Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 6190082 B1 with references made to the English language equivalent US2019/0151911) in view of Facey (US 2010/0021979).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura discloses a waste biogasification treatment device comprising:
a hydrolysis device comprising:
a treatment vessel (processing containers, as mentioned in paragraph 19) having a raw material charging port (port where feed is fed, as described in paragraph 19) and a product discharging port (see paragraph 26 which discloses a removal of the hydrolyzed product through an outlet);
a stirrer which is provided inside said treatment vessel and stirs a raw material (as described in paragraph 24);
a steam supply pipe for supplying steam to said treatment vessel (as taught by the introduction of steam in paragraph 21); and
a steam exhaust pipe for discharging steam from said treatment vessel (as taught in the steam exhaust step of paragraph 25);
a solid-liquid separation device for performing solid-liquid separation of said raw material hydrolyzed by said hydrolysis device to obtain a product (see paragraph 30 which discloses a solid liquid separating apparatus) having a water content of 70 -90% (such a limitation is directed toward the materials worked upon by the claimed apparatus along with the method of operating the claimed apparatus and does not further limit the claim).
Kimura teaches production of a pelletized biomass product but does not disclose an embodiment where the product is biogasified using methane fermentation to generate a biogas.
Facey, like Kimura, teaches hydrolyzing an organic waste stream to produce products (see abstract).
Facey teaches, similar to that of Kimura, hydrolyzing a waste stream utilizing steam (see abstract), and goes on to teach that instead of pelletizing the produced solids, Facey teaches sending the solid/residue containing stream (stream 135) from the hydrolyzer (80) and sending it to an anaerobic/methane digester/fermentation (200). By processing the waste this way, Facey teaches a system and method to produce biogas (such as in stream 310) from a waste stream.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to amend the system of Kimura and, instead of pelletizing the solid material produced in the hydrolysis steam, sending the slurry produced to a methane fermentation unit, as taught by Facey, in order to produce biogas from the slurry and generate power from the produced biogas.
Regarding limitations recited in claim 1 which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed system, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP §2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have a patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. In this case, the apparatus of Kimura is capable of producing the claimed water content of the product stream as it is identical to that of the instant invention (vessel with a stirrer and a inlet and outlet for steam).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 6190082 B1 with references made to the English language equivalent US2019/0151911) in view of Facey (US 2010/0021979) and Nagasawa (JP2019000798A with references made to the machine translation supplied herewith).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura discloses a waste biogasification treatment device comprising:
a hydrolysis device comprising:
a treatment vessel (processing containers, as mentioned in paragraph 19) having a raw material charging port (port where feed is fed, as described in paragraph 19) and a product discharging port (see paragraph 26 which discloses a removal of the hydrolyzed product through an outlet);
a stirrer which is provided inside said treatment vessel and stirs a raw material (as described in paragraph 24);
a steam supply pipe for supplying steam to said treatment vessel (as taught by the introduction of steam in paragraph 21); and
a steam exhaust pipe for discharging steam from said treatment vessel (as taught in the steam exhaust step of paragraph 25);
a solid-liquid separation device for performing solid-liquid separation of said raw material hydrolyzed by said hydrolysis device to obtain a product (see paragraph 30 which discloses a solid liquid separating apparatus) having a water content of 70 -90% (such a limitation is directed toward the materials worked upon by the claimed apparatus and does not further limit the claim).
Kimura teaches production of a pelletized biomass product but does not disclose an embodiment where the product is biogasified in a gasifier to generate a biogas.
Facey, like Kimura, teaches hydrolyzing an organic waste stream to produce products (see abstract).
Facey teaches, similar to that of Kimura, hydrolyzing a waste stream utilizing steam (see abstract), and goes on to teach that instead of pelletizing the produced solids, Facey teaches sending the solid/residue containing stream (stream 135) from the hydrolyzer (80) and sending it to an anaerobic/methane digester/fermentation (200). By processing the waste this way, Facey teaches a system and method to produce biogas (such as in stream 310) from a waste stream.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to amend the system of Kimura and, instead of pelletizing the solid material produced in the hydrolysis steam, sending the slurry produced to a methane fermentation unit, as taught by Facey, in order to produce biogas from the slurry and generate power from the produced biogas.
Kimura teaches the addition of steam to the hydrolysis vessel, but does not further disclose where this steam comes from. More specifically, Kimura does not disclose a biomass boiler generates steam using organic matter as a fuel, wherein the fuel of the biomass boiler may be obtained by drying a product produced by hydrolysis treatment in the hydrolysis treatment device (this italicized limitation is purely directed to a possible manner of operating the claimed apparatus and does not further define the structure).
Nagasawa also discloses a hydrolysis system (see abstract).
Nagasawa, like Kimura, teaches the generation of a hydrolysis product (see paragraph 7 which discloses the production of a hydrolyzed product). Nagasawa goes on to teach that at least a portion of the hydrolyzed product can be sent to a biomass boiler in order to produce heat to generate steam (paragraph 26).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the biomass boiler of Nagasawa to the system of modified Kimura in order to generate the steam that is utilized in the hydrolysis vessel.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 6190082 B1 with references made to the English language equivalent US2019/0151911) in view of Facey (US 2010/0021979) and Caspari (WO 2008/060571).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura discloses a waste biogasification treatment method comprising:
a raw material charging step for charging a raw material containing an organic waste into a treatment vessel (as described in paragraph 9 which discloses charging an organic material);
a hydrolysis treatment step for hydrolyzing said raw material with steam (paragraph 22-24);
a solid-liquid separation step for performing solid-liquid separation of said raw material hydrolyzed in said hydrolysis treatment step (paragraph 30); and
wherein in said hydrolysis treatment step, an internal pressure of said treatment vessel is 1.2 MPa to 3.0 MPa, a treatment temperature is 189 to 234° C., and a retention time after said treatment temperature reaches a target temperature zone is 10 minutes to 2 hours (paragraphs 21-24).
Kimura teaches production of a pelletized biomass product but does not disclose an embodiment where the product is biogasified in a gasifier to generate a biogas.
Facey, like Kimura, teaches hydrolyzing an organic waste stream to produce products (see abstract).
Facey teaches, similar to that of Kimura, hydrolyzing a waste stream utilizing steam (see abstract), and goes on to teach that instead of pelletizing the produced solids, Facey teaches sending the solid/residue containing stream (stream 135) from the hydrolyzer (80) and sending it to an anaerobic/methane digester/fermentation (200). By processing the waste this way, Facey teaches a system and method to produce biogas (such as in stream 310) from a waste stream.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to amend the system of Kimura and, instead of pelletizing the solid material produced in the hydrolysis steam, sending the slurry produced to a methane fermentation unit, as taught by Facey, in order to produce biogas from the slurry and generate power from the produced biogas.
Furthermore, Kimura does not explicitly disclose that the product that is biogasified has a water content of between 70%-90% but does teach producing a solids containing fluid that is transported from one process unit to another.
Caspari also discloses a biosolids system (see abstract).
Caspari teaches that transporting a solids containing liquid requires a certain amount of liquid in the slurry in order for it to be pumpable. Caspari suggests maintaining the water content of the slurry at 70-90% water in order to facilitate pumping (see paragraph 52).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the water content of Caspari when producing a slurry in modified Kimura in order to allow the slurry to be pumpable.
Regarding claim 3, Kimura further discloses a cleaning step for cleaning said raw material hydrolyzed in said hydrolysis treatment step before said solid-liquid separation step (paragraph 28-29 which discloses a washing step).
Relevant Prior Art
US 2012/0204962 – Discloses hydrothermally treating a carbonaceous material to yield a higher thermal efficiency.
US 2009/0123965 – Discloses a stirred reactor to hydrolyze, with steam, a carbonaceous material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/10/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725