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
The amendment filed on 07/09/2025 has been entered. As directed by the amendment Claims 1 – 2, 7, 9 and 14 are amended. Claims 3 and 8 are cancelled. Thus, claims 1 – 2, 4 – 7 and 9 – 14 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Non-Final Rejection on 04/09/2025 have been fully considered (please see “Response to Arguments” section) and the following Final Rejection is made herein.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emery (US 6133500 A), hereinafter “Emery”, in view of Triglia, JR (US 20160258680 A1) and hereinafter “Triglia”.
Regarding claim 1, Emery discloses an apparatus for treating residuals from a water treatment plant (an apparatus for reduction of organic material, FIG.2, “Note the apparatus being for treating “residuals from a water treatment plant” is intended use and is not patentably distinguishing. MPEP 2111.02.11.) comprising:
a processing vessel (processing chamber 40, FIG.2) configured to store plant residuals from a water treatment plant (processing chamber 40 stores organic material 48, 7:04 – 05 and see FIG.2); and
a microwave radiation source (microwave generating source 30, FIG.2) configured to dry the plant residuals in the processing vessel by heating using microwave radiation (microwave radiation from the generating source 30 dry the organic material 48 in the processing chamber 40, 6:66 – 7:05 and see FIG.2)).
Emery does not explicitly teach that the processing vessel is open to the atmosphere to avoid dangers associated with over-pressurization when heated.
However, Triglia that is related to the removal of moisture from fibrous or porous materials
using the delivery of microwave radiation (0002), also teaches the processing vessel is open to the atmosphere to avoid dangers associated with over-pressurization when heated (the tunnel between the conveyor belt 12 and the enclosure 14 holding the fibrous material is open to atmosphere for circulating air, (0060 and, please see FIGS.1 – 5). Thus, avoids over-pressurization when heated)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the processing chamber of Emery to be open to the atmosphere in order to let the vaporization during the heating and drying process escape instead of being trapped in the chamber, facilitating the drying process.
Regarding claim 2, Emery in view of Triglia teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing vessel comprises ceramic or refractive materials (the processing chamber 40 is covered by ceramic plate 44, Emery (6: 41-44 and see FIG.2)).
Regarding claim 4, Emery in view of Triglia teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing vessel is configured to operate in a batch mode operation (the process of reduction of the organic material in the chamber can be carried out on a batch basis, Emery (3: 40 – 41)).
Regarding claim 5, Emery in view of Triglia teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the microwave radiation source is a magnetron (microwave generating apparatus 30 comprising a magnetron 32, 6:36 – 37 and see FIG.2).
Regarding claim 6, Emery discloses the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the magnetron is configured to produce microwave radiation having a wave length between 5 centimeters and 40 centimeters (magnetron 32 may have 1.5 kilowatts power output and a wavelength produced at frequency of 2450 MHz, (7:33 – 36) and ordinary skill in the art knows microwave of 2450 MHz has a wavelength λ= 12.24 cm).
Regarding claim 14, Emery discloses an apparatus for treating residuals from a water treatment plant (an apparatus for reduction of organic material, see FIG.2) comprising:
a processing vessel configured to store plant residuals from a water treatment plant (processing chamber 40 stores organic material 48, 7:04 – 05 and see FIG.2); and
a microwave radiation source configured to dry and treat the plant residuals in the processing vessel by irradiating the plant residuals using microwave radiation from the microwave source (microwave radiation source 30 to heat and dry the organic material 48 in the processing chamber 40 by evenly irradiating microwave radiation onto the organic material 48, 6:66 – 7 :05 and see FIG.2)), at a power output between 0.1 and 100 kW at 500 MHz to 2500 MHz frequencies to control a temperature in the processing vessel to be between 90°C and 125°C (the magnetron 32 is capable of operating 1.5 kilowatts power output and a wavelength produced at frequency of 2450 MHz, wherein controller 54 regulates the temperature in the chamber 40 using sensor 50 as required, operating temperature may vary from magnetron switch of temperature of about 70°C to a maximum temperature of 350 °C (7:33 – 40)),
wherein the processing vessel is formed of ceramic materials (the processing chamber 40 is covered by ceramic plate 44, (6:41 – 44 and see FIG.2)).
Emery does not explicitly teach that the processing vessel is open to the atmosphere to avoid dangers associated with over-pressurization when heated.
However, Triglia that is related to the removal of moisture from fibrous or porous materials
using the delivery of microwave radiation (0002), also teaches the processing vessel is open to the atmosphere to avoid dangers associated with over-pressurization when heated (the tunnel between the conveyor belt 12 and the enclosure 14 holding the fibrous material is open to atmosphere for circulating air, (0060 and, please see FIGS.1 – 5). Thus, avoids over-pressurization when heated)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the processing chamber of Emery to be open to the atmosphere in order to let the vaporization during the heating and drying process escape instead of being trapped in the chamber, facilitating the drying process
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Emery.
Regarding claim 7, Emery discloses an apparatus for treating residuals from a water treatment plant (an apparatus for reduction of organic material, see FIG.2) comprising:
a processing vessel configured to store plant residuals from a water treatment plant (processing chamber 40 stores organic material 48, 7:04 - 05 and see FIG.2); and
a microwave radiation source configured to dry and treat the plant residuals in the processing vessel by irradiating the plant residuals using microwave radiation from the microwave source (microwave radiation source 30 to heat and dry the organic material 48 in the processing chamber 40 by evenly irradiating microwave radiation onto the organic material 48, 6:66 – 7:05 and see FIG.2)), at a power output between 0.1 and 100 kW at 500 MHz to 2500 MHz frequencies to control a temperature in the processing vessel to be between 90°C and 125°C (the magnetron 32 is capable of operating 1.5 kilowatts power output and a wavelength produced at frequency of 2450 MHz, wherein controller 54 regulates the temperature in the chamber 40 using sensor 50 as required, operating temperature may vary from magnetron switch of temperature of about 70°C to a maximum temperature of 350 °C (7:33 – 40)), wherein the processing vessel comprises ceramic or refractive materials that reflect radiation (the processing chamber 40 is covered by ceramic plate 44, (6:41 – 44 and see FIG.2)).
Regarding claim 9, Emery discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the microwave source is a magnetron, and the magnetron powered is powered between 0.1 and 50 kW (magnetron 32 may have 1.5 kilowatts power output, (7:33 – 36)).
Regarding claim 10, Emery discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the microwave radiation has a wavelength between 5 centimeters and 40 centimeters (magnetron 32 may have 1.5 kilowatts power output and a wavelength produced at frequency of 2450 MHz, (7:33 — 36) and ordinary skill in the art knows microwave of 2450 MHz has a wavelength λ = 12.24 cm).
Claim(s) 11 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emery.
Regarding claims 11 – 13 , Emery discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the microwave radiation source is configured to irradiate the plant residuals in five minute intervals (the microwave radiation source 30 is configured to irradiate the material 48, regulated by a controller 54 wherein feedback signal is relayed through sensors 50 to turn on the magnetron to a predetermined period of dwell time wherein the magnetron 32 is providing irradiation and down time wherein the magnetron is turned off, Emery (7:05 – 11)).
Emery does not explicitly teach the dwell time is in five minute intervals and the reduction is until the plant residuals are dried to at least an 80% moisture reduction percentage (claim 11), until the plant residuals are dried to at least 80% volume reduction (claim 12) and until the plant residuals are dried to at least 80% weight reduction (claim 13).
However, these are result effective variables of the reduction process Emery’s reduction apparatus of organic material is capable of carrying out by setting the parameters of the controller (dwell time, irradiation power, frequency) to provide the required outcome.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set the controller of Emery to operate the magnetron in five minute intervals to affect a reduction of the organic material to be until the plant residuals are dried to at least an 80% moisture reduction percentage (claim 11), until the plant residuals are dried to at least 80% volume reduction (claim 12) and until the plant residuals are dried to at least 80% weight reduction (claim 13) as such results are simply and routinely achieved/affected by ordinary skill in the art by optimizing the operating conditions or controller parameters of Emery, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges or percentages by routine experimentation, MPEP2144.05.I1A.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to claim 9 and the indefiniteness rejection of claims 2, 7 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
The amendments to the claims is sufficient to overcome the objections and the rejection. As such, the objections and the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the anticipatory rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Emery and the obviousness rejection of the claims by Emery in view of Triglia.
Applicant cancelled claims 3 and 8 and incorporated the limitations of these claims into independent claims 1 and 14. Thus, claims 1 and 14 are now rejected as being obvious by Emery in view of Triglia.
Applicant argues that Emery does not teach the amendment to claims 1 and 14. Applicant argues that Emery teaches away from the amendment, as Emery requires that the microwave radiation drying must be carried out in a sealed environment and the amendment explicitly recites open air microwave radiation and combination of Emery with Triglia is not proper as one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to combine the sealed drying chamber of Emery with the open air system of Triglia.
This argument is found not to be persuasive because an alternative embodiment or example does not constitute teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, MPEP 2123. II. Here, as indicated in the rejection both Emery and Triglia are directed to drying a material by a microwave radiation wherein Emery happens to teach or exemplify the material to be dried is in a closed enclosure and Triglia exemplifies the material is conveyed through an open air conveyor. There is no explicit teaching in the Emery reference that explicitly discusses open air microwave drying is prohibited or impossible. Instead, it simply shows a drying apparatus that stores the material to be dried in a sealed container or chamber. This does not constitute “teaching away” from the open air conveyor of Triglia. One of ordinary skill in the art of microwave drying a material can reasonably consider both “open air” as well as “sealed” microwave drying of materials depending on the application. For example, applicant’s own disclosure discusses and explores both open air drying in an open air processing vessel 130, 330 (see applicant’s FIG.1 and FIG.3), as well as, closed environment drying in a closed processing vessel 230 (see applicant’s FIG.2). Such alternative options are within the ordinary skill in the art to select between, for example when a designer wants a simpler system without pressurization for drying.
Applicant also argues that the obviousness of claims 11 – 13 over Emery is not proper as Emery lacks controlling the temperature in the processing vessel to be between 900C and 1250C. Thus, it is not likely that routine experimentation would have resulted in the claimed temperature range.
This argument is also found not to be persuasive. As indicated in the rejection, Emery discloses a controller that regulates the temperature of the microwave radiation chamber based on a sensor and limits the temperature range and duration of radiation time accordingly and examples of maximum temperatures of about 350° C and a magnetron switch-off temperature of about 70° C is recited in Emery that correspond to the claimed temperature range. Thus, Emery teaches controlling the temperature in the processing vessel to be between 900C and 1250C.
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 DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761