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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed.
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.
Claims 4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 4, It is unclear what conditions and qualities read on a “sick” microorganism. It is not clear what behavior is characteristic of “sick” microorganisms.
Claim 4 includes steps “a”, “b”, “c” and “e”, but no step “d”. It is unclear, therefore, if the step “d” set forth in claim 3 is required by claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the prepared feed stock" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the biogas producing chamber" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the prepared feed stock" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Courtemanche (US 20160369219).
With respect to claims 1, 12 and 13, Courtemanche discloses a method of keeping microorganisms working at maximum efficiency in an anaerobic digester (Figure 2:20) to produce a biogas. Paragraph [0100] states that the internal temperature of the anaerobic digester is maintained at approximately 100°F (“This advantageously allows for the maintenance of the temperature of the digesting organic matter at an optimal level of around 100°F, for example”). Courtemanche teaches that the internal temperature is controlled by thermally isolating the anaerobic digester to stop a flow of heat to or from the digester. More specifically, the walls and/or floors of the digester are thermally insulated (“a hot-water circulation circuit and/or other temperature-regulating system 70 (i.e. a temperature-“maintaining” system 70 or temperature-“adjusting” system 70) is provided around and/or under the hydrolysis pit 26 and/or digester reservoir 20, such as in the wall(s) and/or floor(s) of these structures. Temperature-regulating can be done “actively” by means of heating/cooling systems, or can be simply done “passively” by means of insulating panels, for example”).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Courtemanche discloses the method as described above. Courtemanche further teaches in paragraph [0098] that biomass is premixed and preheated in a hydrolysis pit (Figure 1:26) to create an internal mixture. Courtemanche states that the biomass is preheated to approximately 100°F.
With respect to claim 4, Courtemanche discloses the method as described above. Courtemanche further teaches in paragraph [0099] that pre-mixed batch of biomass is slowly changed out from the anaerobic digester using an inflow pipe (Figure 1:22) and an outflow pipe (Figure 1:24).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Courtemanche discloses the method as described above. Courtemanche does not mention the use of any valve to add and remove material from the anaerobic digestor.
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtemanche (US 20160369219) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mann (WO 2020225794).
With respect to claim 5, Courtemanche discloses the method as described above. Although Courtemanche teaches the generation of methane and carbon dioxide gases in the anaerobic digester, Courtemanche does not expressly state that they are collected from separate chambers.
Mann discloses a method of keeping microorganisms working at maximum efficiency in an anaerobic digester (Figure 1:100) to produce a biogas. Mann teaches that the digester produces methane gas and carbon dioxide gas, and that the methane gas is collected from a first chamber (Figure 1:108) while the carbon dioxide gas is collected from a second chamber (Figure 1:106) that is different from the first chamber. This is taught in paragraphs [0052]-[0063].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to collect methane and carbon dioxide product gas from different chambers of the Courtemanche digester. Mann teaches that it is useful to separate methane and carbon dioxide collection locations using a semi-permeable membrane that is selective to only one of the gases (“The membrane may be, for instance, selectively permeable to methane vs. CO2, allowing one to pass and the other not to pass (or pass more slowly”). Mann states that this allows for separate enrichment of each product at optimum concentrations.
With respect to claim 7, Courtemanche does not expressly state that sulfur components and water rare removed from the biogas.
Mann teaches the method as described above. Mann further states in paragraphs [0047] and [0061] that collected biogas may be treated to remove hydrogen sulfide using an activated carbon filter and may also be treated to remove water using a refrigerated dryer.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the Courtemanche method by providing means for removing sulfur components and water from the produced biogas. Mann teaches that this is accomplished using known and common purification devices (e.g., activated filters, dryers). Mann states that hydrogen sulfide especially should be removed because it is highly toxic, corrosive and has little economic value. Furthermore, Mann describes dryers used to remove a water fraction from the biogas as being “simple” to incorporate into an existing anaerobic digestion system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtemanche (US 20160369219) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kulkarni (US 20240117285).
Courtemanche discloses the method as described above, however does not expressly state that the pressure of the biogas within the anaerobic digester is maintained above atmospheric pressure but never more than approximately 0.36 psi above atmospheric pressure.
Kulkarni discloses a method for keeping microorganisms working at a maximum efficiency in an anaerobic digester to produce a biogas. Kulkarni teaches in paragraphs [0055] and [0067] that the pressure within the digester is operated at slightly above atmospheric pressure, typically 0-2 psig.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to control the pressure of biogas within the Courtemanche digester so that it is kept just above atmospheric pressure (i.e., up to about 0.36 psi above atmospheric pressure). Kulkarni teaches that anaerobic digester operation is optimized when the digester is “operated slightly above atmospheric pressure”. Kulkarni states that this enables the effective production of valuable syngas through microbial metabolism.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtemanche (US 20160369219) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Zaid (US 20140004589).
Courtemanche discloses the method as described above, but does not expressly teach separating lighter than water non-organic material and heavier than water non-organic material from the pre-mixed batch of biomass prior to digestion.
Zaid discloses a method for separation that occurs prior to anaerobic digestion. Zaid teaches that a pre-mixed patch of biomass is processed in a reactor (Figure 1:100) configured to remove a lighter than water non-organic material (e.g., plastics) using a skimmer (Figure 1:3) and a heavier than water non-organic material (e.g., rocks, metal) using a settler (Figure 1:1). This is taught in paragraphs [0027]-[0032].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include a separation step in the Courtemanche method in which heavy and light non-organic materials are removed from the pre-mixed batch of biomass. Zaid teaches that raw waste material usually anaerobically digested to produce biogas typically contains non-organic particulates that should be removed prior to digestion. Zaid teaches that heavier than water particulates are easily removed through a settling process, while lighter than water particulates are readily removed by a skimmer configured to capture floating materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799