection company shifts the containers 24 to its segregation facilities. The workers at the segregation facilities scan the barcodes using the scanning system 16 and record information regarding whether the contents of the containers 24 are compliant or non-compliant. For example, the scanned barcode is sent to the monitoring system 18 which relates to the worker that the waste portion 22 is supposed to contain only plastic. If not only or sufficiently composed of recyclable plastic, the worker records the occurrence as non-compliant along with the barcode associated with the tracking device 12. Segregation could also be more automated or fully automated. For example, robotic end effectors could grab and sort waste based on feedback from EM fields, optics and other sensors.
[0064] The monitoring system 18 associates this information using the barcode with the account in a database which can later be generated as a performance report. This performance report may be the basis for assessing penalties or incentives to the accountholder (waste generating entity). For example, monetary discounts or bonuses may be allocated to the account.
[0065] Thus, the system 10 may be configured to determine who is properly recycling and who is not. The system 10 is configured to create an online database. The entities 20 register with and receive unique account numbers from the online database. The system 10 is particularly effective for enterprises administering recycling programs for large apartment buildings with large numbers of tenants. For example, each tenant household may have its own unique bar code associated with tracking devices 12 that are required (by property manager rule) to be placed on the container or bag 24. This bar code is then scanned at the collection or processing center 28. The bar code can be traced back to the residential unit. Once the container 24 is opened and it is confirmed that it includes recyclable materials it is then scanned and that particular tenant is identified as a "recycling tenant." If the recyclable bag does not include recyclables the tenant is flagged as a "non-recycling tenant." Thus, the system 10 can be a "closed loop" wherein the tenant originates the waste and then receives notice back of their compliance”.
It is clear from these passages that D1 provides a solution to problems (a) and (b) as the waste is processed without compaction in the first processing centre 28 which is located at or near the source, allowing for better sorting and removal of contaminants in the waste streams and the collection of more accurate data on cross-contamination of the waste streams. While D1 does not specifically mention that it is seeking to address the problem of compaction, the person skilled in the art would readily realise that the processing of the waste at source is before compaction and therefore provides a solution to this problem as well.

D1 clearly discloses features (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the claimed invention.
While not explicitly disclosed it would be readily apparent that the different work streams including the compostable work stream would then be bulk transported to a central waste processing centre for further processing such as recycling of recyclable materials, compost generation from compostable wastes and any non-recyclable waste going to landfill. The applicant has also acknowledged in their response of 15 June 2021 (“We understand that D1 teaches that the bins are then bulk transported elsewhere for further processing of their contents”). Features (f) and (g) of the claimed invention are also therefore disclosed in D1.
D2: AU 2003208132
The examiner relies on document D2 as a document that discloses all of the features of the claimed invention that relate to the generation of biological compost, namely features (h) – (j).
D2 is titled “Waste Management” and relates to a waste management installation for biodegradable matter, wherein the installation includes both a composting stage for composting biodegradable matter, and a waste-to energy stage for converting waste material from the composting stage to an energy product. Some of the relevant disclosure relating to the composting stage are as follows (with added emphasis).
“The actual composting process may take any suitable form, and the term "composting" should be taken to refer to a process in which biodegradable material undergoes decomposition to a greater or lesser extent by microbial activity. It may be an aerobic and/or anaerobic process. Preferably, it is an aerobic process, and may take the form of an enclosed composting system, in which composting is carried out in a controlled atmosphere. Enclosed systems may make use of a variety of drum, box, tank, tunnel or silo type devices to provide aeration and odour containment”[5].
[5] D2 page 4
“In one preferred embodiment, the composting process includes an initial composting stage that is preferably an in-vessel stage, e.g. having a bioreactor/digester, within which the composting material remains for a desired period of time, before being passed to a second composting stage, such as a maturation floor”[6].
[6] D2 page 4
“The installation 1 may also separate materials for recycling (such as metals, glass and the like) at suitable points in the process. Non-recoverable residues may be rendered inert, either in the composting or waste-to-energy process or in further processing, e.g. in a plasma arc treatment stage, and may be removed to landfill”.
“Referring to Fig. 2, the installation 1 processes municipal solid waste (MSW) 10, e.g. household waste, commercial waste and the like, as well as process liquid 20, e.g. wash-down water, leachate, sump liquid and the like.
The MSW waste 10 is trucked into a waste-receiving area/tipping floor of the installation 1 and is moved by mechanical means to a designated area or areas, such as into a number of recessed pits. The process liquid 20 is discharged from trucks into holding tanks.
A feed system 30, including e.g. one or more dedicated apron feeders, moves the MSW waste 10 to a plurality of bioreactors 40. During the feed, various unacceptable materials (that may be easily and safely handled) are removed and sent for recycling or landfill 50. These materials could include for example car batteries, garden hose and the like. The remaining material is introduced the bioreactors 40. It may be slowly pushed into inlet feed hoppers of the bioreactors 40 by a hydraulic pushing mechanism.
The bioreactors 40 may take the form of rotating steel-lined drums driven by single speed induction motors and suitable gearing. A hydraulically operated gate at their outlet controls the amount of material discharged during operation”[7].
[7] D2 page 16
“The conditions inside the bioreactors 40 are closely monitored and controlled (e.g. by the addition of air and moisture) so as to ensure a suitable environment for composting”[8].
[8] D4 page 17
“The moisture is provided by the process liquid 20, as well as by effluent
from the waste-to-energy process discussed later. The actual amount of liquid
supplied will vary e.g. depending upon the type of waste material and the time
15 of year, but could be e.g.10-15% of the input material. The process liquid 20
and effluent may be added using a diaphragm-type pump and metering system
controlled by a PLC (programmable logic controller)”[9].
[9] D4 page 17
“Once out of the bioreactors 40, the two partially composted waste streams (energy grade and compost product grade) pass to a primary refining stage 60 where suitably degraded material is separated from non-degraded material. This may be achieved by feeding the bioreactor output through a large primary screen, e.g. a 29 mm perforated screen, e.g. a trammel screen.
The passing fraction of the compost product grade material is sent to a maturation area 10, e.g. by conveyor belt, for further composting over a predetermined period. The passing fraction of the energy-grade material is sent to an allocated area 70a of the maturation floor 70 for drying purposes, before being sent to the waste-to-energy stage 80 for processing as a feedstock, again via a conveyor”[10].
“The maturation area 70 provides a forced air, aerobic agitated bed maturation system for the compost material. Typically, it is designed to provide a residence time of not less than 28 days. During this time, the composting process is accelerated by a mixing and agitation action, and creates a loose and porous material that facilitates the air's optimal movement and creates aerobic conditions, as well as a uniform distribution of temperature though the material. The forced aeration system maintains the temperature at or above 66°C to provide a good environment for microbial breakdown. This will also continue the pasteurisation process to ensure that a pathogen-free product is produced.
The maturation area 70 may comprise a number of bays, each e.g. 3m wide by 2.1 m high, with aeration piping located at their bases, pipes being embedded in a round-shaped stone plenum covered with wood chips.
In one embodiment, a shuttle and tripper conveyor belt feeds the front section of each bay at a constant level, and an automatic agitating/mixing machine (equipped with a hydraulically-powered movable drum and conveyor) travels through the bays moving the material about 3.6m towards a conveyor outlet with each pass. The agitator automatically mixes and agitates the contents of the bays about once every two to three days. This process repeats, so that eventually emerging composted material is deposited onto a reclaiming conveyor for further refining and then storage. When the agitating/mixing machine reaches an end of a bay, the drum and conveyor may raise and the machine may move onto a transfer dolly to move to the next bay.
Each bay is divided into four aeration zones, each having its own air supply and temperature-measuring devices. Water is added to maintain an optimal moisture content and to keep dust to a minimum, although the moisture content is lowered in the final aeration zone, e.g. to about 35%, so as to prevent clogging and the like in the secondary refining process described later.
During the maturation process, biosolids may be introduced into the material to treat the biosolids and to accelerate the composting process. The biosolids may for example include materials from grease-traps or septic tanks, or (de-watered) sludge from waste treatment plants and the like. They may be injected into the material”[11].
“Any waste not suitable for recycling through the composting processes may be stabilised and sent to landfill and recycling 50”[12].
“It is generally preferred to keep the material for the compost product in the bioreactors for a sufficient time to ensure pasteurisation (e.g. for 72 hours at greater than 55°C), for easy of ensuring regulatory compliance and the like. Pasteurisation could however also be achieved in the maturation floor provided that suitable monitoring systems, e.g. temperature sensors and the like, were provided, and a system would be possible which used only a maturation stage, e.g. maturation floor, and took the waste-to-energy feedstock material from the maturation stage”[13].
[10] D2 page 19
[11] D2 pages 20-21
[12] D2 page 24
[13] D2 page 26
It is clear from these passages that the claimed features of processing of the compostable waste stream into biological compost including pasteurisation, addition of biological inoculant (biosolids) and curing of the compost are disclosed. It also discloses the feature of collecting process fluids such as waste water from wash down of the waste stream and leachate and using it as an inoculant in the composting process. Therefore features (d), (h), (i) and (j)(in part) are disclosed in D2. Feature (j) requires that the curing is carried out in small batches in stackable aeration crates. The examiner is of the view that this feature is also disclosed in D2 and relies on the following disclosure in page 4, lines 1-11 and 22-26.
“The actual composting process may take any suitable form, and the term "composting" should be taken to refer to a process in which biodegradable material undergoes decomposition to a greater or lesser extent by microbial activity. It may be an aerobic and/or anaerobic process. Preferably, it is an aerobic process, and may take the form of an enclosed composting system, in which composting is carried out in a controlled atmosphere. Enclosed systems may make use of a variety of drum, box, tank, tunnel or silo type devices to provide aeration and odour containment.
The composting process could be a batch process, but is preferably a continuous flow process, so as to provide a continuous feedstock supply for the waste-to-energy stage”.
“In one preferred embodiment, the composting process includes an initial composting stage that is preferably an in-vessel stage, e.g. having a bioreactor/digester, within which the composting material remains for a desired period of time, before being passed to a second composting stage, such as a maturation floor”. (emphasis added)
I am not convinced that above passages provide a disclosure of curing the compost in stackable aeration crates. The reference to ‘box’ is in relation to enclosed composting systems comprising a bioreactor/digestor where the initial composting takes place before the compost is passed to the second stage for curing. There is no disclosure that the curing also happens in a box or crate. In fact, these passages teach the typical method of curing on a maturation floor. The feature of curing in small batches in stackable aeration crates is therefore not disclosed in D2.
Combining the disclosures of D1 and D2
The examiner considers that the person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the disclosures of D1 and D2 as they are in the same field of ‘waste engineering’, and by doing so would have arrived at most of the features of the claimed invention and that any features not explicitly disclosed were generic or well known in the art and hence the claimed invention lacks an inventive step.
The applicant on the other hand has submitted that there is no motivation to have combined D1 and D2.
83. With respect to the motivation of the person skilled in the art to combine D1 and D2, the fact that both documents are in the field of waste engineering is plainly an insufficient basis to conclude that a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them. The result of such an approach would be to create a permanent and ever-expanding mosaic of documents in a very broad field.
84. When one actually looks at both documents and considers their respective subject matter and contents, it is apparent that there is no basis to consider that a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them. Dl relates to a recycling system for tracking "recyclable waste". At [0011], the specification describes the types of waste portion types relevant to the invention as being ''paper, plastic, cans or non-recyclable waste". D2 relates to a waste management system in respect of "compostable material". While the type of waste that is the subject of Dl
and the compostable material that is the subject of D2 might be able to categorised under a broad heading of "waste material", they are plainly very different, and are subject to different commercial, practical and technical issues and concerns. The Applicant submits that there is no basis to suggest that a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine two documents that deal with such different subject matter. Moreover, it certainly could not be concluded that it is ''practically certain" that a person skilled in the art would be so motivated.
85. Accordingly, the Applicant submits that there is no basis to conclude that the Applicant's invention does not involve an inventive step.
I beg to differ with the applicant on this point. As noted earlier, the presently claimed invention seeks to address a number of distinct problems that have very little interrelationship to each other such as compaction of the waste before decontamination, difficulties in collecting data on cross-contamination in compacted waste streams and quality of the biological compost produced from compostable waste stream. Hence the person skilled in the art would realise that the solutions to each of these distinct problems would most likely be found in different documents rather than a single document. For the applicant to suggest otherwise, is in my view, fanciful. Clearly D1 is addressing the problems of compaction before decontamination and collecting data on cross-contamination, while D2 is directed to processes for producing good quality biological compost. Hence, I am satisfied that the person skilled in the art trying to solve these distinct problems would be motivated to combine these documents as they each provide solutions to one or more of these distinct problems.
However, as noted earlier, there is no teaching or suggestion in D2 that the curing can be done in stackable aeration crates and hence even when D1 and D2 are combined, there still isn’t a complete disclosure of all the features of the claimed invention. Hence, I am not satisfied that either of the independent claims lacks an inventive step in light of the combined disclosures of D1 and D2 and this objection should also be withdrawn.
Other Observations
Having formed the view, albeit erroneously, that the feature of curing in stackable aeration crates was disclosed in D2, it would appear that the examiner may not have searched for other documents that disclose this feature. If it can be established that this feature has been taught in any other s7(3) prior art document and given that it is a distinct aspect of the presently claimed invention, as reasoned earlier there may well be a motivation to combine such a prior art document as well with D1 and D2 and to arrive at the claimed invention leading to a finding of lack of an inventive step. I would also note that as all of the features that relate to the process of biological compost generation apart from the use of aeration crates are matters of CGK, D2 may well not be required to support any findings of lack of inventive step.
In the circumstances, it is therefore appropriate that I allow the examiner an opportunity to consider this issue and if required issue another adverse examination report. If this feature is not disclosed in any other prior art, then this application should proceed to acceptance.
CONCLUSION
The invention of the amended claims is for a manner of manufacture and the examiner’s objection on this ground cannot be maintained.
The invention of the amended claims does not lack an inventive step in light of the CGK and combined disclosure of prior art documents D1 and D2 and this objection cannot be maintained in its current state.
I refer the application back to the examination section to further investigate whether the feature of curing in stackable aeration crates is disclosed in any other prior art document and if so whether a revised inventive step objection can be taken. If not, the application should proceed to acceptance.
R Subbarayan
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents