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 1-3, 6, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginsburg (US20100105127A1) in view of Simpson (US20210277430A1), Campo (US20190293284A1), and Pervaiz (“Protein Extraction from Secondary Sludge of Paper Mill Wastewater and Its Utilization as a Wood Adhesive”, bioresources.com, Pages 961-970).
In regards to claim 1, Ginsburg teaches segregating waste into different portions for different waste streams such as recyclables, non-recyclables, or other waste streams as needed for different downstream processes (Para. 0017, “According to one aspect, a method includes receiving wastes, which can include, but is not limited to, MSW, industrial wastes, recyclable materials, plastics, textiles, ferrous metals, non-ferrous metals, organic materials, electronics, industrial waste, bio-hazardous materials, medical materials, hospital wastes, municipal waste water, municipal storm water, residential wastes, commercial wastes, wood residues, animal wastes, and food processing wastes. The wastes can be separated into different portions for different downstream processes”; Para. 0018, “According to an aspect, the wastes include recyclable and non-recyclable materials. The recyclable materials can be separated from the non-recyclable materials. Subsequently, the recyclable materials can be appropriately transported for recycling”). This teaching is considered to meet the claim limitation of having three types of waste as the three different feedstocks (combustible, complex organic, and bioconvertible), since Ginsburg teaches that wastes such as wood residues, plastic, food processing waste, and municipal waste water, can be segregated as appropriate and sent to a needed downstream process for a product as desired (Para. 0017, “According to one aspect, a method includes receiving wastes, which can include, but is not limited to, MSW, industrial wastes, recyclable materials, plastics, textiles, ferrous metals, non-ferrous metals, organic materials, electronics, industrial waste, bio-hazardous materials, medical materials, hospital wastes, municipal waste water, municipal storm water, residential wastes, commercial wastes, wood residues, animal wastes, and food processing wastes. The wastes can be separated into different portions for different downstream processes”).
A suitable gasification process can be applied to the recyclable materials for producing a synthesis gas”; Para. 0047, “At step 14, recyclable materials in the wastes can be separated from the non-recyclable materials. At least a portion of the recyclable materials may be loaded onto transport equipment, such as trucks, for transporting to another site for recycling as known to those of skill in the art. Alternatively or in combination with transporting some of the recyclable materials to other sites, gasification can be applied in a gasification system to a portion of the recyclable materials or other wastes for producing a synthesis gas (step 16)”) and gasification to produce syngas (Para. 0048, “Gasification produces a synthesis gas (syngas), also known as ‘producer gas,’ comprised predominantly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide”). This teaching is considered to meet the claim limitation requiring gasifying a combustible feedstock in order to produce syngas.
Ginsburg is silent to a method of fermenting syngas to produce carboxylic acids, as the fermentation method taught in Ginsburg is used to produce ethanol. Simpson teaches a method of fermenting syngas to create acetic acid, which is a carboxylic acid, and acetate (Para. 0011, “One embodiment of the disclosure is directed to a method for producing at least one lipid product from CO2 and H2, the method comprising: receiving at least CO2 and H2 in a first bioreactor containing a culture of at least one first microorganism in a first liquid nutrient medium, and fermenting the gaseous substrate to produce acetate product in a first fermentation broth”)
and then biotreating the acids with microalgae to produce lipids (Para. 0035,” In the second stage of the process, the at least one acid from the first stage is introduced to a second bioreactor containing a culture of at least a second microorganism. The second microorganism may be at least one microalgae. The at least one acid is aerobically converted by the second microorganism to produce one or more lipid products”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the process of Simpson in order to use the segregated waste to form lipid products.
Ginsburg and Simpson are both silent in teaching a thermal processing method. Campo teaches a method where pyrolysis can be performed to a variety of feedstock to produce gases/ oils and biochar (Para. 0004, “Generally, a reactor for processing an organic feedstock (e.g., biomass) is configured to convert the feedstock into a variety of products, such as gas, liquid, and solid products via pyrolysis or other reactions”; Para. 0005, “Various patents exist on biomass reactors to produce gases, oils and biochar via pyrolysis”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to follow the process of Campo to use a pyrolysis process on the relevant feedstock in order to produce biochar.
Simpson, Ginsburg, and Campo do not teach or suggest that an adhesive is produced from waste activated sludge. Pervaiz teaches a waste activated sludge undergoing an alkali treatment to recover proteins for wood adhesion (Page 963, “The chemical method of alkali treatment (Hwang 2008) was used to disintegrate the sludge and release the intracellular materials into aqueous phase, as shown in the schematic of Fig. 1. The pH of SS was raised to 12 by adding 1.0M NaOH while constantly stirring the sludge. The disrupted floc mass containing mostly soluble protein was separated as supernatant solution by centrifugation of disintegrated sludge at 7000 rpm for 30 minutes at 4 o C. The soluble protein was precipitated out by lowering the pH of supernatant with 2.0 M H2SO4. Four different pH levels, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 5.5, were investigated to optimize the protein recovery yield. Finally these precipitates were centrifuged at 7000 rpm for 30 minutes at 4 o C to obtain the recovered sludge protein (RSP) in the pellet form. Part of the wet RSP was used as such for wood adhesion tests, while the rest was dried at 60 o C for 48hrs for physical and biochemical analysis”). The waste activated sludge of Simpson can be substituted into the method taught by Pervaiz to undergo an alkali treatment for protein recovery to become a wood adhesive.
In regards to claim 2, Ginsburg and Simpson are silent about a feedstock being torrefied into biocoal, biochar, biooil, or carbon black.
Campo teaches that biochar can be formed from a solid product stream after torrefaction (Para. 0033, “The solid product stream may be pyrolyzed until it becomes biochar, at which point it may be activated and subsequently quenched via cooling”; Fig. 1, Table 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take an appropriate waste stream from the teachings of Ginsburg and torrefy the product stream to produce a product of biochar.
In regards to claim 3, Ginsburg and Simpson are silent about a feedstock being thermally converted into biocoal, biochar, biooil, or carbon black.
Campo teaches that biochar can be from thermally converted from a solid waste stream (Para. 0033, “The solid product stream may be pyrolyzed until it becomes biochar, at which point it may be activated and subsequently quenched via cooling”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take an appropriate waste stream from the teachings of Ginsburg and thermally convert the product stream a product of biochar.
In regards to claim 6, Ginsburg and Campo are silent about a biotreating step of aerobic microbes to create biooil and lipids.
Simpson teaches biotreating steps involving extracting lipids from aerobic microbes to create lipids (Para. 0035, “In a first stage of the process, the gaseous substrate comprising CO2 and H2 or comprising CO and optionally H2, is anaerobically fermented to produce at least one acid. In the second stage of the process, the at least one acid from the first stage is introduced to a second bioreactor containing a culture of at least a second microorganism. The second microorganism may be at least one microalgae. The at least one acid is aerobically converted by the second microorganism to produce one or more lipid products”).
In regards to claim 8, Ginsburg teaches that the wastes received can comprise municipal solid waste, plastic, or food waste that can be separated into different portions for different downstream processes as needed (Para. 0017, “According to one aspect, a method includes receiving wastes, which can include, but is not limited to, MSW, industrial wastes, recyclable materials, plastics, textiles, ferrous metals, non-ferrous metals, organic materials, electronics, industrial waste, bio-hazardous materials, medical materials, hospital wastes, municipal waste water, municipal storm water, residential wastes, commercial wastes, wood residues, animal wastes, and food processing wastes. The wastes can be separated into different portions for different downstream processes”).
In regards to claim 9, Ginsburg teaches that syngas can be used in a catalyzed chemical reaction to be converted into liquid hydrocarbons, or liquid fuel (Para. 0095, “The process of converting the available material to a liquid fuel involves the partial oxidation of the material prior to a catalyzed reaction to create a liquid fuel. Referring to FIG. 2D, FT reactors 406 can provide catalyzed synthesis of synthetic petroleum substitute liquid fuels. The process occurs via a catalyzed chemical reaction in which carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the material are converted into liquid hydrocarbons”).
In regards to claim 10, Ginsburg teaches that a liquid fuel can be produced from syngas and that the liquid fuel created could be used as a replacement for gas, diesel, and aviation fuels which can be used for power generation (Para. 0050, “Syngas captured from gasification can be scrubbed, as needed, and converted to liquid fuels capable of functioning as direct replacements for gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels that require no adaptations to the current transportation/distribution/delivery/use infrastructures”).
In regards to claim 11, 12, and 13, Ginsburg and Simpson are silent about a thermal processing step comprising hydrothermal conversion, torrefaction, or pyrolysis.
Campo teaches that a system can have a thermal processing steps (Para. 0031, “The organic material may undergo a thermochemical process (e.g., pyrolysis) and thereby be converted into one or more products”), which would include hydrothermal conversion, torrefaction (Para. 0096, “Alternatively, the thermochemical system 10 may be configured for torrefaction of organic material by heating an organic feedstock to achieve dry the feedstock and sustain mild decomposition and partially transform the feedstock.”), and pyrolysis (Para. 0031, “The organic material may undergo a thermochemical process (e.g., pyrolysis) and thereby be converted into one or more products.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the thermal processing steps above in a downstream process if the product required could be produced with the associated method.
In regards to claim 15, Ginsburg teaches that syngas comprises hydrogen and can be used for other processes (Para. 0050, “Syngas captured from gasification can be scrubbed, as needed, and converted to liquid fuels capable of functioning as direct replacements for gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels that require no adaptations to the current transportation/distribution/delivery/use infrastructures”).
In regards to claim 16, Ginsburg teaches that the hydrogen in syngas can be used in a catalyzed chemical reaction to be converted into liquid hydrocarbons, or liquid fuel (Para. 0095, “The process of converting the available material to a liquid fuel involves the partial oxidation of the material prior to a catalyzed reaction to create a liquid fuel. Referring to FIG. 2D, FT reactors 406 can provide catalyzed synthesis of synthetic petroleum substitute liquid fuels. The process occurs via a catalyzed chemical reaction in which carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the material are converted into liquid hydrocarbons”).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginsburg (US20100105127A1) in view of Simpson (US20210277430A1), Campo (US20190293284A1), Pervaiz (“Protein Extraction from Secondary Sludge of Paper Mill Wastewater and Its Utilization as a Wood Adhesive”, bioresources.com, Pages 961-970) and Medoff (US20100124583A1).
In regards to claim 4, Ginsburg, Simpson, and Campo are silent about a gasifying step where a feedstock is gasified to produce green hydrogen.
Medoff teaches a method of a gasifying step that produces hydrogen (Para. 0450, “Quantities of oxygen (e.g., as pure oxygen gas and/or as air) and steam (e.g., superheated steam) are also added to the pyrolysis chamber to facilitate gasification. These compounds react with carbon-containing feedstock material in a multiple-step reaction to generate a gas mixture called synthesis gas (or "syngas"). Essentially, during gasification, a limited amount of oxygen is introduced into the pyrolysis chamber to allow some feedstock material to combust to form carbon monoxide and generate process heat. The process heat can then be used to promote a second reaction that converts additional feedstock material to hydrogen and carbon monoxide”). It would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method to use the method of Medoff as a gasifying step with one of the separated feedstocks taught by Ginsburg in order to produce hydrogen.
In regards to claim 5, Ginsburg, Simpson, and Campo are silent about optimizing anaerobic digestion of activated sludge to form wet biosolids.
Medfoff teaches anaerobic digestion of wastewater produces a biogas high in methane and a small amount of waste biomass (sludge) (Para. 0465, “For example, anaerobic digestion of wastewater produces a biogas high in methane and a small amount of waste biomass (sludge)”).
In regards to claim 7, Ginsburg, Simpson, and Campo are silent about a biotreating step from anaerobic microbes to create biooil and lipids.
Medoff teaches a biotreating step where anaerobic organisms can be cultured to create oils and lipids (Para. 0536, “In some embodiments, the methods described herein can be used to obtain fats, oils, and/or lipids from e.g., sunflower, okra seed, buffalo gourd (Cucurbitafoetidissima), Lipinus mutabilis, nuts (e.g., macadamia nuts), Jessenia bataua, Oenocarpus, Crambe abyssinica (Crambe), Monoeciousjojoba jojobaa), Cruciferae sp. (e.g., Brassica juncea, B. carinata, B. napas (common rapeseed), and B. campestris ), Stokesia laevis, Veronia galamensis, and Apodanthera undulate”; “Alternatively, anaerobic organisms can be cultured in an anaerobic environment”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Medoff to produce lipids from the appropriate feedstocks taught by Ginsburg in order to produce the relevant product.
In regards to claim 14, Ginsburg, Simpson, and Campo are silent in aerobic biotreatment.
Medoff teaches that biotreatment can comprise aerobic biotreatment (Para. 0461, “An aerator is disposed within each aerobic reactor to mix the anaerobic effluent, sludge, oxygen (e.g., oxygen contained in air). Within each aerobic reactor, oxidation of cellular material in the anaerobic effluent produces carbon dioxide, water, and ammonia”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
In regards to claim 17, Ginsburg, Simpson, and Campo are silent in teaching anaerobic digestion of sludge to produce hydrogen.
Medoff teaches an anaerobic reactor that has sludge react with a nutrient solution in order to produce biogas, which contains methane (Para. 0460, “A nutrient solution containing nitrogen and phosphorus is metered into each anaerobic reactor containing wastewater. The nutrient solution reacts with the sludge in the anaerobic reactor to produce biogas which can contain 50% methane and have a heating value of approximately 12,000 British thermal units, or Btu, per pound”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method taught by Medoff in order to covert sludge using the anaerobic condition with the feedstock that can be provided by Ginsburg to produce a final product of hydrogen.
In regards to claim 18, Ginsburg teaches that biogas can be produced in an anaerobic reactor. This biogas could then be converted into natural gas which is all that is required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of remarks, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC § 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-7 of remarks, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references.
In regards to claim 1, Pervaiz teaches a method of using a waste activated sludge to produce proteins as a wood adhesive. As Simpson teaches organic materials that can be activated (Para. 0019, “According to another aspect, the wastes can include organic materials, municipal wastewater and municipal storm water. The organic materials can be processed in an anaerobic digestion process”), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use waste activated sludge to produce a wood adhesive as taught by Pervaiz.
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 JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736