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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 as amended is still unpatentable in view of the prior art of record though the rejection has been modified to address the new limitations. The objection to claim 12 is withdrawn resultant from amendment. New claim 13 invokes a new USC 112 rejection.
Applicant’s only position on the art rejection of amended claim 1 is that “Harmon is silent with respect to recycling the solid fraction of the digestate and combining it with the carbonaceous material prior to re-subjection to hydrothermal gasification” (top of page 6 in the Remarks). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Harmon discloses separation and recycling downstream of the digester as shown in the modified rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New claim 13 recites “the anaerobic treatment of step c) comprises a two-phase anaerobic digestion comprising a mesophilic or thermophilic acidogenesis followed by a methanogenic digestion” (emphasis added). But the disclosure in the instant specification pertaining to this limitation states “an anaerobic digestion occurring in two phases: a mesophilic or thermophilic acidogenesis followed by a mesophilic digestion” (emphasis added) (page 17, lines 4-5). These are not equivalents and Applicant must rectify the distinction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon (US 2017/0107478 A1) in view of Boukis (DE 10 2006 044 116 B3). Massetti (US 2016/0245508 A1) and Miyoshi (US 2006/0260190 A1) are used as evidentiary support. A machine translation has been provided for Boukis and is used for citation purposes.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Harmon discloses a method comprising: providing a carbonaceous material (paragraph 145) in the form of wastewater sludge (paragraph 178); subjecting the carbonaceous material to hydrothermal gasification (paragraph 148) operated at temperatures of 350 °C and pressures of 22 MPa (220 bar) (Paragraph 156), thereby directly producing an inorganic solid residue, a first gaseous fraction comprising CH4, CO, CO-2 and H2 (paragraph 156), and a filtrate containing readily biodegradable carbons (paragraph 578); and subjecting at least part of the filtrate to an anaerobic treatment step, leading to a digestate (paragraph 879). Harmon discloses anaerobic digesters, gas purification, and condensation to liquids with any thermal plant technologies utilizing gaseous fuels and/or related infrastructure shared by any or all of the foregoing systems (paragraph 1111). Harmon further discloses the BGM feeds tertiary treatment module that provides recirculation of the tertiary treated effluent back to BGM (paragraph 307).
Harmon does not disclose performing the hydrothermal gasification at 280 to 300 bar but does disclose supercritical pressures above 22.1 MPa to substantially accelerate the reaction rate (paragraph 896), establishing supercritical pressures as a result-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05. Boukis—in an invention for a hydrothermal gasification process of biomass—discloses a means by which hydrothermal gasification can occur using supercritical pressures of 28 MPa (280 bar) (Table 1) “for the energetic use of wet biomass as they are characterized by high chemical and energetic efficiencies as well as good quality and composition of the product gases obtained.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to raise the pressure at which the hydrothermal gasification in Harmon occurs so as to increase efficiency as disclosed in Boukis.
Neither Harmon nor Boukis explicitly discloses the nitrogen content of the carbonaceous material. The instant specification details that the claimed nitrogen content is a result of the sludge feedstock used which has a humidity content of 75-97% (page 4, lines 9-21). Harmon discloses sludge as the feedstock as stated above. Both Massetti and Miyoshi cited to provide evidence that sludge feedstocks have nitrogen contents within the range claimed. Massetti discloses that refinery sludge of 30-80% humidity has a carbon content of 5-50% and a nitrogen content of 0-5% (claim 10). Miyoshi disclose that sewage sludge of 77% humidity has a carbon content of 9.8% and a nitrogen content of 1.2% (paragraph 85). A C/N ratio 0≤40 ratio means that nitrogen must simply be present and not in proportions of greater than 40 times nitrogen to carbon, which by Applicant’s own admission, is not the case for sludge (Specification, page 2, lines 26-35).
Regarding claim 4, Harmon discloses separating the products of the digestion into a variety of liquid and solid products (paragraph 1138) and recycling the products to the hydrothermal gasification process (paragraph 219).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Harmon discloses temperatures of 200-500 °C (paragraph 896).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights