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 1/12/2026:
Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-20 are presently pending
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 are 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The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims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, 7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (International Patent Pub. No. 2017/080565 A1, hereinafter “Jensen”) in view of Freitas (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0231512 A1, hereinafter “Freitas”).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen teaches a method for processing poultry litter (e.g., a method for anaerobic fermentation of poultry litter) [Page 1 lines 5-10] comprising:
Obtaining a first anaerobic digester effluent from an anaerobic digester (e.g., subjecting a poultry manure biomass to anaerobic fermentation, which generates solid and liquid fermentation products) [Page 42 lines 5-11],
Removing phosphorous and/or ammonia from the anaerobic digester effluent (e.g., the ammonia in the liquid fermentation byproduct is removed in a second separation facility) [Page 43 lines 20-35],
Buffering and off-gassing the digester effluent of step (b) to produce a recycled digestate (e.g., the liquid fermentation byproduct is subjected in the second separation facility to pressure or temperature or pH changes to remove volatile byproducts, pH changes are regarded as reading on buffering) [Page 43 lines 26-35] (this can further optionally include an ammonia stripping facility) [Page 43 lines 26-30 & Page 45 lines 25-26] (the liquid fermentation byproduct is re-diverted or recycled from the second separation facility to the anaerobic fermentation unit) [Page 44 lines 1-5],
Wetting poultry litter with the recycled digestate (e.g., subjecting a new batch of poultry manure to the continuous, anaerobic liquid state biomass fermentation, and re-diverting or re-cycling the liquid fermentation medium back to the poultry manure, thereby wetting the new poultry waste with the recycled digestate) [Page 44 lines 1-10],
Passing the wettened poultry litter of step (d) through a separation step to remove woody biomass and product a poultry litter influent (e.g., the recycled fermentation liquid which was mixed with the further batch of poultry manure containing biomass comprising solid and liquid parts [Page 45 lines 11-16]; the solid fibrous parts are removed in a separation step [Page 45 lines 9-15]), wherein the recycled digestate is used as washwater (the recycled digestate, which is re-circulated through the system, is necessarily used as washwater, because it passes through the separation step along with and after each individual batch of poultry litter influent),
Digesting the poultry litter influent from step (d) in the anaerobic digester to produce and anaerobic digester poultry effluent and a biogas (e.g., the ammonia stripped, liquid effluent streams are recycled to the anaerobic digester) [Page 50 lines 7-11] (the continuous anaerobic fermentation in the anaerobic digester generates biogas which is captured and stored) [Page 9 lines 30-34 & Page 10 lines 1-4].
See also the Example at [Page 49 lines 14-17] describing “continued re-circulation to an anaerobic digester of ammonia stripped liquids, and continued mixing in the anaerobic digester of said liquids with nitrogen rich biomasses, such as manure from egg layers and broilers . . .” and Fig. 1 demonstrating the cycle of steps.
Jensen includes a solid-liquid separation in step (e) (e.g., the anaerobic digester fermentation liquids can be separated into digestate solids and effluent liquids by screw press separation, decanter centrifugation, or any other similarly suitable physical method) [Page 20 lines 9-11] but does not explicitly state that it implements a screen. However, Freitas teaches that it is standard when performing anaerobic digestion of poultry waste [Freitas Para. 0005] to perform solid-liquid separation using any suitable equipment such a rotary screen or rotary filter [Freitas Para. 0047]. As such, in performing the solid-liquid separation taught by Jensen, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Freitas and readily appreciate that a rotary screen is a standard option. This amounts to no more than simple substitution of one known element (the solid-liquid separation techniques such as screw press separation or decanter centrifugation suggested by Jensen) for another (the rotary screen implemented by Freitas) to yield the predictable result of separating the poultry waste solids from liquids. 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 Jensen to implement the rotary screen of Freitas.
Regarding claim 7, Jensen teaches the method further comprising prior to step (f) obtaining a leachate from the removed woody biomass and mixing the leachate with the poultry litter influent in a mixing tank (the poultry litter effluent will necessarily be mixed with leachate from the removed woody biomass, because the woody biomass will inherently leach into liquid fraction before the solid and liquid fractions are separated [Page 45 lines 11-16 & Page 45 lines 9-15]; and this can take place in a mixing tank [Page 30 lines 15-20]). The process of Jensen is continuous and cyclical, so any liquid in the system can be regarded as being a leachate from the removed woody biomass. Further, as the mixture passes through the rotary screen described in claim 1 above, the woody biomass is “removed” but also continues to leach into the liquid.
Regarding claim 11, Jensen teaches the method wherein removing phosphorous and/or ammonia from the anaerobic digester effluent comprises:
Heating and aerating anaerobic digester effluent in an aeration reactor to convert soluble ammonium to gaseous ammonia (e.g., stripping ammonia from the fermentation medium liquid fraction by aerating and/or heating the material [Page 32 lines 15-17 and 29-32] in a stripper column to generate ammonia gas [Page 34 lines 13-29])
Providing gaseous ammonia from the aeration reactor to a striping tower, said stripping tower providing controlled amounts of acid that reacts with gaseous ammonia (e.g., the heated fermentation medium liquid enters the stripper column, also known as a tower, and percolates over the column [Page 34 lines 13-16] which provides sulfuric acid to assist in absorption [Page 35 lines 5-6]) and
Recovering an ammonium salt produced from reacting the acid with gaseous ammonia in the stripping tower (e.g., the stripped ammonia is absorbed and produced into an ammonia concentrate by reacting with a sulfuric acid solution on an absorption column, which will necessarily produce the ammonium sulfate salt) [Page 33 lines 6-10].
Regarding claim 12, Jensen teaches the method further comprising pumping the anaerobic digester effluent from the aeration reactor to a solids settling system after providing the gaseous ammonia to the stripping tower (e.g., the ammonia stripped liquid is circulated back to the anaerobic digester, and re-mixed with solid biomasses [Page 49 lines 14-17], which can then be again subject to solid-liquid separation: see Fig. 1 showing a cycle of organic biomass, anaerobic digestion, solid/liquid separation, the stripper, and further addition of organic biomass. The solid-liquid separation can implement decanter centrifugation, which necessarily includes settling the solids so that the liquid can be decanted off [Page 20 lines 9-11].
Regarding claim 13, Jensen teaches the method further comprising collecting phosphorus-rich solids from the solids settling system (e.g., the fermentation medium is separated into solids and liquids, and the liquids can be decanted to separate a solid fraction containing 40-80% phosphorus [Page 31 lines 1-6] or treated with lime in order to further separate the phosphorus from the liquid fraction [Page 31 lines 20-24]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Dvorak (International Patent Pub. No. 2011/156767 A2, hereinafter “Dvorak”).
Regarding claim 5, Jensen teaches the method using an anaerobic digester (e.g., an anaerobic fermentation unit) [Page 42 lines 13-16] but does not explicitly state that the anaerobic digester implements a mixed plug flow design. However, Dvorak teaches in a similar method for anaerobic digestion of fibrous waste material [Dvorak Abstract] that it is known to implement a mixed plug flow design in the anaerobic digester [Dvorak Para. 00352]. A mixed plug flow design is advantageous because it is a more reliable technology option for a higher range of solid flows [Dvorak Para. 00352]. As such, in implementing the anaerobic digester in the method of Jenson, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Dvorak and readily appreciate that a mixed plug flow type is standard and even advantageous for its reliability. 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 Jensen to implement a mixed plug flow digester.
Regarding claim 6, Jensen teaches the method using an anaerobic digester (e.g., an anaerobic fermentation unit) [Page 42 lines 13-16] but does not explicitly state that the anaerobic digester uses a cork-screw flow path to move the poultry litter influent through the digester. However, Dvorak teaches in a similar method for anaerobic digestion of fibrous waste material [Dvorak Abstract] that it is known to implement a corkscrew-like flow path for sludge in the digester by including heating pipes and a cooler [Dvorak Para. 00157-00159]. This is advantageous because the heated mixed sludge rises under convective forces, while cooler sludge near the outer walls of the digester falls [Para. 00157]. This agitates the sludge which helps it to maintain a consistent HRT (hydraulic retention time) in the vessel [Dvorak Para. 00232]. As such, in digesting the poultry litter influent in the anaerobic digester as taught by Jensen, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Dvorak and readily appreciate the advantage of implementing a cork-screw flow path, and would know how to do so based Dvorak’s teachings. 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 Jensen to implement a cork screw flow path as taught by Dvorak.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 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 at 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./ /JENNIFER A SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731