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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 12/12/2025:
Claims 1-8 are presently pending
Claim 9 is cancelled
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
New grounds of rejection are presented herein, as necessitated by amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0024686 A1, hereinafter “Ouellette”) in view of Allain (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0029448 A1, hereinafter “Allain”) and La Fleur (U.S. Patent No. 3258067 A, hereinafter “La Fleur”).
Regarding claim 1, Ouellette teaches a method for continuous generation and harvesting of biothermal energy (e.g., a method for generating and extracting the renewable heat energy produced by microbial decomposition of organic biomass) [Ouellette Abstract & Fig. 1, thermal energy plant 100] comprising:
Forming a heap (e.g., a decomposing organic biomass pile) [Ouellette Abstract & Paragraph 0020] comprising an amended organic material (e.g., a bulking agent [Ouellette Paragraph 0075] or manure cultures [Ouellette Paragraph 0154]; the instant specification describes an amendment as any process or action that leads to a change in the condition of an organic material [Specification Paragraph 0010], as such the addition of the bulking agent and the manure cultures are here considered to be reading on amending the organic material);
Subjecting the amended organic material to a continuous fermentation process ([Ouellette Paragraph 0079] describes a period of eight weeks); the instant specification says the fermentation process may comprise aerobic, anaerobic, and heterotrophic activity [Specification Paragraph 0076]; Ouellette describes aerobic activity [Ouellette Paragraph 0002]);
to produce a convection current (a convection current is known in the art to be inherent in a compost heap and, according to the instant specification, can be formed by movement of microorganisms through the heap [Specification Paragraph 0085]; Ouellette discloses that organisms migrate within the pile [Ouellette Paragraph 0228]);
and to stimulate continuous capture of non-visible radiation (e.g., the heat energy can be captured and transferred to an associate adjacent building [Paragraph 0085 & thermal energy plant 100 in Fig. 1], heat energy is here interpreted to be reading on non-visible radiation; further, Ouellette describes a net positive energy input into the system via sunlight generating heated flowing water within the heap [Ouellette Paragraph 0178]; this process is also interpreted to be reading on continuous capture of non-visible radiation);
wherein the non-visible radiation comprises electromagnetic radiation having wavelengths that fall at least one of above or below visible light (heat energy or solar energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation and necessarily comprises wavelengths that fall at least one or above or below visible light; therefore, heat energy or solar energy is regarded as reading on said radiation); and
Using a heat exchanger in contact with the heap, at least one step of capturing or storing biothermal energy generated by the continuous fermentation process within the heap (the heat energy generated in the biological decomposition process can be transferred and distributed by the use of heat pipes 116 and 118, Fig. 1, either directly or via heat exchange apparatus) [Ouellette Paragraph 0020], wherein using the heat exchanger comprises disposing the heat exchange within the heap with linear pipes along the length of the heap (e.g., the heat pipes are in the biomass pit in parallel relation) [Ouellette Paragraph 0188] (the pipes are embedded on the floor under the heap or are embedded in the biomass pit) [Paragraph 0150 & 0198].
Ouellette does not explicitly disclose that (1) the heap comprises two peaks or (2) the heat exchanger comprises a linear pipe along a length of one of the two peaks and a non-linear pipe along a length of the second peak.
As to (1), the limitation describing two peaks appears to be referring to two windrows. Allain teaches that windrows, which are long rows of material, are standard formations for efficient large-scape composting of waste [Allain Abstract & Paragraph 0010], particularly when recapturing heat via embedded pipes [Allain Para. 0014]. Multiple windrows can be grouped together either indoors or outdoors [Allain Para. 0010], and windrows generate and store heat within their thick central regions, which can be collected and re-used, as is done by both Allain and Ouellette [Allain Para. 0054]. As such, in performing the method of Ouellette involving heat capture from a decomposing biomass pile (i.e. compost), one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Allain and readily appreciate that forming the pile into multiple windrows is a standard and advantageous arrangement for efficient large-scale production of this captured heat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Ouellette to specifically implement two peaks (here regarded as being windrows) as taught by Allain.
As to (2), Ouellette describes a parallel array of pipes or tubes in the heat exchanger in the length of the heap [Ouellette Paragraph 0188] but does not explicitly include curved or non-linear pipes. However, La Fleur teaches that tube-type heat exchangers [La Fleur Col. 1 lines 65-71 & Col. 2 lines 1-15] are available in multiple different shapes: Conventional straight tubes or pipes, or newer curved tubes or pipes [La Fleur Col. 4 lines 15-30]. Curved pipes have the additional advantage of increasing the surface area of each tube available for heat exchange purposes [La Fleur Co. 4 lines 20-23]. These tubes can be very curved, or only slightly curved or even almost straight [La Fleur Col. 3 lines 40-45 & Col. 2 lines 34-40]. As such, substituting one of the pipes for a curved or non-linear pipe amounts to no more than simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results: Here, substituting a straight pipe for a curved pipe is a known substitution taught by La Fleur which has the predictable result of increasing surface area. The linear and curved pipes are both known in the heat exchanger art and are interchangeable as taught by La Fleur. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Ouellette to substitute a pipe in a heap for a curved pipe as taught by La Fleur.
Further, La Fleur is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably concerned with the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., identifying a suitable heat exchanger apparatus which includes tubes or pipes).
Regarding claim 3, Ouellette as modified by Allain and La Fleur teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the amended organic material is formed by applying one or more catalysts to an organic material (the specification defines a catalyst as generally comprising a source of and/or substrate produced by, and which stimulates the activity of, one or more prokaryotic organisms [Specification Paragraph 0025]; the animal manure of Ouellette [Ouellette Paragraph 0248] is here interpreted to be the substrate for prokaryotic organisms and therefore the catalyst because it serves as a bacterial culture [Ouellette Para. 0248]).
Regarding claim 4, Ouellette as modified by Allain and La Fleur teaches the method of claim 3 in its first embodiment (Ouellette Fig. 1 and [Paragraph 0248]). Ouellette in the first embodiment does not expressly disclose the use of one or more low temperature fermentation microorganisms or that the activity thereof is stimulated by the catalysts. However, Ouellette discloses in the tenth embodiment [Fig. 24] the presence and activity of bacteria with various operative temperature ranges, including < 90 °F (32 °C) and 90 °F - 110 °F (43 °C) [Paragraph 0220]. The instant specification provides an example of low temperature being “about 20 to 45 °C” [Specification Paragraph 0027]. These microorganisms as taught in the tenth embodiment of Ouellette generate consistent heat for two or three months (See [Ouellette Paragraph 0222], adding fresh corn to the pile causes a peak heat level but then the system cools down and holds at 90 °F (32 °C) for two months). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the first embodiment can advantageously be modified to specifically include one or more low temperature fermentation microorganisms so as to provide consistent heat for multiple months. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first embodiment of Ouellette to further include the low temperature fermentation microorganisms of the tenth embodiment. The low temperature fermentation microorganisms will necessarily be stimulated by the catalyst (here, animal manure) [Ouellette Paragraph 0248].
Regarding claim 6, Ouellette as modified by Allain and La Fleur teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
applying a cover (e.g., a gas selective permeable membrane 181 [Ouellette Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0113]) to the heap comprising the amended organic material, wherein the cover assists in maintaining the heap at a desired moisture content and temperature level (the first embodiment of Ouellette is modified to produce Modification B, which incorporates all of the elements of the first embodiment except those explicitly altered [Paragraph 0112]. Modification B of the first embodiment provides for a gas selective permeable membrane 181 installed in sealed relation over biomass material 124 which maintains positive pressure of 3 or 4 inches of water [Ouellette Fig. 2B and Paragraph 0116]).
Regarding claim 7, Ouellette as modified by Allain and La Fleur teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the continuous fermentation process occurs in a low oxygen environment (Ouellette teaches how to produce a fermentative/anaerobic environment in by adjusting the amount of air within the system [Ouellette Paragraph 0240]. The instant specification discloses a low oxygen environment as including an environment which has an oxygen content lower than the external gaseous environment [Specification Paragraph 0082]. A fermentative or anaerobic environment as taught by Ouellette necessarily implies absence of oxygen or an oxygen content lower than the external gaseous environment).
Regarding claim 8, Ouellette as modified by Allain and La Fleur teaches the method of claim 1 in its first embodiment [Ouellette Fig. 1]. The first embodiment does not explicitly disclose a low temperature heat exchanger. The instant specification states that a low temperature heat exchanger operates at a low temperature differential relative to ambient temperature; for example, only one or two degrees relative to ambient temperature [Ouellette Paragraph 0096]. However, Applicant is not bound by this example and does not provide a more explicit definition of low temperature differential. Ouellette teaches in its tenth embodiment [Fig. 24] a temperature differential of about 10 to 15 degrees [Paragraph 0233]. Ouellette further states that if the water pipe is operating at 120 °F, the temperature of the biomass will likely be 150 °F, and all of that energy will be given to the heat pipe [Ouellette Paragraph 0238]. These temperature differentials are here interpreted as reading on a low temperature heat exchanger as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the heat exchanger of the tenth embodiment so as to maintain similar temperature between the energy absorber and the energy generator such that the system only extracts energy that is in excess of the microbial colony’s requirements [Ouellette Paragraph 0239]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first embodiment with the low temperature heat exchanger of the tenth embodiment.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette, Allain and La Fleur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Compost Interpretation,” Clemson University, Regulatory Services, with reference to the provided snapshot dated 10/17/2020 (hereinafter “Compost Interpretation”).
Regarding claim 2, Ouellette as modified by Allain and La Fleur teaches the method of claim 1 [Fig. 1] and suggests a moisture content of 60% [Ouellette Paragraph 0212], but does not explicitly disclose an initial moisture content of the heap of about 65% w/w. However, Compost Interpretation teaches that that a typical starting compost mix comprising organic matter [Compost Interpretation Page 1 Para. 5] should have an ideal moisture content of 45%-65% [Compost Interpretation Page 2 Paragraph 1]. As such, in looking for a suitable moisture content for the heap, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Compost Interpretation and know that a range of moisture contents which encompasses the claimed amount is acceptable and even ideal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in practicing the method of Ouellette to use a moisture content of 65% as taught by Compost Interpretation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette, Allain, and La Fleur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamaki (Japanese Patent No. 2003137680 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Tamaki”).
Regarding claim 5, Ouellette as modified by Allain and La Fleur teaches the method of claim 3 as well as the implementation of bacteria and actinomycetes [Ouellette Para. 0211] cultured by the animal manure [Ouellette Para. 0248] but does not explicitly disclose that said bacteria or actinomycetes are specifically autotrophic. However, Tamaki teaches that the composting process generates unpleasant odors which can be diminished by autotrophic bacteria [Tamaki Paragraph 0003 & Abstract]. Further, autotrophic bacteria can be active for a long period of time at low temperatures; i.e., 20 to 30 °C [Tamaki Paragraph 0017] (the instant specification provides an example of low temperature being “about 20 to 45 °C” [Specification Paragraph 0027]). Additionally, the autotrophic bacteria do not require any additional nutrient sources besides ammonia [Tamaki Paragraph 0009], which is necessarily present in compost. As such, in looking to add or stimulate a specific type of bacteria, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Tamaki and readily appreciate that autotrophic bacteria are known to be advantageously implemented in compost. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in implementing the method of Ouellette to specifically stimulate autotrophic activity as taught by Tamaki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/H.E.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731