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 with respect to claim 1 and its dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment does not rely on the references as presented previously. The previously uncited Graham reference is now used as the primary reference and its modification by the previously cited secondary references are not addressed by the arguments. The previous USC 112 rejections are obviated by amendment but new USC 112 rejections are invoked by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the waste having a measured moisture content equal to or higher than a threshold" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should specify that the waste has a component that is equal to or higher than a threshold before referring to it. Claims 2-5 and 10-16 depend on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the waste having a measured moisture content lower than a threshold" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should specify that the waste has a component that is lower than a threshold before referring to it. Claims 2-5 and 10-16 depend on claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “wherein the threshold is set within a range of 10 to 35% by mass,” and the claim also recites “the waste having a measured moisture content equal to or higher than a threshold” and “the waste having a measured moisture content lower than the threshold” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The Office cannot ascertain what value is higher or lower than a threshold when the threshold is a range. Does 15%, for example, qualify as higher or lower than the threshold? Technically it is both. Claims 2-5 and 10-16 depend on claim 1.
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, 5, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (US 2009/0249641 A1) in view of Jiang (US 2013/0109765 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Graham discloses a method comprising: measuring the moisture content of sewage sludge to be 65-80% and feeding it to a dyer for drying to 30-50%, and then feeding it to a gasifier (paragraph 29); and mixing the dried sludge with wet sludge (65-80%) to obtain an optimal dryness and feeding the mixture to the gasifier to generate syngas (paragraph 31). Graham does not disclose a catalytic downstream process. Jiang—in an invention for a gasifier system with drying—discloses a catalytic Fischer Tropsch process for the syngas product to produce synthetic fuels, lubricants, and waxes (paragraph 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the syngas product of Graham for catalytic Fischer Tropsch to efficiently produce usable fuels as suggested by Jiang. See USC 112 rejections above relating to impossibility of determining the value of lower or higher than a threshold.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Graham discloses providing the feed material (which includes waste) from a storage bin (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang discloses a water wash apparatus 360 (paragraph 76).
Claims 3, 4, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham and Jiang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noboru (JP 2006046680 A).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 10 Jiang discloses a first feed material (waste) bin as above but not a second storage means for dried material. Noburu discloses a dryer 61, a drying hopper 62, a drying hopper delivery unit 163, a dryer delivery unit 64, and a second pit delivery unit 65 (paragraph 57). Noburu discloses that the transport unit 64 for the dryer is provided with a load cell 100 serving as a weight detection unit for detecting the weight of the waste material 9a after being crushed with high moisture supplied from the drying hopper 62 toward the dryer 61. Based on the detection result given from the load cell 100, the drying hopper 62 adjusts the supply amount so that the weight of the waste supplied toward the dryer 61 becomes constant (paragraph 75). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a secondary dryer storage to manage and control the amount of dried material supplied in Graham and Jiang as suggested by Noboru.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Noboru discloses a crane for transferring the waste (paragraph 52).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham and Jiang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conway (US 4,675,344).
Jiang discloses a Fischer-Tropsch process to create hydrocarbons but not specifically ethanol. Conway—in an invention for creating hydrocarbons from a Fischer-Tropsch process—discloses tuning the FT process to create higher order alcohols such as ethanol to tune fuel additives (column 2, lines 42-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the FT process of Graham and Jiang to produce ethanol when such a product is desired as disclosed by Conway.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham and Jiang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (US 2009/0151252 A1).
Jiang discloses a Fischer-Tropsch process to create hydrocarbons but not the use of bio-catalysts. Young—in an invention for a gasification system with Fischer-Tropsch—discloses the efficacy of a bio-catalytic FT to produce ethanol. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize effective catalysts such as those disclosed in Young to produce desired products in Graham and Jiang.
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