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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 17/998,434 application filed on November 10, 2022. Claims 5 and 8 were amended and claims 16-20 were added in a preliminary amendment. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered. The examined claims are directed to method of preparing and use of a sludge conditioner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2024. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
Claim Interpretation
In the patentability analysis below, the bolded portions represent structural aspects of the claim. The italicized portions represent one or more portions of the manipulative steps. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation necessarily performs a manipulative step, act, or the method claimed, then Examiner will consider the particular manipulative step or act to be disclosed by the prior art device. That is, when the prior art device is the same as a device described in Applicant’s specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. MPEP §2112.02.
In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. However, specific limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §§2111, 2173.01 I. Unless otherwise specified, any citation to Applicant’s specification will generally refer to the original and any substitute or amended specification rather than a published application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “wherein the sludge conditioner is prepared by mixing the water supply sludge and sewage sludge.” Since sewage sludge was not previously introduced, it may be clearer to use a preposition (‘with’) or an indefinite article (‘a’) rather than the conjunctive (‘and’).
In claim 7, the placement of the conjunctive (and) after the semicolons appear inconsistent. All but the last ‘and’ after a semicolon appear unnecessary.
Claims 2-20 depend upon or relate to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the phrase “stirring a mixture uniformly” is unclear because it implies that there is a choice among different mixtures, and one can choose any such mixture to stir. The claim previously recites at least three components (sludge conditioner, water supply sludge and a pore forming agent). Applicant should either state which components should be uniformly mixed, or clarify whether the entire contents are to be stirred.
Claims 2-20 depend on or relate to claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20190315645; Yang) in view of Khalili et al. (US6362127; Khalili)(IDS of 1-25-2024).
In the patentability analysis below, the italicized portions represent functional aspects, whereas the bolded portions represent structure. The analysis considers the alternate concepts of the various potential embodiments in a particular reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Yang discloses a method for preparing a sludge conditioner from water supply sludge (Abstract, [0005]-[0041]),
wherein the sludge conditioner is prepared by mixing the water supply sludge (iron-containing sludge pyrolysis residue is interpreted as a type of water supply sludge) and sewage sludge ([0006]), and the method comprises the following steps:
mixing the water supply sludge and the sewage sludge in proportion ([0005]-[0041], where any mixture implies some mix proportionality, and no specific proportion is required),
stirring a mixture uniformly ([0021], [0022], where stirring for several minutes suggest stirring uniformly), and
conducting mechanical dehydration ([0056], pressure is employed in dewatering, implying mechanical dehydration), drying ([0057]), and pyrolysis ([0058]) to obtain the sludge conditioner.
Therefore, Yang discloses the claimed invention, except
adding a pore forming agent, and
conducting grinding and sieving.
Khalili discloses the synthesis of a carbon-based catalyst, particularly in an activated form, from sludge materials such as produced by the paper mill industry and the like, in particular, from waste sludge such as composed of biosolids and the like. (Abstract, col. 1, lines 15-24). The pore size distribution is of noted importance, and an added pore forming agent (zinc chloride {ZnCl2}) assists in his regard (col. 5, lines 21-32, 56-64; col. 6, lines 25-50, where zinc chloride is described as an activating/activation agent). The chemical activation agents can serve to bind sludge components, such as metals, into the sludge matrix such that upon subsequent removal of such metals, holes or pores remain in the so processed material (col. 5, lines 33-43). Further, the addition of such an aqueous solution of a metal-based chemical activation agent may also serve to at least in part hydrate the material being processed such that during subsequent pyrolysis treatment, steam generation can occur, where such steam generation may desirably contribute to enhancing the porosity of the processed material (Id.). Khalili also discusses crushing (grinding) and sieving to form a dried sludge material (col. 2, ln. 42- col. 3, ln. 28).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a pore forming agent to increase surface area of the finished product (col. 2, lines 8-18) and to conduct the recited traditional finishing steps, including grinding and sieving, to condition the mixed sludge to produce a usable product (col. 2, lines 42-59).
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 4: The pore forming agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of an acid, alkali, or inorganic salt that does not react with a matrix (zinc chloride is an inorganic salt).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yang and Khalili discloses or suggests the method according to claim 1, except wherein the sewage sludge has a water content of 92-95 wt.% (Yang, [0023]), and a carbon content in a range of 15-30 mg/g dry basis; and
the water supply sludge has a water content of 60-80 wt.% (Yang, [0024]), and an iron/aluminum salt content in a range of 50-250 mg/g dry basis (5 to 25%)(Yang, [0009], [0056], where Yang discloses at least the conditioned sludge has an iron content of 8 to 30%).
The water, carbon and iron/aluminum salt content in the sewage and water supply sludge respectively, is expected to vary based on the source of the sludge. For example, Yang discusses various water and iron contents and it is known the sewage sludge will contain carbon (Yang, [0003], [0009], [0023], [0030], [0055]).
Since the various contents, pH ranges, are result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely experiment to determine and choose suitable sludges, including appropriate mixtures of water supply and sewage sludge, and to determine an optimal water content, carbon content and iron/aluminum salt content for obtaining a desired end result and product.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 3: The water supply sludge and the sewage sludge have a mixing ratio of 1:3 to 5:1, and the mixing ratio is calculated according to a ratio of a sludge dry basis (claim 1 and 2 analyses).
Regarding claim 6, Yang and Khalili combined discloses or suggests the method according to claim 1, wherein the drying refers to air-drying or drying in an oven (Yang, [0057], where an oven temperature of 105° C is noted) except at 30-60°C, and after grinding, sieving is conducted through a 40-80 mesh sieve. Clearly, the chosen temperature and mesh size would have an effect on the drying time and the nature of the final product.
Therefore, based on routine experimentation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a suitable oven temperature and mesh size to obtain the desired product.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yang and Khalili discloses or suggests a sludge conditioner prepared by the method according to claim l, except wherein the sludge conditioner has a porosity of 40-80% and a specific surface area of 60-350 m2/g.
However, Yang mentions a porous structure and a large specific surface area ([0028]). Khalili mentions increased surface area and microporosity (col. 2, lines 8-18), but does not provide specific numbers.
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment to achieve a desired or optimum porosity and specific surface area.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 9: A use of the sludge conditioner according to claim 8 in advanced oxidation for chemical conditioning of sludge,
wherein the advanced oxidation comprises catalytic/activated ozone oxidation, persulfate oxidation, and Fenton/Fenton-like oxidation, and the use comprises the following steps:
adjusting target sludge to an applicable pH range, adding the sludge conditioner for conditioning, and filtering to obtain conditioned sludge and dehydrated filtrate (Yang, [0007], [0009], [0020], [0023], [0029], [0049], [0056], [0059], [0063]); Claim 10: The target sludge is any one or a combination of municipal sewage sludge, industrial sewage sludge, and river and lake sediments, and has a water content of 90-99 wt.% (claim 2 and 9 analyses); Claim 11: The target sludge has an applicable pH range of 2-9; and
the sludge conditioner has a dosage of 50-600 mg/g dry basis (claim 2 and 9 analyses); Claim 12: The advanced oxidation is catalytic/activated ozone oxidation, ozone has a dosage of 20-100 mg/g dry basis; and
the target sludge has an applicable pH range of 3-5 (claim 2 and 9 analyses); Claim 13: The advanced oxidation is persulfate oxidation, persulfate has a dosage of 0.5-1.8 mmol/g dry basis; and
the target sludge has an applicable pH range of 4-9 (Yang, [0009]; claim 2 and 9 analyses); Claim 14: The advanced oxidation is Fenton/Fenton-like oxidation, an oxidant is hydrogen peroxide; and
the hydrogen peroxide has a dosage of 30-90 mg/g (claim 2 and 9 analyses); Claim 15: The conditioned sludge is recycled as a raw material for preparing the sludge conditioner ([0006], [0007]); Claim 17: The sewage sludge has a water content of 92-95 wt.%, and a carbon content in a range of 15-30 mg/g dry basis; and the water supply sludge has a water content of 60-80 wt.%, and an iron/aluminum salt content in a range of 50-250 mg/g dry basis (claim 2 and 9 analyses); Claim 18: The water supply sludge and the sewage sludge have a mixing ratio of 1:3 to 5:1, and the mixing ratio is calculated according to a ratio of a sludge dry basis (claim 2 and 9 analyses); and Claim 19: The pore forming agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of an acid, alkali, or inorganic salt that does not react with a matrix (zinc chloride is an inorganic salt that does not react with a matrix).
Claims 5, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20190315645) in view of Khalili et al. (US6362127), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhu et al. (CN106560236; Zhu)(English Machine Translation referenced below).
Regarding claims 5, 16 and 20, Yang and Khalili combined discloses or suggests the method according to claim 1, except wherein the pore forming agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acid, sodium hydroxide, Na2SO4, NaCl, and CaCl2; and
the pore forming agent has a dosage of 0.5-2 mmol/g dry basis.
Khalili mentions potassium hydroxide but not sodium hydroxide as an activating agent, which Examiner interprets as a pore forming agent (col. 5, lines 28-32).
Zhu discloses a sewage sludge active carbon with continuous pore size distribution characteristics for and a preparation method thereof (Abstract). ZnCl2, phosphoric acid, K2S and NaCl form a compound activator in anoxic atmosphere to activate sludge, wherein the mesoporous structure is developed mainly by using the phosphoric acid (Id.). A selected sludge is uniformly mixed with the activating agent, which tends to enhance the pore structure ([0005], claim 1).
At the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to employ suitable pore forming agents in an appropriate concentration based on the users desired end results, potentially including increasing the specific surface area and absorbability of the sludge conditioner, where such pore forming agents include those recited in the claim, some of which agents are also suggested by Zhu.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 16: The pore forming agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acid, sodium hydroxide, Na2SO4, NaCl, and CaCl2; and
the pore forming agent has a dosage of 0.5-2 mmol/g dry basis (claim 5 analysis); and Claim 20: The pore forming agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acid, sodium hydroxide, Na2SO4, NaCl, and CaCl2; and
the pore forming agent has a dosage of 0.5-2 mmol/g dry basis (claim 5 analysis).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US20190315645) in view of Khalili et al. (US6362127), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhao et al. (CN113620407; Zhao)(English Machine Translation referenced below).
Regarding claim 7, Yang and Khalili combined discloses or suggests the method according to claim 1, wherein a method for the pyrolysis is calcination with a tube furnace (Yang, [0058], [0064], [0071], [0082], where Yang mentions use of a tube pyrolysis furnace); and
the calcination is conducted under an inert atmosphere with nitrogen or argon as a carrier gas at a gas flow rate of 80-260 mL/min ([0016], [0046], [0058], 100-300 mL/min of nitrogen or argon gas is disclosed which overlaps with the recited range);
cooling is conducted after the pyrolysis (Khalili, col. 2, lines 55-59; col. 3, lines 21-22);
except
where the pyrolysis or calcination is segmented calcination;
the segmented calcination comprises low-temperature section calcination, medium-temperature section calcination, and high-temperature section calcination conducted sequentially;
the low-temperature section calcination starts a pyrolysis program from a room temperature at a heating rate of 5-10°C/min for the pyrolysis at 100-260°C for a pyrolysis residence time of 30-40 min;
the medium-temperature section calcination is conducted at a heating rate of 15- 30°C/min for the pyrolysis at 260-600°C for a pyrolysis residence time of 20-50 min;
the high- temperature section calcination is conducted at a heating rate of 30-60°C/min for the pyrolysis at 600-960°C for a pyrolysis residence time of 40-90 min; and
the cooling is conducted at 10-20°C/min after the pyrolysis.
Zhao discloses the method for processing sewage by catalyzing ozone oxidation using a single atom (monatomic) catalyst (Abstract). The the method has the advantages that operation is easy, the catalyst is not prone to inactivation, the catalytic capacity is high and has a good effect in the aspect of sewage treatment (Id.). The method employ segmented calcination with the protection of a inert gas followed by cooling to room temperature (pp. 3, 4 of 9). In the segmented calcination the temperature is raised in a stepwise manner, first to a range of 200-400°C at a rate of 3-5°C/min for 1-3 hrs, then to 400-800°C at a rate of 3-5°C/min for 3-5 hrs, then cooling to room temperature (Id.). One may consider the noted temperatures and heating rates as either the low and medium, or low and high section calcinations, where the temperatures and ranges are similar or within the same order of magnitude as recited in the claim.
Although Zhao does not mention a third temperature section and a specific cooling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment with alternate temperatures, flow rates, and heating and cooling rates, and to thereby employ an appropriate number of temperature sections for conducting the segmented calcinating at the operator’s chosen optimal temperatures ranges, along with suitable heating, cooling and flow rates, to achieve a desired sludge conditioner.
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779