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 .
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty (WO 97/34679) in view of Burnham et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0137614 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Flaherty teaches a method for producing a fertilizer (e.g. pelletized product organic fertilizer ) [pg. 25, lines 8-9] from organic waste (e.g. treated sludge, wherein sludge refers to any form of biomass, biosolids, biowaste) [pg. 7, line 19 – pg. 8, line 4] comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
345
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
mixing organic waste with an oxidizing agent (e.g. adding potassium permanganate to the initial sludge slurry) [pg. 16, lines 16-17] to cause an oxidizing reaction (e.g. oxidizes compounds in the sludge) [pg. 16, line 18] that causes combustion (e.g. wherein the reaction of Flaherty’s oxidant causes a chemical reaction that produces heat) to form an oxidated waste matter;
supplementing said oxidated waste matter with a fertilizer (e.g. material recycled from the dryer unit 300 output, is dropped into the screw conveyor 200 through the recycle inlet 202) [fig. 2] [pg. 13, lines 8-10] to form a wet fertilizer mixture (e.g. 15-25% solids) [pg. 13, line 10];
drying said wet mixture to reduce a water content thereof and obtain a drier mixture (e.g. finished 75% to about 95% dry, Class A biosolids [pg. 15, lines 1-8]; and
forming said drier mixture into a desired shape (e.g. pelletize the dried particles) [pg. 17, lines 9-10], and wherein said mixing, said supplementing, said drying and said forming are all completed in 5-40 minutes (e.g. the sludge drying system is designed to accept 400 gallons per minute) pg. 11, lines 26-27], (e.g. backfeeding approximately 2 to 3 tons per hour of dry finished material) [pg. 17, lines 25-27], (e.g. six tons per hour of dry particles are discharged from the dryer unit) [pg. 16, lines 26-27], (e.g. pelletized with a three horsepower agglomerator) [pg. 17, lines 8-10], thus one of skill in the art would understand a total residence time of 5-40 minutes in each of the mixing, supplementing and drying steps, in Flaherty’s continuous processes, is achieved based on the reactor volume divided by the recited flow rates. Because the claim does not require any particular weight/volume of material to undergo the steps within the times of 5-40 minutes, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Flaherty’s process, which describes treatment in gallons/minute and tons/hour is capable of operating the mixing, supplementing and drying steps within 5-40 minutes.
Although Flaherty discloses supplementing the oxidized waste material with a recycle inlet [pg. 13, lines 8-10], the reference does not explicitly describe wherein the supplementing is with a chemical or mineral fertilizer to form an organomineral mixture. Burnham et al. is cited as teaching a method for treating biosolids that results in a high-value fertilizer [abstract]. “Dependent upon the requirements of the customer, additional plant nutrients, for example, potash or other forms of potassium, e.g., potassium hydroxide, are preferably added at the pug-mill.” [0082]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of supplementing Flaherty’s treated biosolid sludge with an organomineral fertilizer like those described by Burnham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate a composition with a nutrient profile as desired by the customer and based on the intended application.
In regard to claim 2, Flaherty discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said mixing organic waste with said oxidizing agent causes the oxidizing reaction is an accelerated chemical composting process that reduces or eliminates pathogens and odors (e.g. odors are abated by adding potassium permanganate to the initial sludge slurry. The potassium permanganate oxidizes odor-causing sulfur compounds in the sludge) [pg. 16, lines 16-18].
In regard to claim 4, Flaherty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said organic waste comprises a wet organic waste stream (e.g. 97.8% water sludge slurry) [pg. 11, line 28].
In regard to claim 5, Flaherty discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said organic waste comprises domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial or farm animal waste (e.g. domestic wastewater sewage sludge) [pgs. 1-2].
In regard to claim 6, Flaherty discloses the method according to claim 1. The reference does not explicitly disclose using the desired shape as a potting soil to grow indoor potted plants. However, this recitation of intended use adds no further limits on the claimed method. The prior art’s actions and structure achieve the claimed result and the prior art’s treated material is capable of use as a potting soil or to grow indoor potted lants. Typically no patentable distinction is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim [MPEP 2111.04].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art references do not teach wherein said mixing, said supplementing, said drying and said forming are all completed in 5-40 minutes, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Flaherty describes a sludge drying system designed to accept 400 gallons per minute [pg. 11, lines 26-27], backfeeding approximately 2 to 3 tons per hour of dry finished material [pg. 17, lines 25-27], drying at a rate of six tons per hour of dry particles discharged from the dryer unit [pg. 16, lines 26-27], with the forming process taking place in a three horsepower agglomerator. Thus one of skill in the art would understand a total residence time of 5-40 minutes in each of the mixing, supplementing, drying steps and forming steps, in Flaherty’s continuous processes, is achieved based on the reactor volume divided by the recited flow rates. Because the claim does not require any particular weight/volume of material to undergo the steps within the times of 5-40 minutes, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Flaherty’s process, which describes treatment in gallons/minute and tons/hour is capable of operating the mixing, supplementing, drying steps and forming steps within 5-40 minutes. By way of example, the backfeeding (e.g. supplementing) operation which is operated at the rate of 2 to 3 tons per hour is capable of processing 167-2,000 kg of material when operating Flaherty’s method for 5-40 minutes. Thus, the ranges disclosed by Flaherty create a presumption of obviousness. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. “Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” In re Boesch (CCPA 07/03/80). “It has long been established law that ‘where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ It is also well-established that ‘the parameter to be optimized must have been recognized by those skilled in the art to be a ‘result-effective variable.’’ But more recently, we clarified that in cases with multiple result-effective variables, ‘[e]vidence that the variables interacted in an unpredictable or unexpected way could render the combination nonobvious.’” Moderna (Fed. Cir. 12/01/21) (aff’g PTAB non-obviousness); Teva Pharm. (Fed. Cir. 12/07/21).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm EST.
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 R 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.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 December 11, 2025
Prosecution Insights