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 § 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.
Claim(s) 4, 6-8, 11 and 16 is/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.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “between about 1 day and about 14 days, or between about 1 day and about 10 days, or between about 1 day and about 7 days” renders the claim indefinite. 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 includes the broad recitation "between about 1 day and about 14 days", and the claim also recites "between about 1 day and about 10 days or between about 1 day and about 7 days" 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. For purposes of examination, the broadest range of about 1 to about 14 days is regarded as being required, while the narrower ranges are considered to be merely exemplary.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation “less than about 10 mm, or less than about 5 mm, or between about 1 mm and about 5 mm” renders the claim indefinite. 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 includes the broad recitation "less than about 10 mm, and the claim also recites "or less than about 5 mm or between about 1 mm and about 5 mm 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. For purposes of examination, the broadest range of less than about 10 mm is regarded as being required, while the narrower ranges are considered to be merely exemplary.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8, and 16, several recitations render the claims indefinite:
“wherein the almond fruit is present in the mixture in an amount between about 10% and 45% by weight” (claim 6)
“wherein the nitrogen-containing compound is present in the mixture in an amount between about 25% and about 45% by weight” (claim 7)
“wherein the water is present in the mixture in an amount between about 35% and about 60% by weight” (claim 8)
“wherein the olive pit is present in the mixture in an amount between about 1% and about 10% by weight” (claim 16)
The recitations are indefinite because they refer to components present in the mixture of claim 1 without specifying when these measurements are taken in the process. For example, water is included in the mixture in step (a), but the solids are separated from the liquids in the same mixture in step (c), which will necessarily affect the water content of both phases. As such, it is unclear whether the water content must be within the range in step (a), (b), or (c), which all identically refer to “the mixture.” Similarly, the almond fruit, nitrogen-containing compound, and olive pit are all included in the mixture referred to in steps (a), (b), and (c), but separation of portions by filtration/centrifugation/sedimentation will necessarily affect the content present in each phase. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable, as it is unclear when the measurements must be within the claimed range. For purposes of examination, a content within the range at any point in the process is regarded as reading on these limitations, regardless of when it is measured.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 12-13, 15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morash (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0048307 A1, hereinafter “Morash”).
Regarding claim 1, Morash teaches a process for preparing a solid fertilizer composition and a liquid fertilizer composition (e.g., methods and systems for manipulating varied biological recyclable streams to produce agricultural admixtures to enhance crop yield) [Morash Abstract], the process comprising:
Providing a mixture comprising (i) almond fruit (e.g., providing a first biological recyclable stream containing culled fruits or nuts such as almonds) [Fig. 1 101 & Para. 0007 & Para. 0047], (ii) water (e.g., the biological recyclable stream has a water content, which increases nutrient solubility) [Para. 0152-0153], and (iii) a nitrogen-containing compound selected from urea and an inorganic ammonium compound (e.g., the biological recyclable stream can also include animal manure and/or blood, which necessarily contain urea) [Para. 0007 & Claim 36],
Agitating the mixture (e.g., the biological recyclable stream is formed into a slurry and then incubated under constant agitation and shear) [Para. 0008-0012],
Separating solids in the mixture from liquid by a method selected from filtration, centrifugation and sedimentation (e.g., optionally separating the first incubated hydrolysate into a first incubated biological hydrolysate and first incubated biological particles using one or a plurality of size-based separation methods [Para. 0014] such as centrifugal separation or a reusable filter or mesh [Para. 0061]), wherein the solids comprise the solid fertilizer composition (e.g., the biological particles can be used as compost or fertilizer) [Para. 0033], and the liquid comprises the liquid fertilizer composition (e.g., the hydrolysate is used to form an agricultural admixture [Para. 0034] such as a fertilizer [Para. 00036]), and
Providing the solid fertilizer composition and the liquid fertilizer composition (e.g., the biological particles can be used as compost or fertilizer) [Para. 0033], (the hydrolysate is used to form an agricultural admixture [Para. 0034] such as a liquid fertilizer [Para. 0023 & 0036]) (any of the compositions produced by the disclosure of Morash may be formulated in a final solid or liquid form) [Para. 0007].
Regarding claim 5, Morash teaches the process wherein agitating the mixture comprises stirring (e.g., the biological recyclable stream is formed into a slurry and then incubated under constant agitation and shear) [Para. 0008-0012] (agitation means a stirring action) [Para. 0312].
Regarding claim 9, Morash teaches the process wherein the almond fruit is particulate almond fruit, ground almond fruit, or shredded almond fruit (e.g., culled nuts such as almonds [Para. 0047] or almond hulls [Para. 0146], the biological recyclable stream can first be ground up [Para. 0010 & 0036] to generate a particle size of ½ inch or less [Para. 0215]).
Regarding claim 12, Morash teaches the process wherein the almond fruit is almond hull, almond shell or a combination thereof in any ratio (e.g., the biological recyclable stream contains culled fruits or nuts such as almonds [Para. 0007 & Para. 0047] or almond hulls [Para. 0146]).
Regarding claim 13, Morash teaches the process wherein the inorganic ammonium compound is ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate and/or the nitrogen-containing compound is urea (e.g., the biological recyclable stream can also include animal manure and/or blood, which necessarily contain urea) [Para. 0007 & Claim 36].
Regarding claim 15, Morash teaches the process wherein the mixture in step (a) further comprises olive pit (e.g., the biological recyclable stream can include waste from olive oil manufacturing, and can include culled olives or olive pomace [Para. 0044]; these are regarded as necessarily containing olive pit).
Regarding claim 17, Morash teaches the process wherein the olive pit is ground or shredded olive pit (e.g., waste from olive oil manufacturing, include culled olives or olive pomace [Para. 0044]; the biological recyclable stream can first be ground up [Para. 0010 & 0036] to generate a particle size of ½ inch or less [Para. 0215]).
Regarding claim 18, Morash teaches the process wherein the mixture further comprises an acid (e.g., a stabilizer can be added such as inorganic or organic acids) [Para. 0031] (the mixture may further include amino acids or fatty acids) [Para. 0036].
Regarding claim 19, Morash teaches the process wherein the acid is a mineral acid (e.g., an inorganic acid) [Para. 0031].
Regarding claim 20, Morash teaches the process further comprising drying the solid fertilizer composition (e.g., the biological particles are dewatered) [Para. 0024].
Regarding claim 21, Morash teaches the process further comprising granulating or pelletizing the solid fertilizer composition (e.g., the biological particles can be dried, milled or pelletized, or dewatered and formed into compost) [Fig. 1, steps 105, 11, 111, 112,
And 107] (the biological particles are dewatered and formed into a fertilizer) [Para. 0033] (the biological particles can also be re-combined with biological hydrolysate to form the agricultural admixture [Para. 0037], the agricultural admixture is later powdered or granulated) [Para. 0193]).
Regarding claim 22, Morash teaches the process carried out under anaerobic conditions (e.g., the biological recyclable stream is initially collected in an oxygen-deficient collection system) [Para. 0050], (the rest of the process takes place in a tank [Para. 0195] which is regarded as being at least partially anaerobic).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morash.
Regarding claim 2, Morash teaches the process wherein almond fruit, water, and a nitrogen-containing compound are combined (e.g., the biological recyclable stream contains culled fruits or nuts such as almonds [Para. 0007 & Para. 0047], water [Para. 0152-0153], and animal manure and/or blood, which necessarily contain urea [Para. 0007 & Claim 36]), but does not explicitly state an order of addition thereof being first almond fruit, then water, then the nitrogen-containing compound. However, changes in sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash to first combine the almond fruit with the water, then add the nitrogen-containing compound as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Morash teaches the process wherein almond fruit, water, and a nitrogen-containing compound are combined (e.g., the biological recyclable stream contains culled fruits or nuts such as almonds [Para. 0007 & Para. 0047], water [Para. 0152-0153], and animal manure and/or blood, which necessarily contain urea [Para. 0007 & Claim 36]), but does not explicitly state an order of addition thereof being first almond fruit, then the nitrogen-containing compound, then water. However, changes in sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash to first combine the almond fruit with the nitrogen-containing compound, then add the water as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Morash teaches the method wherein the mixture is agitated for a period of time between about 1 day and about 14 days (e.g., the ground biological slurry is incubated under constant agitation and shear [Para. 0008-0012] in a series of stages for a period of about 20 minutes to 6 hours [Para. 0205] plus about 1 to about 18 hours [Para. 0206] plus about 30 minutes to about 19 hours [Para. 0210]). Note that overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Morash teaches the process implementing a nitrogen-containing compound such as urea in animal waste and blood [Para. 0007 & Claim 36], but does not explicitly state an amount of urea to include. Morash further teaches in its general disclosure, however, that the final nitrogen content of the agricultural admixture should be between 1 to 15% [Para. 0148]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art, in including urea in animal blood and manure, would readily appreciate that the included urea should be present in an amount such that the nitrogen content falls within the range taught by Morash. Urea is approximately 46% by weight nitrogen. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would include approximately 2-30% by weight urea to afford a nitrogen content within the disclosed range of 1-15%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash to include urea in an amount overlapping with the claimed range as further taught by Morash’s general disclosure. Note that overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Morash teaches the process wherein the water is present in the mixture in an amount between about 35% and about 60% by weight (e.g., the biological hydrolysates can comprise a liquid or aqueous phase having 20-80% by weight water) [Para. 0144]. Note that overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Morash teaches the process wherein the ground or shredded almond fruit has a size that is less than about 10 mm (e.g., the biological recyclable stream is ground up to a particle size of less than ½ inch [Para. 0215] and is further ground up during the process to an average particle size of less than about 70 microns) [Para. 0213] (the biological particles larger than 590 microns are separated) [Para. 0217]. Note that overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morash as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 105801281 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 6, Morash teaches the biological recyclable stream includes almonds (culled fruits or nuts such as almonds) [Para. 0007 & Para. 0047], but does not explicitly state a percentage to include thereof. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to additional references to identify a suitable percentage of almonds to include. Liu teaches a similar organic waste-based fertilizer which is combined with water, stirred, and granulated [Liu Para. 0013 & 0015], and that it is standard to implement a wide range of almond residue proportions from 12-28 parts by weight, which converts to approximately 5-16% by weight [Liu Para. 0019]. As such, in performing the method of Morash to make a fertilizer also involving organic waste and water which is stirred and granulated, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Liu and readily appreciate that 5-16% is a standard weight range of almond residue to include. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash to include a range of almonds overlapping with the claimed range as taught by Liu.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morash as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Zou (CN 105724132 A), with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Zou”).
Regarding claim 16, Morash teaches the biological recyclable stream includes olives pit (e.g., the biological recyclable stream can include waste from olive oil manufacturing, and can include culled olives or olive pomace [Para. 0044]; these are regarded as necessarily containing olive pit) but does not explicitly state a percentage to include thereof. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to additional references to identify a suitable percentage of olive pit to include. Zou teaches a similar organic waste-based fertilizer, which also contains urea and is combined with water and stirred [Zou Para. 0017], and that it is standard to implement a wide range of olive residue proportions from 80-130 parts by weight, which converts to approximately 8-18% by weight [Zou Para. 0012]. This amount of olive provides a good source of phosphorus activators to the fertilizer and soil [Zou Para. 0020]. As such, in performing the method of Morash to make a fertilizer also involving organic waste, water, and urea, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Zou and readily appreciate that 8-18% is a standard weight range of olive material to include. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash to include a range of olive pits overlapping with the claimed range as taught by Zou.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/H.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731