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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-3, 5-7, 11, and 14-23
Withdrawn Claims: 24
Cancelled Claims: 4, 8-10, 12-13, and 25-27
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1 and 7 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to the specification, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to account for the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 FEBRUARY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Maobing Chen does not teach that the sludge streams in the first and second dryers are not at the operational pressures of 2 to 8 bar absolute for the first dryer and atmosphere for the second dryer as required by claim 1 because Maobing Chen only describes the steam side pressures of the dryers and then describes operating under a vacuum to pull the steam through the entire system which is a teaching to keep the first dryer at around atmospheric pressure and to decrease the operational pressure of the second dryer below atmospheric pressure. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable. (Arguments filed 06 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 11 to Page 12, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, prior to the amendment, the pressure was not specified as being on the sludge side of the dryer. Therefore, Doetsch is now used to teach the pressure differences between sequenced dryers. Doetsch teaches a specific example of operating a first drying stage at overpressure and a second dryer under atmospheric conditions (Paragraph 0048, Machine Translation). While Doetsch does not explicitly teach the operational pressure of 2 to 8 bar absolute for the first dryer, 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Doetsch further teaches that carrying out the evaporation at the highest possible pressure differences between the first and second drying stages for the purpose of being a particularly economical use of waste heat (Paragraphs 0021 and 0028, Machine Translation), and so it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to adjust pressure of the first dryer to be within the range of the instant application for the purpose of optimizing the reuse of waste heat within the system, and so claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that Maobing Chen does not teach a reason to have an operational pressure difference between the first and second dryers as claimed, and so the advantages taught in the instant specification make claim 1 allowable (Arguments filed 06 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 12, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Doetsch is used to teach the operational differences in dryers and teaches that carrying out the evaporation at the highest possible pressure differences between the first and second drying stages for the purpose of being a particularly economical use of waste heat (Paragraphs 0021 and 0028, Machine Translation). Therefore, Doetsch different advantages of operating the dryers at differing pressures and would result in the same advantages as the instant claimed invention and so claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that the arrangement of Maobing Chen is fundamentally different from the instant claimed invention because it mixes end product output from the second dryer with sludge prior to the first dryer and the instant claim 1 describes mixing the end product with the intermediate dry sludge that is output from the first dryer. As Maobing Chen teaches away from the claimed invention, it would not be obvious to combine Doetsch with Maobing Chen to arrive at the instant claimed invention and so claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 06 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 12, Paragraph 3 to Page 13).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Maobing Chen teaches a mixing of end product material with incoming sludge such that a viscous zone can be avoided in the first dryer. Doetsch teaches that sometimes it may be necessary to mix the end product sludge with the intermediate sludge in order to feed the second dryer. Neither of these sources teach that the other mixing location is undesirable, and therefore neither reference teaches away from the other reference or away from the instant claimed invention. With the comprising language of the claim, one of ordinary skill in the art could still recycle end product sludge with both the inlet and intermediate product sludge. Therefore, claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that claims 2-3, 5-7, 11, and 14-23 are allowable because claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 06 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 13, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 2-3, 5-7, 11, and 14-23 are also not allowable.
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, 7, 14-15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maobing Chen et al (Chinese Patent No. CN 208234746 U) hereinafter Maobing Chen in view of Pei et al (Chinese Patent No. CN 109912173 A) hereinafter Pei in view of Doetsch (German Patent No. DE 4205619 A1) hereinafter Doetsch.
Regarding Claim 1, Maobing Chen teaches a double-effect sludge indirect drying system (i.e., a sludge drying system; Paragraph 0002)
with a wet sludge conveyor discharge connected to the feed port (i.e., a system input for receiving a wet sludge stream, wherein the wet sludge stream comprises water and solid material)
of a primary disc dryer (i.e., a first dryer arranged to receive, at an input of the first dryer, the wet sludge stream and to heat the wet sludge stream such that at least part of the water in the wet sludge stream is evaporated to thereby generate evaporate and a partially dry sludge stream; Fig. 1, #3) which has a discharge port that is provided a primary dry sludge conveyor (i.e., a second output for outputting the partially dry sludge stream; Fig. 1, #4; Paragraph 0010, Machine Translation)
which is connected to the feed port of the secondary disc dryer (i.e., a second dryer that is arranged to receive, at a first input of the second dryer, a stream that is dependent on the partially dry sludge stream output from the first dryer; Fig. 1, #5), the secondary disc dryer has a discharge port provided with a secondary dry sludge conveyor (i.e., to thereby generate and output a substantially dry sludge stream; a system output for outputting at least part of the substantially dry sludge stream from the system; Fig. 1, #6; Paragraph 0012, Machine Translation), and the disc dryer achieves evaporation of water in the sludge through indirect heat exchange (i.e., the first dryer is an indirectly heated rotating disc dryer; a second dryer that is an indirectly heated rotating disc dryer; Paragraph 0006 Machine Translation).
Maobing Chen further teaches that the steam inlet of the secondary disc dryer is connected to the waste steam outlet of the primary disc dryer (i.e., a first output for outputting evaporate; and to receive, at a second input of the second dryer, the evaporate from the first dryer, wherein the second dryer is arranged to use to the received evaporate to indirectly heat the received stream at the first input; Paragraph 0011, Machine Translation)
and that a dust collector is provided at the waste steam outlet of the secondary disc dryer (Paragraph 0015, Machine Translation) in the form of a cyclone dust collector (i.e., a cleaning apparatus to clean the evaporate; Fig. 1, #9) for the purpose of removing high amounts of dust, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide among other corrosive gases (Paragraph 0032, Machine Translation).
Maobing Chen further teaches the adoption of an exhaust fan (Fig. 1, #11) at the end to form a two-stage series connection of disc dryers under a slight negative pressure (i.e., a first dryer configured to operate at a first operational pressure and to heat the wet sludge stream that is at the first operational pressure when heated and a second dryer configured to operate at a second operational pressure and to indirectly heat the stream that is at the second operational pressure when heated; Paragraph 0018, Machine Translation).
Maobing Chen does not teach a cleaning apparatus arranged in a fluid flow path between the first output of the first dryer and the second input of the second dryer to clean the evaporate.
However, Pei teaches a dust removal device (Fig. 1, #5) connected to the evaporated water outlet of a dryer (Fig. 1, #1; Paragraph 0021, Machine Translation) for dedusting the water vapor produced from heating the wet sludge, where the water vapor is then used for heating the mechanical vapor recompression evaporator (Fig. 1, #3; Paragraph 0023, Machine Translation). While Pei does not teach two dryers, Pei does teach the use of a dust removal device before the reuse of the sludge evaporate in a second heat exchanger for thermal drying efficiency improvements.
Pei is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a sludge treatment method (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the double-effect sludge indirect drying system as taught by Maobing Chen with the dust removal device located prior to utilizing the wet vapor produced from the drying sludge in another heat exchanger as taught by Pei because the dedusting between dryers would remove high amounts of dust, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide among other corrosive gases prior to their entrance into the second dryer.
Maobing Chen in view of Pei does not teach wherein the second operational pressure is substantially at atmospheric pressure and wherein the stream that is indirectly heated in the second dryer comprises a mixture of sludge from the substantially dry sludge stream that is output from the second dryer and a separate stream of sludge from the partially dry sludge stream that is output from the first dryer.
However, Doetsch teaches that the contact dryer (Fig. 3, #1) operates under overpressure and the convection dryer (Fig. 3, #11) operates under atmospheric conditions (i.e., wherein the second dryer is operated substantially at atmospheric pressure and the first dryer is operated at a higher pressure than atmospheric pressure; Paragraph 0048, Machine Translation) and that carrying out the evaporation at the highest possible pressure differences between the first and second drying stages for the purpose of being a particularly economical use of waste heat (Paragraphs 0021 and 0028, Machine Translation).
Doetsch further teaches a product mixer (Fig. 3, #9) where the end products from the convection dryer (Fig. 3, #11) are mixed with the products from the contact dryer (i.e., wherein the stream that is indirectly heated in the second dryer comprises a mixture of sludge from the substantially dry sludge stream that is output from the second dryer and a separate stream of sludge from the partially dry sludge stream that is output from the first dryer; Fig. 3, #1; Paragraph 0054, Machine Translation) because it may be necessary to mix the end products of the second drying stage with the products of the first drying stage in order to feed them to the second drying stage (Paragraph 0026, Machine Translation).
Doetsch is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to reducing the liquid content of mixtures of solids and liquids (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the operation of the double-effect sludge indirect drying system made obvious by Maobing Chen in view of Pei to have the highest possible pressure differences between the two stages as taught by Doetsch because the pressure difference would make the process more economical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to change the location of the mixer from prior to the first dryer made obvious by Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch to between the dryers as taught by Doetsch because sometimes it is necessary to mix the end product with the product of the first dryer in order to feed the second dryer.
Furthermore, Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch does not explicitly teach wherein the first operational pressure is between 2 to 8 bar absolute, although Doetsch teaches that the contact dryer (i.e., the first dryer; Fig. 3, #1) operates under overpressure (Paragraph 0048, Machine Translation) and that carrying out the evaporation at the highest possible pressure differences between the first and second drying stages for the purpose of being a particularly economical use of waste heat (Paragraphs 0021 and 0028, Machine Translation). 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))(See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to adjust pressure of the first dryer to be within the range of the instant application for the purpose of optimizing the reuse of waste heat within the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Maobing Chen further teaches that saturated steam is used as a drying heat source for the first-level disc dryer (i.e., wherein the first dryer is a steam -heated dryer; Paragraph 0030, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 7, Maobing Chen further teaches that a portion of dry sludge may be returned to mix with the wet sludge to avoid the moisture content range of sludge that would make the sludge viscous during drying (Paragraph 0019, Machine Translation) by mixing an amount of dry sludge with a moisture content of 30% (Paragraph 0031, Machine Translation) with a wet sludge with a moisture content of 80% (Paragraph 0030, Machine Translation), so that the moisture content is reduced to 40% (i.e., wherein the sludge is mixed with the sludge from the partially dry sludge stream in a ratio that is between 1:1 to 10: 1, and preferably between 3:1 to 5:1; Paragraph 0031, Machine Translation).
Doetsch further teaches a product mixer (i.e., wherein the system further comprises a mixer; Fig. 3, #9) where the end products from the convection dryer (Fig. 3, #11) are mixed with the products from the contact dryer (i.e., wherein the sludge from the substantially dry sludge stream is mixed with the sludge from the partially dry sludge stream; wherein the second dryer further comprises a third input arranged to receive at least part of the substantially dry sludge stream output from the second dryer; arranged in a fluid flow path between the first dryer and the second dryer, wherein the mixer is configured to: receive at least part of the partially dry sludge stream output from the first dryer; receive at least part of the substantially dry sludge stream output from the second dryer; mix the received partially dry sludge stream and substantially dry sludge stream; and to output the mixed streams to the second dryer; Fig. 3, #1; Paragraph 0054, Machine Translation).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the sludge from the substantially dry sludge stream is mixed with the sludge from the partially dry sludge stream in a ratio that is between 1:1 to 10: 1, and preferably between 3:1 to 5:1” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 14, Doetsch further teaches that the contact dryer (Fig. 3, #1) can operate under atmospheric conditions and that there is preferably a pressure difference between the first drying stage and the second drying stage (i.e., wherein the first dryer is operated at atmospheric pressure and the second dryer is operated at a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure; Paragraph 0028, Machine Translation; Fig. 3, #11) and that carrying out the evaporation at the highest possible pressure differences between the first and second drying stages for the purpose of being a particularly economical use of waste heat (Paragraphs 0021 and 0028, Machine Translation).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the first dryer is operated at atmospheric pressure and the second dryer is operated at a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 15, Maobing Chen further teaches saturated steam at a pressure of 6-8 bar for heating the first dryer and waste steam for heating the second dryer with no mention of a compression step, meaning that the first dryer will necessarily be at a higher temperature than the second dryer (i.e., wherein the operational temperature within the first dryer and the operational temperature within the second dryer are different; Paragraph 0030, Machine Translation).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the operational temperature within the first dryer and the operational temperature within the second dryer are different” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 18, Maobing Chen further teaches saturated steam at a pressure of 6-8 bar for heating the first dryer, where steam at those pressures has a temperature range of 165 °C – 175 °C (i.e., the first dryer is configured such that the operational temperature within the first dryer is between about 100 and about 150 degrees Celsius; and/or the second dryer is configured such that the operational temperature within the second dryer is between about 50 and about 100 degrees Celsius; Paragraph 0030, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 19, Doetsch further teaches that the contact dryer (Fig. 3, #1) can operate under atmospheric conditions (i.e., 1.01325 bar absolute) and that there is preferably a pressure difference between the first drying stage and the second drying stage (i.e., wherein the first dryer is configured such that the operational absolute pressure within the first dryer is between about 2 and about 5 bar; Paragraph 0028, Machine Translation; Fig. 3, #11) and that carrying out the evaporation at the highest possible pressure differences between the first and second drying stages for the purpose of being a particularly economical use of waste heat (Paragraphs 0021 and 0028, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 20, Maobing Chen further teaches adopting an exhaust fan at the end to form a two-stage series connection of disc dryers under a slight negative pressure (i.e., wherein the second dryer is configured such that the operational absolute pressure within the second dryer is between about 0.1 and about 1 bar; Paragraph 0018, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 21, Maobing Chen further teaches saturated steam at a pressure of 6-8 bar for heating the first dryer, where steam at those pressures has a temperature range of 165 °C – 175 °C (i.e., wherein the first dryer is configured such that hydrolysis of the sludge within the first dryer is promoted by the operational temperature and/or pressure within the first dryer; Paragraph 0030, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 22, Maobing Chen further teaches saturated steam at a pressure of 6-8 bar for heating the first dryer, where steam at those pressures has a temperature range of 165 °C – 175 °C (i.e., wherein the first dryer and/or the second dryer are configured such that the sludge is sterilised by the operational temperatures and/or pressures; Paragraph 0030, Machine Translation).
Furthermore, the limitation “configured such that the sludge is sterilised by the operational temperatures and/or pressures” is directed toward an expected result from the practice or use of the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04).
Regarding Claim 23, Maobing Chen further teaches that the steam inlet of the secondary disc dryer is connected to the waste steam outlet of the primary disc dryer (i.e., received by the second dryer; Paragraph 0011, Machine Translation). Pei further teaches recovering and utilizing the latent heat of water vapor generated during the sludge thermal drying process through mechanical vapor recompression (i.e., wherein the evaporate from the first dryer is further heated by a mechanical vapour recompression technique; Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation), where mechanical vapor recompression provides a highly efficient evaporation energy-saving method (Paragraph 0006, Machine Translation).
Furthermore, the limitation “is further heated by a mechanical vapour recompression technique” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janicki (US Patent No. 20160138433 A1) hereinafter Janicki.
Regarding Claim 3, Maobing Chen further teaches that saturated steam is used as a drying heat source for the first-level disc dryer (i.e., wherein the first dryer is a steam -heated dryer; the first dryer further comprises a steam input for receiving steam from the heating system; Paragraph 0030, Machine Translation).
Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch does not teach the system further comprises a heating system for generating steam for the indirect heating in the first dryer; and the first dryer further comprises: a third output for condensate that is generated by the received steam condensing in the first dryer; wherein the system comprises a flow path between the first dryer and the heating system that is arranged to return the condensate from the third output of the first dryer to the heating system.
However, Janicki teaches a sludge dryer assembly (Fig. 1, #14) which uses primary steam exhausted from power plant (Fig. 1, #22), which includes a steam engine (Fig. 1, #26), as a heat source (i.e., for generating steam for the indirect heating in the first dryer; Paragraph 0042) before the primary steam condenses and is collected in a radiator (i.e., the first dryer further comprises: a third output for condensate that is generated by the received steam condensing in the first dryer; Fig. 1, #190; Paragraph 0069) and is pumped back to a boiler (i.e., a heating system; Fig. 1, #20) which pressurizes water and generates steam for use in the power plant (i.e., wherein the system comprises a flow path between the first dryer and the heating system that is arranged to return the condensate from the third output of the first dryer to the heating system; Paragraph 0042). Janicki further teaches that the benefit of the power plant is to generate inexpensive electricity while treating the sludge (Paragraphs 0002-0003).
Janicki is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to treating organic high water-content waste (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the double-effect sludge indirect drying system made obvious by Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch with the steam loop taught by Janicki because the steam loop would generate inexpensive electricity while treating the sludge.
Claims 5, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nilsen et al (US Patent No. 20170314046 A1) hereinafter Nilsen.
Regarding Claim 5, Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch does not teach wherein the cleaning apparatus is a scrubber such as a wet scrubber.
However, Nilsen teaches that gases generated from high pressure reactors (Fig. 1, (d.)) and flash steam from a flash tank (Fig. 1, (j.)) are led to a condenser consisting of a quench tower (i.e., wherein the cleaning apparatus is a scrubber such as a wet scrubber; Fig. 1, (g.)) where the circulating liquid may be discharged for further processing for recovery of chemicals (Fig. 1, (p.); Paragraph 0131).
Nilsen in analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to municipal and industrial sludge treatment (Paragraphs 0001-0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the hydrocyclone made obvious by Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch to be a scrubber as taught by Nilsen because the condenser with a quench tower would allow for recovery of chemicals from the circulating liquid in the quench tower.
Regarding Claim 6, Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch does not teach wherein the cleaning apparatus comprises: a first input for evaporate; a first output for evaporate; a second output for condensate that has been generated by the evaporate received by the cleaning apparatus condensing in the cleaning apparatus; and a second input for receiving at least part of the condensate output from the second output of the cleaning apparatus; wherein the cleaning apparatus is arranged such that, within the cleaning apparatus, evaporate received at the first input is washed with the condensate received at the second input.
However, Nilsen teaches that gases generated from high pressure reactors (Fig. 1, (d.)) and flash steam from a flash tank (Fig. 1, (j.)) are led to a condenser consisting of a quench tower (i.e., a first input for evaporate; Fig. 1, (g.)) with a circulation pump (i.e., a second output for condensate that has been generated by the evaporate received by the cleaning apparatus condensing in the cleaning apparatus; a second input for receiving at least part of the condensate output from the second output of the cleaning apparatus; wherein the cleaning apparatus is arranged such that, within the cleaning apparatus, evaporate received at the first input is washed with the condensate received at the second input; Fig. 1, (k.)) and a discharge for non-condensable gases (i.e., a first output for evaporate; Fig. 1, (m.)) where the circulating liquid may be discharged for further processing for recovery of chemicals (Fig. 1, (p.); Paragraph 0131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the hydrocyclone made obvious by Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch to be a scrubber as taught by Nilsen because the condenser with a quench tower would allow for recovery of chemicals from the circulating liquid in the quench tower.
Regarding Claim 16, Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch does not teach wherein the pressure difference between the first and second dryers is arranged such that, in a fluid flow path between the second output of the first dryer and the first input of the second dryer, the partially dry sludge stream flash evaporates.
However, Nilsen teaches that the high pressure reactors (Fig. 1, (d.)) achieve beneficial hydrolysis of biomass and then discharge the material through a firmly supported discharge pipe (Fig. 1, (i.)) into a flash tank (Fig. 1, (j.)) in which the pressure drops and condensed steam flashes off and is separated from the material (Paragraph 0131) for the purpose of disintegrating and splitting up of the biomass to make a following fermentation step more effective (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the operation of the double-effect sludge indirect drying system made obvious by Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch with a flash evaporation in the second dryer as taught by Nilsen because the flash evaporation step would disintegrate and split up the biomass to make a following fermentation step more effective.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the pressure difference between the first and second dryers is arranged such that, in a fluid flow path between the second output of the first dryer and the first input of the second dryer, the partially dry sludge stream flash evaporates” is directed toward a manner or method by which the invention is used and is not subject to patentability. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sievers (US Patent No. 20170275195 A1) hereinafter Sievers.
Regarding Claim 11, Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch does not teach a pre-heater arranged in a fluid flow path between the system input and the input of the first dryer for a wet sludge stream; wherein the pre-heater is arranged to use at least some of the evaporate from the first output of the first dryer to indirectly heat the wet sludge stream.
However, Sievers teaches a method for treating sewage sludge in which an organic material is initially preheated to 100 °C by means of indirect heat exchangers (i.e., a pre-heater) prior to entering the hydrolysis reactor (i.e., a fluid flow path between the system input and the input of the first dryer for a wet sludge stream) and that steam from the pressure relief tank from the hydrolysis reactor can be returned to the heat exchanger (i.e., wherein the pre-heater is arranged to use at least some of the evaporate from the first output of the first dryer to indirectly heat the wet sludge stream) for the purpose of reducing the heat requirement or the steam requirement (Paragraph 0019).
Sievers is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a method of thermal hydrolysis treatment for sewage sludge (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the inlet of the double-effect sludge indirect drying system made obvious by Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch to have a preheater as taught by Sievers because the preheater would reduce the heat requirement of the system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solheim (European Patent No. EP 1198424 B1) hereinafter Solheim.
Regarding Claim 17, Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch does not teach wherein the first input of the second dryer is arranged such that the partially dry sludge stream is sprayed into the second dryer.
However, Solheim teaches flowing organic sludge through a nozzle (i.e., sprayed; Fig. 1, #9) in a depressurizing tank (i.e., the second dryer; Fig. 1, #10) after the organic sludge has undergone hydrolysis in a first reactor (Fig. 1, #7) for the purpose of accomplishing a steam explosion to effectively break up the cells in the sludge for easier processing in a secondary anaerobic process (i.e., wherein the first input of the second dryer is arranged such that the partially dry sludge stream is sprayed into the second dryer; Paragraphs 0023-0028).
Solheim is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a method and arrangement for the continuous hydrolysis of sludge by heat and pressure (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the inlet of the second dryer made obvious by Maobing Chen in view of Pei in view of Doetsch with the nozzle as taught by Solheim because the nozzle would cause a steam explosion and would effectively break up the cells in the sludge for easier secondary processing in a secondary anaerobic process.
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777