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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JPS6171899, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Ennouri et al. (Bioresource Technology 214 (2016) 184–191).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a method for selectively removing micro-contaminants from sludge, said method comprising:
a) providing wastewater contaminated with micro-contaminants (refer page 2 – 1st paragraph),
b) subjecting said wastewater to a primary treatment step, thereby producing a first stream of primary sludge comprising a first part of micro-contaminants and a second stream of remaining wastewater comprising a second part of micro-contaminants (refer page 2 disclosing initial settling stage),
c) subjecting the second stream of remaining wastewater to a secondary treatment step, thereby producing biological sludge (refer page 2 – 4th paragraph disclosing supernatant from initial settling stage is subject to final settling/precipitation stage),
d) subjecting the first stream of primary sludge to an incineration step, thereby eliminating the primary sludge and the first part of micro-contaminants and producing ashes and heat (Refer page 2 -2nd and 3rd paragraph disclosing incineration of primary sludge), and
recovering the biological sludge for land application (refer page 3 – 6th paragraph disclosing secondary sludge being dehydrated and used as compost or fertilizer).
Yamazaki does not teach anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, thereby producing methane and a solid product, and subjecting the biological sludge to a thermal conditioning step upstream or downstream of the anaerobic digestion step.
Ennouri teaches treatment of waste activated sludge, wherein the waste activated sludge is subject to thermal conditioning (refer thermal pre-treatment in graphical abstract), after the thermal preconditioning, the sludge is subject to anaerobic digestion to produce methane and solids (Refer ASBR reactor in graphical abstract). Ennouri discloses that thermal preconditioning improves digester performance (refer abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yamazaki to include steps of anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, thereby producing methane and a solid product, and subjecting the biological sludge to a thermal conditioning step upstream or downstream of the anaerobic digestion step to generate methane that can be used for heating or as electricity source as taught by Ennouri (Refer left column on page 185).
Yamazaki teaches heating the secondary sludge using heat from incineration of primary sludge (Refer fig. 1, paragraph 7 on page 2). Selecting where to use the heat produced from incineration step in the method of modified Yamazaki would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since Yamazaki discloses use of heat generated from incineration to other parts of process. Yamazaki establishes that heat produced in one step can be used in another step. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that reusing heat would provide benefit of requiring less “new” heat.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. The limitations of claim 4 do not recite any additional step and rather recites results of the method steps of claim 1. Since Yamazaki teaches the all limitations of claim 1, the results of the method as claimed in claim 4 are inherent.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamazaki teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Yamazaki teaches dehydrating second sludge to use it as compost or fuel or fertilizer (refer page 2). Ennouri also teaches that anaerobic sludge is found to be an effective organic fertilizer causing beneficial effects on plants growth and soil structure (Refer left column on page 185) suggesting use of nutrients of the sludge for plant growth and soil enrichment.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamazaki teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Ennouri further teaches that the thermal conditioning step is thermal hydrolysis process (refer page 185 – left column), and that the anaerobic digestion is performed downstream of thermal hydrolysis (Refer graphical abstract) and produces methane and sludge.
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Yamazaki further teaches that the primary sludge is subject to anaerobic digestion prior to incineration (Refer 2nd paragraph on page 2).
Claim(s) 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, in view of Ennouri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (Applied Energy 229 (2018) 88–95).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamazaki teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Ennouri teaches that the anaerobic digestion produces methane and solids (Refer abstract). Modified Yamazaki does not teach subjecting solids of anaerobic digestor to hydro thermal carbonization.
Yu teaches hydrothermal carbonization of anaerobic sludge to produce hydrochar and improve nutrient recovery (refer abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified Yamazuki to subject the anaerobic solids to hydrothermal carbonization to produce hydrochar and improve nutrient recovery as taught by Yu.
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamazaki teaches limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Yu further teaches using solid fraction produced from HTC as fertilizer (refer abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, in view of Ennouri and Yu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tale (US 2017/0121197).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamazaki teaches limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Modified Yamazaki does not teach separating digestate of anaerobic digestion into liquid and solid fraction. However, such process is well known in the art. Tale teaches anaerobic digestion of secondary sludge (refer step 46) and dewatering the digestate by separating solids and liquid fraction (Refer liquid fraction 60 returned to the process). Selecting dewatering process would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art from known dewatering processes.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, in view of Ennouri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ju et. al. (US 2016/0090317).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yamazaki teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Yamazaki does not teach anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, and oxidizing the secondary sludge before the step of anaerobic digestion.
Ju teaches treatment of waste activated sludge by anaerobic digestion (Refer fig. 2, step 30), wherein the waste activated sludge is oxidized (refer step 14) prior to anaerobic digestion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Yamazaki to provide a step of anaerobic digestion to produce biogas and perform oxidizing prior to anaerobic digestion to allow growth of active microorganism as taught by Ju.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komline (US 3803806), in view of Ennouri et al. (Bioresource Technology 214 (2016) 184–191).
Regarding claim 1, Komline teaches a method for selectively removing contaminants from sludge, said method comprising:
a) providing wastewater contaminated with contaminants (refer fig. 1 disclosing raw sewage being supplied to primary tank 16),
b) subjecting said wastewater to a primary treatment step (refer fig. 1 disclosing raw sewage being supplied to primary tank 16), thereby producing a first stream of primary sludge comprising a first part of contaminants ( refer primary sludge taken out by conduit 18) and a second stream of remaining wastewater comprising a second part of contaminants (refer conduit 32),
c) subjecting the second stream of remaining wastewater to a secondary treatment step, thereby producing biological sludge (refer aeration tank 34 and secondary settling tank 42), and
d) subjecting the first stream of primary sludge to an incineration step (refer incinerator 28 connected to primary sludge), thereby eliminating the primary sludge and the first part of contaminants and producing ashes and heat (Refer fig. 1 indicating hot flue gases and ashes generated from incineration step).
Komline does not teach anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, thereby producing methane and a solid product, and subjecting the biological sludge to a thermal conditioning step upstream or downstream of the anaerobic digestion step.
Ennouri teaches treatment of waste activated sludge, wherein the waste activated sludge is subject to thermal conditioning (refer thermal pre-treatment in graphical abstract), after the thermal preconditioning, the sludge is subject to anaerobic digestion to produce methane and solids (Refer ASBR reactor in graphical abstract). Ennouri discloses that thermal preconditioning improves digester performance (refer abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Komline to include steps of anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, thereby producing methane and a solid product, and subjecting the biological sludge to a thermal conditioning step upstream or downstream of the anaerobic digestion step to generate methane that can be used for heating or as electricity source as taught by Ennouri (Refer left column on page 185).
Komline teaches using heat produced by the incinerator for treatment of the second stream of primary treatment (Refer fig. 1, hot flue gas is supplied to aeration tank). Selecting where to use the heat produced from incineration step in the method of modified Komline would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since Yamazaki discloses use of heat generated from incineration to other parts of process.
Regarding claim 4, modified Komline teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. The limitations of claim 4 do not recite any additional step and rather recites results of the method steps of claim 1. Since modified Komline teaches the all limitations of claim 1, the results of the method as claimed in claim 4 are inherent.
Regarding claim 5, modified Komline teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Ennouri further teaches that anaerobic sludge is found to be an effective organic fertilizer causing beneficial effects on plants growth and soil structure (Refer left column on page 185) suggesting use of nutrients of the sludge for plant growth and soil enrichment.
Regarding claim 7, modified Komline teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Ennouri further teaches that the thermal conditioning step is thermal hydrolysis process (refer page 185 – left column), and that the anaerobic digestion is performed downstream of thermal hydrolysis (Refer graphical abstract) and produces methane and sludge.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komline, in view of Ennouri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (Applied Energy 229 (2018) 88–95).
Regarding claim 6, modified Komline teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Ennouri teaches that the anaerobic digestion produces methane and solids (Refer abstract). Modified Yamazaki does not teach subjecting solids of anaerobic digestor to hydro thermal carbonization.
Yu teaches hydrothermal carbonization of anaerobic sludge to produce hydrochar and improve nutrient recovery (refer abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified Komline to subject the anaerobic solids to hydrothermal carbonization to produce hydrochar and improve nutrient recovery as taught by Yu.
Regarding claim 9, modified Komline teaches limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Yu further teaches using solid fraction produced from HTC as fertilizer (refer abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komline, in view of Ennouri and Yu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tale (US 2017/0121197).
Regarding claim 8, modified Komline teaches limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Modified Komline does not teach separating digestate of anaerobic digestion into liquid and solid fraction. However, such process is well known in the art. Tale teaches anaerobic digestion of secondary sludge (refer step 46) and dewatering the digestate by separating solids and liquid fraction (Refer liquid fraction 60 returned to the process). Selecting dewatering process would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art from known dewatering processes.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komline, in view of Ennouri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ju et. al. (US 2016/0090317).
Regarding claim 11, modified Komline teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Komline does not teach anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, and oxidizing the secondary sludge before the step of anaerobic digestion.
Ju teaches treatment of waste activated sludge by anaerobic digestion (Refer fig. 2, step 30), wherein the waste activated sludge is oxidized (refer step 14) prior to anaerobic digestion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Yamazaki to provide a step of anaerobic digestion to produce biogas and perform oxidizing prior to anaerobic digestion to allow growth of active microorganism as taught by Ju.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JPS6171899, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Ennouri et al. (Bioresource Technology 214 (2016) 184–191) and Kutzer et al. (Chem. Eng. Technol. 18 (1995) 149-155).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a method for selectively removing micro-contaminants from sludge, said method comprising:
a) providing wastewater contaminated with micro-contaminants (refer page 2 – 1st paragraph),
b) subjecting said wastewater to a primary treatment step, thereby producing a first stream of primary sludge comprising a first part of micro-contaminants and a second stream of remaining wastewater comprising a second part of micro-contaminants (refer page 2 disclosing initial settling stage),
c) subjecting the second stream of remaining wastewater to a secondary treatment step, thereby producing biological sludge (refer page 2 – 4th paragraph disclosing supernatant from initial settling stage is subject to final settling/precipitation stage),
d) subjecting the first stream of primary sludge to an incineration step, thereby eliminating the primary sludge and the first part of micro-contaminants and producing ashes and heat (Refer page 2 -2nd and 3rd paragraph disclosing incineration of primary sludge), and
recovering the biological sludge for land application (refer page 3 – 6th paragraph disclosing secondary sludge being dehydrated and used as compost or fertilizer).
Yamazaki does not teach anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, thereby producing methane and a solid product, and subjecting the biological sludge to a thermal conditioning step upstream or downstream of the anaerobic digestion step.
Ennouri teaches treatment of waste activated sludge, wherein the waste activated sludge is subject to thermal conditioning (refer thermal pre-treatment in graphical abstract), after the thermal preconditioning, the sludge is subject to anaerobic digestion to produce methane and solids (Refer ASBR reactor in graphical abstract). Ennouri discloses that thermal preconditioning improves digester performance (refer abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yamazaki to include steps of anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, thereby producing methane and a solid product, and subjecting the biological sludge to a thermal conditioning step upstream or downstream of the anaerobic digestion step to generate methane that can be used for heating or as electricity source as taught by Ennouri (Refer left column on page 185).
Yamazaki teaches heating the secondary sludge using heat from incineration of primary sludge (Refer fig. 1, paragraph 7 on page 2). Selecting where to use the heat produced from incineration step in the method of modified Yamazaki would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since Yamazaki discloses use of heat generated from incineration to other parts of process. Yamazaki establishes that heat produced in one step can be used in another step. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that reusing heat would provide benefit of requiring less “new” heat.
Regarding the limitation “stripping the second part of micro-pollutants during the secondary treatment step c )”, Kutzer teaches air stripping process for removal of VOC from wastewater (abstract). Kutzer discloses that “air stripping with adequate post-stripper exhaust air purification possesses a number of advantages over other VOC-contaminated water-cleaning technologies” (refer paragraph “Conclusion” on page 154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Yamazaki to include a step of stripping the second part of micro-pollutants during the secondary treatment step c ) to enable removal of VOC from wastewater as taught by Kutzer.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komline (US 3803806), in view of Ennouri et al. (Bioresource Technology 214 (2016) 184–191), and Kutzer et al. (Chem. Eng. Technol. 18 (1995) 149-155).
Regarding claim 1, Komline teaches a method for selectively removing contaminants from sludge, said method comprising:
a) providing wastewater contaminated with contaminants (refer fig. 1 disclosing raw sewage being supplied to primary tank 16),
b) subjecting said wastewater to a primary treatment step (refer fig. 1 disclosing raw sewage being supplied to primary tank 16), thereby producing a first stream of primary sludge comprising a first part of contaminants ( refer primary sludge taken out by conduit 18) and a second stream of remaining wastewater comprising a second part of contaminants (refer conduit 32),
c) subjecting the second stream of remaining wastewater to a secondary treatment step, thereby producing biological sludge (refer aeration tank 34 and secondary settling tank 42), and
d) subjecting the first stream of primary sludge to an incineration step (refer incinerator 28 connected to primary sludge), thereby eliminating the primary sludge and the first part of contaminants and producing ashes and heat (Refer fig. 1 indicating hot flue gases and ashes generated from incineration step).
Komline does not teach anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, thereby producing methane and a solid product, and subjecting the biological sludge to a thermal conditioning step upstream or downstream of the anaerobic digestion step.
Ennouri teaches treatment of waste activated sludge, wherein the waste activated sludge is subject to thermal conditioning (refer thermal pre-treatment in graphical abstract), after the thermal preconditioning, the sludge is subject to anaerobic digestion to produce methane and solids (Refer ASBR reactor in graphical abstract). Ennouri discloses that thermal preconditioning improves digester performance (refer abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Komline to include steps of anaerobic digestion of the biological sludge, thereby producing methane and a solid product, and subjecting the biological sludge to a thermal conditioning step upstream or downstream of the anaerobic digestion step to generate methane that can be used for heating or as electricity source as taught by Ennouri (Refer left column on page 185).
Komline teaches using heat produced by the incinerator for treatment of the second stream of primary treatment (Refer fig. 1, hot flue gas is supplied to aeration tank). Selecting where to use the heat produced from incineration step in the method of modified Komline would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since Yamazaki discloses use of heat generated from incineration to other parts of process.
Regarding the limitation “stripping the second part of micro-pollutants during the secondary treatment step c )”, Kutzer teaches air stripping process for removal of VOC from wastewater (abstract). Kutzer discloses that “air stripping with adequate post-stripper exhaust air purification possesses a number of advantages over other VOC-contaminated water-cleaning technologies” (refer paragraph “Conclusion” on page 154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Yamazaki to include a step of stripping the second part of micro-pollutants during the secondary treatment step c ) to enable removal of VOC from wastewater as taught by Kutzer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1, applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
312
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because Yamazaki teaches using heat produced in incineration to heat secondary sludge. Therefore, Yamazaki establishes that heat produced in one step can be used in another step. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that reusing heat would provide benefit of requiring less “new” heat. Office action does not suggest that reuse of heat from incineration should be the only source of heat in thermal conditioning.
Applicant further argued that “the instant application expressly attributes a lower overall energy footprint and improved biogas/biomethane valorization to the transfer of heat from the incineration of primary sludge to the thermal conditioning of biological sludge. As such, the technical effect relied upon by Applicant is directly tied to the claimed heat-transfer feature, which is not taught by the prior art” and “Additionally, the unexpected result achieved by the claimed invention is a combined technical effect rather than as a purely energetic effect. The invention simultaneously destroys the more contaminated primary sludge, preserves the biological sludge for production of greener biosolids, improves biogas/biomethane recovery through use of recovered heat, and reduces the size of the incineration workshop by burning only the primary sludge. The specification expressly describes these benefits in the Detailed Disclosure, including the concepts of burning only the "bad sludge," producing "greener biosolids," obtaining increased net biogas production thanks to heat recovery from incineration, and reducing the incineration workshop size. This combination of benefits is neither disclosed, taught nor suggested by Yamazaki in view of Ennouri. Applicant argues none of Yu, Yu in combination with Tale, nor Ju cure the deficiencies of Yamazaki in view and Ennouri.”
This is not found to be persuasive because the combination Yamazaki and Ennouri, or Komline and Ennouri teaches the method of claim 1 as indicated above under claim rejections. The table provided with para [0113] of instant specification (refer PGPub) compares “Invention” with “Digestion+Incineration”, however, it is not clear whether the “invention” applied to all embodiments disclosed in the instant specification. For example, embodiment of Fig. 1 does not include thermal conditioning or claimed reuse of heat produced by incineration. The table does not provide a clear evidence of whether the unexpected results are same over disclosed embodiments.
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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights