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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 7(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 3, 5 and 10 have been cancelled. New claim 17 has been added. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 11-17 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 11-17 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior arts, Nobutaka et al. (JP2000080386A) and/or Ryu et al. (KR20110100022 (A).
Applicant argues that: Claim 1 of the present application recites “wherein the adjusting of the sludge further comprises a classification step of separating the particles having the particle diameter of more than 2 mm to 45 mm or less,” in the context of a sludge treatment process. There is a missing element as the cited art fails to teach or suggest "a classification step of separating the particles having the particle diameter of more than 2 mm to 45 mm or less," as recited in amended claim 1. That is, the art does not positively recite "a classification step." The Action relied on Nobutaka as teaching a dehydration, drying, and granulating, but not "a classification step." Although, Nobutaka teaches the particle diameter ranges from 1-10 mm, the method of Nobutaka does not teach or suggest removing particles outside this range, as in amended claim 1. The remaining cited art does not remedy this deficiency. See Remarks, pages 4-5.
In response, the applicants’ arguments direct a newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot. Applicant's amendment necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified ground of rejections to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 11-17 are presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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 of this title, 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(a) 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, 4, 6-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobutaka et al. (JP2000080386A, please refer to the attached English translation document, hereinafter “Nobutaka”), in view of Ryu et al. (KR20110100022 (A), please refer to the attached English translation document, hereinafter “Ryu”).
In regard to claim 1, Nobutaka discloses a process for preparing a fuel from sludge (Abstract), wherein the process comprises:
(i) A step of adjusting a sludge, wherein the adjusted sludge through dehydration, drying and granulating, wherein the sludge particles comprise particles having a particle diameter in a range of 1 mm to 10 mm (page 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom). Since the claimed particle diameter range of 2 mm – 45 mm overlaps the particle diameter in a range of 1 mm to 10 mm taught by Nobutaka, the particle diameter range recited in claim 1 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
(ii) A step of pyrolyzing the adjusted sludge in a furnace where outside air is shut off (i.e., a low-oxygen atmosphere) and at a temperature of 400°C to 800°C (page 2, 2nd paragraph from the top). Since the claimed reaction temperature range of 350-500 ºC overlaps the reaction temperature range of 400-800 ºC taught by Nobutaka, the temperature range recited in claim 1 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
(iii) A step of combusting a gas generated in the pyrolysis of the adjusted sludge (a carbonized gas is burned in the gas chamber (20, Figure in the original Japanese document) (page 2, 1st paragraph from the bottom).
But Nobutaka does not explicitly disclose a classification step of separating the particles having the particle diameter of desired particle size range in the step of adjusting a sludge.
However, Ryu discloses a multi-stage pyrolysis apparatus and a multi-stage pyrolysis method that can control the process step by step, implement a step-by-step continuous production process, and increase the energy efficiency by using the energy generated in the combustion process in the pyrolysis process (page 1, Abstract). Ryu discloses an embodiment of a sludge treatment comprising the steps of: (a) supplying a combustible material, (b) introducing the combustible material into a first pyrolysis section and drying, preheating or pyrolyzing to produce a first gaseous fraction and a first pyrolysis residue, (c) introducing the first pyrolysis residue into a second pyrolysis and pyrolyzing and producing a gaseous fraction and a second pyrolysis residue, (d) introducing the second pyrolysis residue into the combustion section and producing partial oxidation and combustion gaseous fraction and combustion residues through partial oxidation and combustion reactions (page 7, 6th paragraph from the bottom; Fig. 1-Fig. 3 of the original Korean document).
Ryu discloses the multi-stage pyrolysis apparatus comprises a sorting unit. Ryu discloses in the drying sludge sorting step, the dry sludge having a particle size of 2 to 8 mm is sorted out and stored (page 2, 1st paragraph from the top).
It is noted that both the Nobutaka and Ryu references directs a method treating sludge through a pyrolysis and subsequent combustion of pyrolysis gas (carbonized gas).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nobutaka, to provide a classification step of separating the particles having the particle diameter of desired particle size range in the step of adjusting a sludge as suggested or taught by Ryu (page 2, 1st paragraph from the top), this is because (1) Ryu discloses a classification step of separating the particles having the desired particle diameter range (Ryu, page 2, 1st paragraph from the top), as set forth above, and (2) this involves application of a known features of drying sludge sorting step to improve a known livestock excrement treater operation with predictable results.
In regard to claims 2, 4, 7 and 9, Nobutaka discloses a step of adjusting a sludge, wherein the adjusted sludge through dehydration, drying and granulating, which meets the recited “crushing” before, during, or after the drying step, wherein the sludge particles comprise particles having a particle diameter in a range of 1 mm to 10 mm (page 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom).
In regard to claim 6, Nobutaka discloses a step of adjusting a sludge, wherein the adjusted sludge through dehydration, drying and granulating, which meets the recited “crushing” before, during, or after the drying step, wherein the sludge particles comprise particles having a particle diameter in a range of 1 mm to 10 mm (page 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom). Since the claimed particle diameter range of 4 mm - 45 mm overlaps the particle diameter in a range of 1 mm to 10 mm taught by Nobutaka, the particle diameter range recited in claim 5 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claim 8, Nobutaka discloses the organic sludge contains water (page 2, 2nd paragraph from the top). With respect to the moisture percentage in the sludge, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Nobutaka does not expressly disclose the claimed moisture percentage in the sludge; however one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the moisture percentage in the sludge as claimed since the moisture percentage in the sludge depends on the source of the organic sludge such as one generated from daily life or industrial activity (Nobutaka, page 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 11, Nobutaka does not explicitly disclose the sludge comprises harmful chlorine components at a concentration of 1,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm.
Ryu discloses a multi-stage pyrolysis apparatus and a multi-stage pyrolysis method that can control the process step by step, implement a step-by-step continuous production process, and increase the energy efficiency by using the energy generated in the combustion process in the pyrolysis process (page 1, Abstract). Ryu discloses an embodiment of a sludge treatment comprising the steps of: (a) supplying a combustible material, (b) introducing the combustible material into a first pyrolysis section and drying, preheating or pyrolyzing to produce a first gaseous fraction and a first pyrolysis residue, (c) introducing the first pyrolysis residue into a second pyrolysis and pyrolyzing and producing a gaseous fraction and a second pyrolysis residue, (d) introducing the second pyrolysis residue into the combustion section and producing partial oxidation and combustion gaseous fraction and combustion residues through partial oxidation and combustion reactions (page 7, 6th paragraph from the bottom; Fig. 1-Fig. 3 of the original Korean document). Ryu discloses the sludge feedstock comprises harmful component comprising chlorine (page 5, 3rd paragraph from the top).
It is noted that both the Nobutaka and Ryu references directs a method treating sludge through a pyrolysis and subsequent combustion of pyrolysis gas (carbonized gas).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nobutaka, in view of Ryu, to provide the sludge comprises harmful chlorine components at a concentration of 1,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm, this is because the sludge feedstock comprises harmful component comprising chlorine as taught by Ryu (page 5, 3rd paragraph from the top), and it is reasonably expected that the amount of chlorine in the sludge depends on a relative amount of chlorine containing components in the sludge.
In regard to claim 12, Nobutaka discloses a step of pyrolyzing the adjusted sludge in a furnace where outside air is shut off (i.e., a low-oxygen atmosphere) and at a temperature of 400°C to 800°C (page 2, 2nd paragraph from the top). Nobutaka discloses the step of pyrolyzing is a dry distillation of the sludge, and a carbonized gas is transported to a gas chamber thereby burned therein (page 2, 2nd paragraph from the top), one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the oxygen concentration in the step of pyrolyzing is close to 0% which renders the recited limitation of claim 12 obvious.
In regard to claim 13, Nobutaka discloses a step of pyrolyzing the adjusted sludge in a furnace where outside air is shut off (i.e., a low-oxygen atmosphere) and at a temperature of 400°C to 800°C (page 2, 2nd paragraph from the top). Nobutaka discloses the step of pyrolyzing is a dry distillation of the sludge, which is a steady, continuous process (page 2, 2nd paragraph from the top). In light of teachings of Nobutaka, set forth above, although Nobutaka does not explicitly disclose the pyrolysis reaction time as claimed, the claimed pyrolysis reaction time would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize pyrolysis reaction activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the pyrolysis reaction operation (temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the pyrolysis reactor, the physical and chemical make-up of the sludge feedstock as well as the nature of the pyrolysis reaction end-products.
In regard to claim 14, Ryu discloses a combustion of pyrolysis product in a combustion unit at a temperature of greater than 800 [Symbol font/0xB0]C (page 5, 11th paragraph from the bottom).
In regard to claim 15 and 16, Ryu discloses a cooling and a filtering (dust collection) of the combustion gas in Fig. 1- Fig. 3 (pages 5-8).
In regard to claim 17, Nobutaka discloses a step of adjusting a sludge, wherein the adjusted sludge through dehydration, drying and granulating, wherein the sludge particles comprise particles having a particle diameter in a range of 1 mm to 10 mm (page 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom).
Per MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).
Therefore, the upper bound (10 mm) of the particle diameter in a range of 1 mm to 10 mm taught by Nobutaka is considered merely close enough the lower bound (11 mm) of the recited the particle diameter in a range of 11 mm to 45 mm, as a result, the recited particle diameter range is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Nobutaka.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772