DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1 and 36-43 are pending.
Claims 1 and 37-40 are amended.
Claims 41-43 are new.
This action is made Final.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the Double Patenting rejection. The double patenting rejection is now made in view of Hughes et al (US 2014/0370566) which teaches co-digestion. The applicant has not identified what limitations they believe are not disclosed, or rendered obvious in view of the claims of the Patent.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/15/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 36-40 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 1 and 36-40 have been withdrawn.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 states “at a about pH 8 to about pH 11”. The phrase “at a about pH” appears to contain a typographical error and should be, for example “at about a pH of” or “at a pH of about”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,518,720 in view of Hughes et al (US 2014/0370566).
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the patent disclose the method of producing organic ammonia, comprising: a. performing digestion of a biowaste material (nitrogen containing organic substance) in an anaerobic digester device to drive a biological anaerobic digestion of the biowaste and yield a digested biowaste composition; b. collecting a liquid of the digested biowaste composition; c. heating said liquid effluent to evolve and remove CO2-laden gas from the liquid effluent and thereby form a decarbonized effluent having an increased pH in a first vessel (first chamber); d. transferring the decarbonized effluent to a second vessel (second chamber) and heating the decarbonized effluent to a temperature sufficient to shift ammonium bicarbonate equilibrium and release NH3 vapor from said decarbonized effluent without the addition of pH-adjusting agents; (see claim 1) and e. passing the NH3 vapor into an NH3 concentrating chamber (claim 4 refers to a third venturi injector tube, this is considered to be equivalent to a chamber) to condense the NH3 vapor and yield an aqueous NH3 product without chemical reactions (see claims 1 and 4).
The claims of the patent do not disclose co-digestion with a high-protein supplement or specify the pH range in steps c or d. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a pH of about 6 to 8 in step c and a pH of about 8 to 11 in step d because the same separations are occurring (removing CO2 gas in step C and shifting the bicarbonate equilibrium in step d) therefore the same changes in pH will occur. Further “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore one skilled in the art would have fond it obvious to adjust the pH to a workable range.
Hughes teaches co-digestion with a high protein supplement (blood meal) in order to improve anaerobic digestion for ammonia processing (see Abstract).
The patent and Hughes are analogous inventions in the art of processing ammonia containing wastewater. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the high-protein supplement to the digestion process of the claims of the patent because it improves digestion and balances nutrients (see Hughes, Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 41 and 42 do not further limit the subject matter of claim 1, from which they depend. Claim 1 is directed to a “method of producing organic ammonia”. Claims 41-43 limit the use of “said aqueous NH3” (organic ammonia) Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-40 and 43 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in view of the prior art pending an approved terminal disclaimer: The claims contain limitations not disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the prior art. The closest prior art, Kristoufek and Rapport, does not teach, at least “transferring the decarbonized effluent to a second vessel and heating the decarbonized effluent at about a pH of 8 to about pH 11”. It would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to transfer the decarbonized effluent of Kristoufek to a second vessel because the separation process of Kristoufek takes place in a distillation column, therefore both separation steps occur in the same vessel.
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 CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/21/2026
Prosecution Insights