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 .
Second Non-Final Rejection
Due to the nature of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections stated below, the claims of the application are indefinite and/or unclear. These rejections resulted in a second non-final rejection.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the Applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
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 3-4 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is indefinite because of the phrase “50% in number of wood elements”. The phrase “in number of wood elements” is indefinite, because what constitutes an “element” is unknown, even though such elements may necessarily be wooden and green waste in the context of the claim. Also, what constitutes “wood” may be in doubt, as green waste can comprise the definition given in the specification (instant specification, pg. 9 of 13), but “wood elements” is not defined, and the specification describes “Other types of wood elements 2 can be used, as long as their shape provides a substantial porosity to the culture substrate and a good exchange surface” as well as “forestry chips, shreddings, or of yet another form” in examples. This extension of the definition of “wood elements” broadens the definition of “wood elements” so that the term, even as defined in the specification cannot be distinctly claimed. Additionally, the phrase does not have definite units. Thus, the phrase is indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is indefinite because of the way limitations are claimed: it is unclear if “said reusable culture substrate” of line 16 is the same as “said reusable culture substrate” of line 19. This would mean that the same amount of reusable culture substrate that was previously claimed in the upstream methanization tunnel would be inserted into the downstream methanization tunnel. The same reusable culture substrate would have to be inserted into different locations without an intermediate step (e.g., taking the reusable culture substrate outside of the upstream methanization tunnel). How can the same reusable culture substrate be inserted into different locations without an intermediate step? In view of this, the examiner is unsure if this idea is what is claimed, or if another amount of reusable culture substrate is being inserted in duplicate to the downstream methanization tunnel in addition to the upstream methanization tunnel (part of the reusable culture substrate is inserted into the upstream methanization tunnel and another part of the reusable culture substrate is inserted into the downstream methanization tunnel). Clarification is requested with no new matter being added.
Regarding claim 4, line 3, the term “slow” is a relative term. The term “slow” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 19, lines 3-4, recite “treated at the output of the downstream methanization tunnel” but claim 3 never states that anything is being treated at the output of the downstream methanization tunnel” and this treatments lacks antecedent basis because no such treatment has been defined before.
Regarding claim 19, line 3, the phrase “from 30% to 60% of the liquid effluents treated at the output” does not have units (weight or volume). Therefore, the phrase is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art is Robinson (“Light and Electron Microscopic Examinations of Methane-Producing Biofilms from Anaerobic Fixed-Bed Reactors”) (previously cited) in view of Medoff (US 20090286295) (previously cited), Chen (CN 101709004) (machine translation) (previously cited), and Matsumoto (JP 2002219442) (machine translation) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson discloses a method for preparing a methanization unit (pg. 127 under “Digestors”, “experimental digestors”), for methanizing liquid effluents (pg. 127, col. 2, under “Digestors”, “Each reactor had a liquid volume of 5 liters”), comprising in order the following steps:
collecting green waste (pg. 127 under “Digestors”, “blocks of pine”);
inserting said green waste into said methanization unit so as to form a structured packing (pg. 127 under “Digestors”, “digestors were each packed with one of the following … blocks of pine”),
wherein the structured packing is a culture substrate consisting of elements, which elements are made up of more than 50% in number of wood elements (pg. 127 under “Digestors”, “blocks of pine”) of which at least one dimension is greater than 80 mm (pg. 127 under “Digestors”, “blocks of pine (84.9 by 2.6 by 2.6 cm)”);
wherein said liquid effluents are sent to said culture substrate (pg. 127 under “Digestors”, “fresh swine waste diluted with water”),
the method further comprising:
inserting said culture substrate into a methanization tunnel (pg. 127 under “Digestors”, “poly-vinyl chloride pipe”);
sending said liquid effluents into the methanization tunnel (pg. 127 under “Digestors”, “fresh swine waste diluted with water”);
Robinson does not disclose:
composting said green waste;
screening of said green waste, the screening being carried out at a size between 30 mm and 80 mm; and
inserting said green waste resulting from the screening step into said methanisation unit
air; and, wherein a volume occupied by the air in said culture substrate is greater than 50% relative to a total volume of said culture substrate, and
a reusable substrate
an upstream methanization tunnel;
inserting said reuseable culture substrate into a downstream methanization tunnel; and
sending said liquid effluents treated at an output of said upstream methanization tunnel into said downstream methanization tunnel.
Regarding feature 1, Chen discloses comprising a composting step before a screening step (paragraphs [0033]-[0034]).
In the analogous art of composting solid waste, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Robinson with the composting step before the screening step of Chen in order to better package the end product for organic fertilizer (Chen, paragraphs [0008] and [0050]), as well as for composting materials for the purposes of producing biogas (Chen, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding feature 2, Matsumoto discloses a dimension comprised between 10 mm and 1000 mm (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding the phrase “the screening being done at a dimension comprised between 30 mm and 80 mm”, although modified Robinson teaches a screening step, it does not disclose between 30 mm and 80 mm; however, the branches of secondary reference Matsumoto are inherently being sorted by some method (see Matsumoto, paragraph [0007]). Additionally, Matsumoto’s range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05(I) “Overlapping, Approaching, And Similar Ranges, Amounts, And Proportions”: specifically, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” barring a “showing of criticality of the claimed range”.
In the analogous art of fermentation tanks, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the dimension of the branches or biomass of modified Robinson to be within the dimensions of 30 mm to 80 mm as in Matsumoto in order to avoid clogging of the biomass contact material in the methane fermenter (Matsumoto, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding features 2 and 3, Medoff discloses a screening step (paragraph [0043]) before the insertion step (paragraphs [0124] applies to feedstock preparation; paragraphs [0126]-[0128], both shearing and passing through a screen are pretreatment steps).
In the analogous art of fermenting biomass, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Robinson to include a screening step of Medoff in order to increase reaction rates of bacteria by increasing the effective surface area of the substrate for fermenting bacteria.
Regarding feature 4, Medoff discloses:
collecting green waste (biomass feedstock is collected in Fig. 1, element 110 “feed preparation”; paragraph [0122])
wherein a volume occupied by air in said culture substrate is greater than 50% relative to a total volume of said culture substrate (paragraph [0013]).
In the analogous art of fermenting biomass, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the porosity of the culture substrate to be greater than 50% by volume air relative to the total volume of the culture substrate, that is greater than 50% porosity, in order to increase reaction rates of bacteria by increasing the effective surface area of the substrate for fermenting bacteria.
Regarding feature 5, specifically a “reusable” culture substrate, the examiner deems that this term is inherent to the wooden substrate already provided in the combination of references, as the composition of the combination’s substrate already matches that of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding feature 6, regarding the untaught features, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the untaught feature within the claim environment.
Regarding the dependent claims 4 and 19, these claims are allowable subject matter for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Tsuyuki (JP H0947773) (cited from IDS filed 05/10/2023) – This invention comprises wooden materials used in the fermentation of wastewater.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 1-2, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection.
Due to the nature of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection stated above, the claims of the application are indefinite and/or unclear. This rejection resulted in a second non-final rejection. However, the allowable subject matter still stands and overcomes any potential rejections over 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights