DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1 and 36-40 are pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 36-40 are new.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Kristoufek does not teach “transferring the decarbonized vapor to a second vessel”. The term “decarbonized vapor” is interpreted as referring to the CO2 gas removed. This argument is not persuasive because there is inherently a second vessel taught by Kristoufek. Kristoufek teaches that the carbon dioxide is obtained from the column and “may be employed as carbonization gas”. As the carbon dioxide gas (decarbonized vapor) is disclosed as being used in other processes there is inherently a second vessel to hold the carbon dioxide.
The applicant argues that Kristoufek describes a single-step distillation and there is no two-vessel sequential process. This argument is not persuasive because Kristoufek teaches that the carbon dioxide and ammonia are removed separately from the distillation column (exhaust pipe for ammonia 14 and exhaust pipe for carbon dioxide 15). As the gas stream are separated the process is inherently sequential because carbon dioxide and ammonia turn to gas at different temperatures (see Kristoufek col. 3 lines 13-20) and there could not be separate outlets if the process was not sequential. Further the applicant argues that Kristoufek does not mention adjusting pH during ammonia recovery. This argument is not persuasive because the change in pH is a result of the carbon dioxide separation, not an additional step. As the carbon dioxide is removed the pH will inherently increase.
The double patenting rejection of claim 1 is maintained. The applicant has not provided any arguments or identified any limitations they believe are not disclosed by the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 36-40 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 1 states “utilizing only physical processes”. This limitation is not disclosed in the original disclosure. The original disclosure states “without chemical reactions”, however “physical processes” and “without chemical reactions” are not equivalent limitations. Claim 38 state “flow dividers the induce a churning flow”. This limitation is not supported in the original disclosure. Paragraph 0021 of the published specification sates the flow divider “allow for” a churning flow. The phrase “allow for” does not support induing churning flow. Claim 39 states “injecting steam into the decarbonized effluent in the second vessel”. There is no support for injecting steam into a second vessel. Claim 40 states “the NH4 concentrating chamber includes a cooling mechanism”. There is no support for this limitation in the original disclosure. Paragraph 0023 of the published specification states that the effluent is passed toa cooling mechanism from the concentrating chamber, not that the concentrating chamber includes the cooling mechanism. The remaining claims include new matter as they depend from claims including new matter.
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 1 and 36-40 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 1:
The claim refers to “the decarbonized vapor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. There is only support for a “decarbonized effluent” and “CO-2 gas” that has been removed. For the purposes of examination “decarbonized vapor” will be interpreted as the CO2 gas.
The claim states “utilizing only physical processes”. It is not clear what changing the applicant is limiting to “physical processes”.
Regarding Claim 37:
The claim refers to “the second cell”. There is insuffient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim.
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. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the patent disclose the method of producing organic ammonia, comprising: a. heating 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 vapor to a second vessel ( CO2 laden gas is collected, therefore there is a vessel of some kind) 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 utilizing only physical processes (see claims 1 and 4).
Claim Rejections - 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 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) 1, 36, 38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristoufek (USPN 4,710,300) in view of Rapport et al (US 2019/0367382).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kristoufek teaches the method of producing organic ammonia, comprising: a. placing a biowaste material in an anaerobic digester device to drive a biological anaerobic digestion of the biowaste and yield a digested biowaste composition (see col. 5 lines 33-35); b. collecting a liquid effluent of the digested biowaste composition (digested product 4) (see col. 5 lines 8-10); c. heating said liquid effluent to evolve CO2-laden gas and remove from the liquid effluent (removed by exhaust pipe for carbon dioxide) (see col. 5 lines 15-20) and thereby form aa decarbonized effluent having an increased pH (carboned dioxide is removed and no other material is added, pH will inherently increase) in a first vessel (distillation column) (see col. 5 lines 8-11); d. transferring the decarbonized vapor to a second vessel (“carbon dioxide may be obtained from the column…”obtaining a gas requires a vessel of some kind to hold the gas) (see col. 6 lines 20-24) and heating the decarbonized effluent to a temperature sufficient to shift the ammonium bicarbonate equilibrium and release NH3 vapor from said decarbonized effluent (ammonia removed by the ammonia exhaust pipe 14)) (see col. 2 lines 23-24, col. 3 lines 13-30).
Kristoufek does not explicitly teach heating the biowaste material in the anaerobic digester or e. passing the NH3 vapor into an NH3 concentrating chamber to extract NH3 and yield an aqueous NH3 product derived from effluent without chemical reactions. Kristoufek further teaches that the NH3 vapor is sent to known ammonia processing equipment (see col. 5 lines 15-20).
Rapport teaches a method for producing organic ammonia comprising; heating biowaste material in an anaerobic digester (energy is used to maintain the temperature in the digester, therefore it is inherently heated) (see para. 0034). Rapport further teaches passing the NH3 vapor into an NH3 condense (condensing column) the NH3 vapor and yield an aqueous NH3 product utilizing only physical processes (see para. 0025, para. 0034).
Kristoufek and Rapport are analogous inventions in the art of producing ammonia. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to heat the digester of Kristoufek, as disclosed by Rapport , because it is the simple addition of a known treatment step to a known process, obviously resulting in a temperature change to the digestate, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have been obvious to replace the unspecified ammonia processing equipment of Kristoufek with the condensing chamber (concentrating chamber) of Rapport because it is the simple substitution of one further treatment step with another known further treatment step, obviously resulting in an ammonia product stream, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 36:
Kristoufek, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first vessel includes a multi-cell decarbonizing vessel comprising a plurality of sequential cells (each plate divides the vessel into subsequent cells), including a first carbon desorption cell configured to remove CO2 from the liquid effluent (all cells are configured to remove CO2) and at least one subsequent cell (column with a greater number of plates) (See Kristoufek col. 3 lines 13-30).
Regarding Claim 38:
Kristoufek, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first vessel comprises a series of ammonia desorption cells (column with a greater number of plates) separated by flow dividers (plates) that induce a churning flow of the decarbonized effluent (as the cells are divided some churning flow will be induced) (See Kristoufek col. 3 lines 13-30).
Regarding Claim 40:
Kristoufek, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the NH3 concentrating chamber includes a cooling mechanism selected from a heat exchanger (cold water circulating system) or a refrigeration unit, the cooling mechanism being configured to cool the NH3-laden vapor and condense it into the aqueous NH3 product (see Rapport para. 0025).
Conclusion
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 1/12/2026