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 Amendment
Applicant has amended claim 20 and added new claims 47 and 48. Claims 1-10,12,18,20-23,29,31-33 and 35-48 are pending. Claims 1-10,12,18 and 33 are withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new rejections under 112(a). See 112(a) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new rejections under 112(b). See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new prior art rejections. See prior art rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments to the claims have been found to necessitate new prior art rejections. See Prior art rejections below for details.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-23, 29, 31-32, and 35-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites a newly amended limitation to “the dryer having an exhaust outlet connected to a scrubber located upstream of the thermal oxidizer.”
Examiner reads the language to the scrubber being “located upstream of the thermal oxidizer” as requiring that the scrubber be positioned such that a process stream leaving said scrubber (or a derivative thereof) will eventually flow to the thermal oxidizer, though there is some lack of clarity on this matter (see 112(b) rejections below).
There is support in the disclosure as originally filed for a scrubber connected to a dryer exhaust outlet and located down downstream of the dryer (e.g. Figure 1, paragraphs [0013] and [0024] of the specification as filed 3/30/2023). There is also support for the thermal oxidizer not being located in the exhaust flow path, i.e. the flow path of the exhaust from the dryer, as is presumably required by newly added dependent claim 48.
However, the disclosure as originally filed does not support a scrubber being “located upstream of the thermal oxidizer”, i.e. being positioned such that a process stream leaving said scrubber (or a derivative thereof) will eventually flow to the thermal oxidizer.
Therefore, the limitation to the “the dryer having an exhaust outlet connected to a scrubber located upstream of the thermal oxidizer” contains unsupported subject matter which must be removed from the claims.
Please note that for the purposes of examination, claim 20 is treated as requiring that the dryer have an exhaust outlet connected to a scrubber, wherein the scrubber is not located downstream of the thermal oxidizer. This treatment of claim 20 is: 1) consistent with what is disclosed in the Figures and Specification; 2) believed to be consistent with Applicant’s intentions for claim 20; and 3) in view of points 1 and 2, is believed to best serve the goal of compact prosecution. See 112(b) rejection of claim 20 below for further details.
Claims 21-23, 29, 31-32, and 35-48 are dependents of claim 20 and therefore, contain the same unsupported subject matter.
Claim 47 recites the newly added limitation “wherein the scrubber is located upstream of the thermal oxidizer in the exhaust flow path.”
Examiner reads the language to the scrubber being “located upstream of the thermal oxidizer” as requiring that the scrubber be positioned such that a process stream leaving said scrubber (or a derivative thereof) will eventually flow to the thermal oxidizer, though there is some lack of clarity on this matter (see 112(b) rejections below).
Though the scope of “the exhaust flow path” is unclear, Examiner treats this limitation as as referring to a path taken by exhaust flowing from the scrubber.
There is support in the disclosure as originally filed for a scrubber connected to a dryer exhaust outlet, located down downstream of the dryer, and positioned in the flow path of exhaust from the dryer (e.g. Figure 1, paragraphs [0013] and [0024] of the specification as filed 3/30/2023). There is also support for the thermal oxidizer not being located in the flow path of exhaust from the dryer, as is presumably required by newly added dependent claim 48.
However, the disclosure as originally filed does not support a scrubber being “located upstream of the thermal oxidizer in the exhaust flow path”, i.e. being positioned such that a process stream leaving said scrubber (or a derivative thereof) will eventually flow to the thermal oxidizer.
Therefore, the limitation to “wherein the scrubber is located upstream of the thermal oxidizer in the exhaust flow path” contains unsupported subject matter which must be removed from the claims.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 20-23, 29, 31-32, and 35-48 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 20 recites “the dryer having an exhaust outlet connected to a scrubber located upstream of the thermal oxidizer” in lines 5-6.
Examiner reads the language to the scrubber being “located upstream of the thermal oxidizer” as requiring that the scrubber be positioned such that a process stream leaving said scrubber (or a derivative thereof) will eventually flow to the thermal oxidizer.
However, such a requirement is inconsistent with what is disclosed in Applicant’s specification and Figures. Applicant’s disclosure describes a scrubber 20 which is connected to an exhaust outlet of a dryer 10 (e.g. Figure 1, paragraphs [0013] and [0024] of the specification as filed 3/30/2023). There is nothing in specification which describes an effluent from the scrubber 20 (or a derivative of such effluent) flowing into the thermal oxidizer 42.
Furthermore, a requirement that the scrubber be “located upstream of the thermal oxidizer” appears inconsistent with dependent claim 48, which seems to require that the thermal oxidizer not receive any exhaust from the dryer (though claim 48 suffers from its own lack of clarity, see rejection below).
Accordingly, it seems that Applicant either:
i) intended for claim 20 to require merely that the scrubber is not located downstream of the thermal oxidizer; or
ii) intends for the term “located upstream of the thermal oxidizer” to be given a broader interpretation than Examiner’s.
Examiner considers the latter possibility (ii) to be unlikely and/or untenable in view of dependent claim 47.
Dependent claim 47 requires that “the scrubber is located upstream of the thermal oxidizer in the exhaust flow path”. Though the term “the exhaust flow path” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, it presumably refers to a flow path for exhaust leaving the dryer (the claims recite no other “exhaust”). Thus, in its present form, claim 47 does not impose any further limitation on claim 20, suggesting that Applicant did not intend for claim 20 to require that the scrubber be upstream of the thermal oxidizer.
Furthermore, dependent claim 48 recites “wherein the thermal oxidizer is not located in the exhaust flow path.” When claim 47 is considered in conjunction with claim 48, it appears that Applicant intended for claim 47 to capture an embodiment wherein effluent from the scrubber flows to the thermal oxidizer, whereas claim 48 was intended to capture an alternate embodiment wherein the thermal oxidizer does not receive the scrubber effluent. This further suggests that Applicant did not intend for claim 20 to require that the scrubber be upstream of the thermal oxidizer.
Regardless, even if Applicant intends for the language to the scrubber being “located upstream of the thermal oxidizer” to be given a broader interpretation than Examiner’s, it is unclear what meaning should be given to said language, especially when claim 20 is considered in the context of dependent claim 47.
For the purposes of examination, claim 20 is treated as requiring that the dryer have an exhaust outlet connected to a scrubber, wherein the scrubber is not located downstream of the thermal oxidizer. This treatment of claim 20 is: 1) consistent with what is disclosed in the Figures and Specification; 2) believed to be consistent with Applicant’s intentions for claim 20; and 3) in view of points 1 and 2, is believed to best serve the goal of compact prosecution.
Claims 21-23, 29, 31-32, and 35-48 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 20.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the exhaust flow path" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, “the exhaust flow path” has been treated as a flow path for exhaust from the dryer.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the exhaust flow path" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, “the exhaust flow path” has been treated as a flow path for exhaust from the dryer.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 23, 29, 31, 32, 38-45, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nickerson et al. (US 2013/0098750), hereafter referred to as Nickerson.
With regard to claim 20: Nickerson teaches a system for treating organic waste (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0024]-[0026]), the system comprising:
A volatilization reactor (thermal-process system; i.e. pyrolizer/gasifier) 14 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0024], [0026], [0027], [0075], and [0076]).
A thermal oxidizer 50 having an inlet connected to the volatilization reactor 14 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
And a dryer 12 upstream of the volatilization reactor 14 and in communication with the volatilization reactor 14 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0026]-[0028]).
The dryer 12 of Nickerson “can be provided with additional equipment such as an input/feed hopper and a scrubber/condenser,” (paragraph [0028]). Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that such a scrubber will necessarily be: i) connected to an exhaust outlet of the dryer 12 for receiving an exhaust from said dryer, and ii) not downstream of the thermal oxidizer 50.
In the alternative, by teaching that the dryer 12 “can be provided with additional equipment such as an input/feed hopper and a scrubber/condenser,” Nickerson’s disclosure at least suggests providing the dryer 12 with its own scrubber (i.e. as opposed to a scrubber positioned downstream of the thermal oxidizer), said scrubber being configured to exhaust from said dryer.
In the event that it is not implicit in Nickerson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nickerson by adding a scrubber that is: i) connected to an exhaust outlet of the dryer 12 for receiving an exhaust from said dryer, and ii) not downstream of the thermal oxidizer 50, in order to obtain a predictably functional system that is congruent with Nickerson’s own suggestions.
With regard to claim 21: The volatilization reactor 14 is a pyrolysis reactor or a gasification reactor (Figure 1, paragraphs [0026]-[0028] and [0075]-[0076]).
With regard to claim 23: The thermal oxidizer 50 receives gas from the volatilization reactor 14 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
With regard to claim 29: Nickerson’s device further comprises a gas treatment unit (air-pollution control equipment) 28 in communication with the thermal oxidizer (Figure 1, paragraph [0026]).
With regard to claim 31: Nickerson does not explicitly teach that the volatilization reactor is capable of volatizing Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), from the organic waste. However:
i) The volatilization reactor 14 is structurally identical to that of the claims (see rejections of claims 20 and 21 above).
ii) The volatilization reactor 14 is configured to gasify and/or pyrolyze feed material (Figure 1, paragraphs [0024], [0026], [0027], and [0075]).
iii) The volatilization reactor is capable of heating feed material to temperatures of at least 1350 to 1400 °F (732.2-760 °C) (paragraph [0070]).
In view of points i-iii above, it is understood that the volatilization reactor 14 is necessarily capable of volatizing Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), from the organic waste, from the organic waste.
Therefore, Nickerson satisfies the claim language regarding the volatilization reactor being capable of volatizing Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), from the organic waste. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
With regard to claim 32: Nickerson teaches that the volatilization reactor 14 produces a solid product (hot ash residual material/cooled ash residue) 15/17 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0027], [0029], [0067]).
Nickerson describes the solid product 15//17 as “ash” and does not expressly teach that the reactor 14 produces char and/or biochar. However, it is understood that char is a solid carbon residue produced by gasification and pyrolysis reactions, with biochar being char produced from the gasification or pyrolysis of biomass, e.g. wood. The material processed in the volatilization reactor 14 may be biomass (paragraph [0024]).
Although said solid product is described as “ash”, Nickerson indicates that the solid product 15 can comprise unreacted carbon in embodiments where the volatilization reactor is operated as a gasifier (paragraph [0072]). Thus, it is understood that the volatilization reactor 14 of Nickerson will produce, or is at least capable of producing, a biochar or char when it is operated as a gasifier.
Furthermore, Nickerson teaches that the reactor 14 can be operated as a pyrolyzer “without as much carbon conversion of the waste material 13 as when in the gasifier mode”, resulting in the production of “much more ash residue 15” (paragraph [0075]). Furthermore, it is understood that pyrolysis reactions necessarily produce char as a product. Thus, it is understood that the volatilization reactor 14 of Nickerson will produce, or is at least capable of producing, a biochar or char when it is operated as a pyrolyzer.
Nickerson does not explicitly teach that a biochar portion produced in the volatilization reactor has a Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) content reduced by about 75%, about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, about 95%, about 97%, about 98%, about 99%, or 100% in comparison to a Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) content before volatilization. However:
i) The volatilization reactor 14 is structurally identical to that of the claims (see rejections of claims 20 and 21 above).
ii) The volatilization reactor 14 is configured to gasify and/or pyrolyze feed material (Figure 1, paragraphs [0024], [0026], [0027], and [0075]).
iii) The volatilization reactor is capable of heating feed material to temperatures of at least 1350 to 1400 °F (732.2-760 °C) (paragraph [0070]).
In view of points i-iii above, it is understood that the volatilization reactor 14 is necessarily capable of producing a char or biochar portion having a Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) content reduced by about 75%, about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, about 95%, about 97%, about 98%, about 99%, or 100% in comparison to a Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) content before volatilization.
Therefore, Nickerson satisfies the claim language regarding a biochar portion produced in the volatilization reactor having a Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) content reduced by about 75%, about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, about 95%, about 97%, about 98%, about 99%, or 100% in comparison to a Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) before volatilization. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
With regard to claim 38: As discussed in detail in the rejection of claim 31 above, it is understood that the volatilization 14 is necessarily capable of volatizing Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), from the organic waste, from the organic waste.
It is understood that the reactor’s capability extends to the volatilization of specific pharmaceutical contaminants including Bisphenol A, Furosemide, Gemfibrozil, Glipizide, Glyburide, Hydrochlorothiazide, 2-Hydroxy- ibuprofen, Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Triclocarban, Triclosan, Warfarin, Acetaminophen, Azithromycin, Caffeine, Carbadox, Carbamazepine, Cefotaxime, Ciprofloxacin, Clarithromycin, Clinafloxacin, Cloxacillin, Dehydronifedipine, Diphenhydramine, Diltiazem, Digoxin, Digoxigenin, Enrofloxacin, Erythromycin-H20, Flumequine, Fluoxetine, Lincomycin, Lomefloxacin, Miconazole, Norfloxacin, Norgestimate, Ofloxacin, Ormetoprim, Oxacillin, Oxolinic Acid, Penicillin G, Penicillin V, Roxithromycin, Sarafloxacin, Sulfachloropyridazine, Sulfadiazine, Sulfadimethoxine, Sulfamerazine, Sulfamethazine, Sulfamethizole, Sulfamethoxazole, Sulfanilamide, Sulfathiazole, Thiabendazole, Trimethoprim, Tylosin, Virginiamycin M1, and/or 1,7-Dimethylxanthine.
Accordingly, Nickerson satisfies the claim language regarding the pharmaceutical contaminant being Bisphenol A, Furosemide, Gemfibrozil, Glipizide, Glyburide, Hydrochlorothiazide, 2-Hydroxy- ibuprofen, Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Triclocarban, Triclosan, Warfarin, Acetaminophen, Azithromycin, Caffeine, Carbadox, Carbamazepine, Cefotaxime, Ciprofloxacin, Clarithromycin, Clinafloxacin, Cloxacillin, Dehydronifedipine, Diphenhydramine, Diltiazem, Digoxin, Digoxigenin, Enrofloxacin, Erythromycin-H20, Flumequine, Fluoxetine, Lincomycin, Lomefloxacin, Miconazole, Norfloxacin, Norgestimate, Ofloxacin, Ormetoprim, Oxacillin, Oxolinic Acid, Penicillin G, Penicillin V, Roxithromycin, Sarafloxacin, Sulfachloropyridazine, Sulfadiazine, Sulfadimethoxine, Sulfamerazine, Sulfamethazine, Sulfamethizole, Sulfamethoxazole, Sulfanilamide, Sulfathiazole, Thiabendazole, Trimethoprim, Tylosin, Virginiamycin M1, and/or 1,7-Dimethylxanthine. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
With regard to claim 39: As discussed in detail in the rejection of claim 32 above, it is understood that the volatilization reactor 14 is necessarily capable of producing a biochar portion having a Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) content reduced by about 75%, about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, about 95%, about 97%, about 98%, about 99%, or 100% in comparison to a Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds, pharmaceutical contaminants, personal care product contaminants, 4-nonylpehnol, estrogen, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and/or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) content before volatilization.
It is understood that the reactor’s capability extends to specific pharmaceutical contaminants including Bisphenol A, Furosemide, Gemfibrozil, Glipizide, Glyburide, Hydrochlorothiazide, 2-Hydroxy- ibuprofen, Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Triclocarban, Triclosan, Warfarin, Acetaminophen, Azithromycin, Caffeine, Carbadox, Carbamazepine, Cefotaxime, Ciprofloxacin, Clarithromycin, Clinafloxacin, Cloxacillin, Dehydronifedipine, Diphenhydramine, Diltiazem, Digoxin, Digoxigenin, Enrofloxacin, Erythromycin-H20, Flumequine, Fluoxetine, Lincomycin, Lomefloxacin, Miconazole, Norfloxacin, Norgestimate, Ofloxacin, Ormetoprim, Oxacillin, Oxolinic Acid, Penicillin G, Penicillin V, Roxithromycin, Sarafloxacin, Sulfachloropyridazine, Sulfadiazine, Sulfadimethoxine, Sulfamerazine, Sulfamethazine, Sulfamethizole, Sulfamethoxazole, Sulfanilamide, Sulfathiazole, Thiabendazole, Trimethoprim, Tylosin, Virginiamycin M1, and/or 1,7-Dimethylxanthine.
Accordingly, Nickerson satisfies the claim language regarding the pharmaceutical contaminant being Bisphenol A, Furosemide, Gemfibrozil, Glipizide, Glyburide, Hydrochlorothiazide, 2-Hydroxy- ibuprofen, Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Triclocarban, Triclosan, Warfarin, Acetaminophen, Azithromycin, Caffeine, Carbadox, Carbamazepine, Cefotaxime, Ciprofloxacin, Clarithromycin, Clinafloxacin, Cloxacillin, Dehydronifedipine, Diphenhydramine, Diltiazem, Digoxin, Digoxigenin, Enrofloxacin, Erythromycin-H20, Flumequine, Fluoxetine, Lincomycin, Lomefloxacin, Miconazole, Norfloxacin, Norgestimate, Ofloxacin, Ormetoprim, Oxacillin, Oxolinic Acid, Penicillin G, Penicillin V, Roxithromycin, Sarafloxacin, Sulfachloropyridazine, Sulfadiazine, Sulfadimethoxine, Sulfamerazine, Sulfamethazine, Sulfamethizole, Sulfamethoxazole, Sulfanilamide, Sulfathiazole, Thiabendazole, Trimethoprim, Tylosin, Virginiamycin M1, and/or 1,7-Dimethylxanthine. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
With regard to claims 40-45: The system of Nickerson further comprises a heat exchanger 56 in thermal communication with the thermal oxidizer 50 (Figures 1 and 11, paragraphs [0034], [0036], [0037], and [0069]).
Said heat exchanger 56 is in thermal communication with the dryer 12 via heat transfer fluid (HTF) loop 52 (Figures 1 and 11, paragraphs [0034], [0036], [0037], and [0069]).
Said heat exchanger 56 is in thermal communication with the volatilization reactor 14 via the HTF loop 52, additional heat exchanger 58, and air recirculation system 20 (Figures 1 and 11, paragraphs [0034], [0036], [0037], [0042], [0062], and [0069]).
With regard to claims 40-45: The system of Nickerson further comprises a heat exchanger 58 in thermal communication with the thermal oxidizer 50 via heat transfer fluid (HTF) loop 52 and additional heat exchanger 56 (Figures 1 and 11, paragraphs [0034], [0036], [0037], and [0069]).
Said heat exchanger 58 is in thermal communication with the dryer 12 via the heat transfer fluid (HTF) loop 52 (Figures 1 and 11, paragraphs [0034], [0036], [0037], and [0069]).
Said heat exchanger 58 is in thermal communication with the volatilization reactor 14 via air recirculation system 20 (Figures 1 and 11, paragraphs [0034], [0036], [0037], [0042], [0062], and [0069]).
With regard to claims 40-45: The system of Nickerson further comprises a heat exchange a heat exchanger disposed in the dryer 12, e.g. a heat exchanger comprised of rotors, flighting, and/or housing of the dryer which heats the dryer using heat in a heat transfer fluid supplied thereto (paragraph [0028]).
Said heat exchanger is in fluid communication with:
i) the thermal oxidizer 50 via heat transfer fluid (HTF) loop 52 and additional heat exchanger 56 (Figures 1 and 11, paragraphs [0034], [0036], [0037], and [0069]);
ii) the dryer 12 (paragraph [0028]); and
iii) the volatilization reactor 14 via air recirculation system 20, additional heat exchanger 58 and HTF loop 52 (Figures 1 and 11, paragraphs [0034], [0036], [0037], [0042], [0062], and [0069]).
With regard to claim 48: The thermal oxidizer 50, being connected to an outlet of the 54 of the volatilization reactor 14, is not in the path of the exhaust from the dryer 12 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0026]-[0028] and [0033]-[0035]).
Claim(s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nickerson in view of Choros (US 2008/0314726).
With regard to claims 35 and 36: Nickerson anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 29 as discussed in the 102/103 rejections above.
Nickerson is silent to the gas treatment unit 28 comprising an NOx treatment unit comprising a catalytic reactor.
However, it is known in the art to provide NOx treatment units comprising a catalytic reactor for removing polluting nitrogen oxides from flue gas streams. For example, Choros teaches a volatilization system comprising a gas treatment unit (Flue gas emission control) 4.2.2 for treating a flue gas, wherein the gas treatment unit may comprise a catalytic reactor containing a copper oxide catalyst for catalytically reducing nitrogen oxides (Figure 5, paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nickerson in view of Choros by adding a NOx treatment unit comprising a catalytic reactor to the gas treatment unit of Nickerson, in order to obtain a system which is capable of catalytically reducing nitrogen oxides in the off gas from the thermal oxidizer.
Claim(s) 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nickerson in view of Schmidt (US 4,794,871).
With regard to claims 35 and 37: Nickerson anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 29 as discussed in the 102/103 rejections above.
Nickerson is silent to the gas treatment unit being an SOx treatment unit comprising a scrubber.
However, it is known in the art to provide scrubbers which amount to SOx treatment units. For example, Schmidt teaches a waste treatment system comprising a scrubber (gas washer) 8 in communication with the thermal oxidizer (combustion chamber) 6, wherein the scrubber 8 is at least an SOx treatment unit (Column 4 Lines 53-Column 5 Line 3, Column 5 Lines 33-48, column 7 Lines 38-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nickerson in view of Schmidt by configuring the scrubber of Nickerson to function as an SOx treatment unit, in order to obtain a system which is capable of catalytically reducing sulfur oxides in the off gas from the thermal oxidizer.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nickerson in view of Badger (US 2008/0006519).
With regard to claim 46: Nickerson anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed in the 102/103 rejections above.
Nickerson is silent to the scrubber being a wet scrubber.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the scrubber of Nickerson must either be a wet scrubber or a dry scrubber. Furthermore, wet scrubbers are notoriously well-known in the art, and have been used in the art to treat exhaust gases from dryers. For example, Badger teaches a pyrolysis system having a dryer 12 and a wet scrubber (provided in place of cyclone/baghouse 14) connected to an exhaust outlet of said dryer for controlling emissions from said dryer (Figure 1, paragraph [0028]). It is well established that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nickerson in view of Badger by selecting a wet scrubber for use as the scrubber, in order to obtain a predictably functional system having a scrubber which is predictably suitable for treating the dryer exhaust gases received thereby.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nickerson in view of van den Broek (US 4,926,764).
With regard to claim 47: Nickerson anticipates or otherwise renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed in the 102/103 rejections above.
Nickerson is silent to the scrubber being located upstream of the thermal oxidizer such that the thermal oxidizer is positioned in a flow path of the dryer exhaust.
Van den Broek teaches a sludge drying system comprising a dryer 34, a scrubber (washer) 70 positioned in a flow of exhaust from the dryer 34, and a thermal oxidizer (afterburner) 74 located downstream of the dryer 34 (Figure 1, Columns 2-5). The afterburner 74 decomposes noxious components in the dryer exhaust (Column 5 Lines 17-21).
It is noted that the system of Nickerson can be used to process sludge (paragraphs [0008] and [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nickerson in view of van den Broek by connecting an outlet of the scrubber with an inlet of the thermal oxidizer 50, i.e. such that the scrubber is located upstream of the thermal oxidizer and the thermal oxidizer is positioned in a flow path of the dryer exhaust, in order to obtain a system wherein said thermal oxidizer decomposes noxious components in the dryer exhaust.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nickerson et al. (US 9,446,975) is the granted patent corresponding to the Nickerson PG pub relied upon in the prior art rejections above.
US 9,242,219 and US 9,809,769, both to Bull et al. teach systems similar to that of the claims. Either of these references could be relied upon a primary reference in alternate 103 rejections of the claims.
Wang et al. (“Critical Review of Thermal Decomposition of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Mechanisms and Implications for Thermal Treatment Processes”; https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02251) teaches thermal decomposition temperatures for various PFAS substances.
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 JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached 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 at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights