DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-23 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 13 and 19-22 are amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the system claims (claims 1-7), the arguments are not persuasive at least because the claims are directed to a system and method step only add patentable weight to the extent that the system could be operated with the method steps as claimed. The applicant argues that the system of Nicoletti, as modified by Whiteman, does not have the biodried material formed through aeration of the static pile without mechanical agitation. This argument is not persuasive because the mechanical agitation is Nicoletti is provided by an agitator that passed through the pile “once per day” or “on a less frequent basis” (see para. 0085). As the aeration can be operated without the agitator the structure of the prior art is the same as claimed, and could be operated as claimed.
With respect to the method claims the applicant argues that Nicoletti relies “exclusively on a combination of aeration and mechanical agitation…the agitation of Nicoletti is a fundamental part of the design, with the process failing without it”. This argument is not persuasive because the claims only exclude mechanical agitation from the step of drying, not the process as a whole. The agitation of Nicoletti is designed to move the composting material from one end of the bed to another to make room for fresh compostable material (see para. 0079), although mechanical agitation is required by the process of Nicoletti it is not part of the drying, therefore the claimed limitation is met. Further the mechanical agitation is not always occurring (running the agitator on a less frequent basis) (see para. 0085), therefore there are periods of time when drying is occurring without mechanical agitation. Additionally the claims of the instant invention require “an agitated bay composting system” (see claim 21), therefore the process of the instant invention is being performed in the same type of system as Nicoletti and would have agitation occurring.
The applicant argues that Nicoletti and Whiteman are non-analogous art. In response to applicant's argument that Nicoletti and Whiteman are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Nicoletti is in the same filed of endeavor (biodrying) and Whiteman is pertinent to the problem waste sludge (see Whiteman Abstract, fig. 5). The applicant argues that Nicoletti “requires two factors which Whiteman does not” a vessel and agitation. These arguments are not persuasive because they are not related to the rejection being made. Whiteman teaches that “dewatered sludge is removed from the digester 354 and disposed of by for example spreading on a [field] 355” (see para. 0101, fig. 3). Whiteman provides spreading the dewatered sludge as an example, not a critical part of the invention, therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Nicoletti in order to improve the treatment of the sludge.
The applicant argues that the method of Nicoletti would fail without the agitator because it would not be capable of being loaded or unloaded. This argument is not persuasive because an agitator for loading and unloading is not excluded from the claims.
The applicant states it “is also important that Nicoletti does not limit the type of sludge fed to the process”. This statement supports the obviousness of the combination of Nicoletti with the sludge of Whiteman. Nicoletti is open to the treatment of different sludges therefore it would have been obvious to use the sludge of Whiteman.
The applicant argues that “the underlying observation for Whiteman is that aerated static pile biodrying of sludge cake is typically not successful”. Not support for this argument is provided. Further Whiteman does not limit how the sludge exiting the process of Whiteman is treated.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicoletti et al (US 2010/0184131) in view of Whiteman (US 2020/0087183).
Regarding Claim 1:
Nicoletti teaches the system for biodrying wastewater solids, comprising: a first biological component including de-watered cake solids (sludge cake) (see para. 0143); a second biological component including biodried solids (processed compost material) (see para. 0143); a mixing station (charge zone) (see para. 0162), configured to combine the first biological component and the second biological component to form a static pile (pile are formed) (see fig. 1) of a homogenous mixed biomaterial pile (mixing) )(see para. 0194); and a biodrying system configured to form a biodried material from the static pile, the biodrying system comprising an aeration system (ventilation system 124) (see para. 0108)configured to force ventilate the static pile to form the biodried material (processed compost material) (see para. 0143), wherein the biodried material is formed through aeration of the static pile without mechanical agitation (mechanical agitation is for the loading and unloading of the pile, not the forming of the biodried material) (see para. 0079).
Nicoletti does not teach that the sludge cake is anaerobically digested.
Whiteman teaches mesophilically or thermophilically anaerobically digesting (anaerobic digester 354) (see para. 0103) and dewatering sludge before additional drying (see para. 0101).
Nicoletti and Whiteman are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater sludge. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the anaerobically digester de-watered solids of Whiteman and the sludge cake in Nicoletti because it is the simple substitution of one wastewater treatment plant treated sludge cake with another wastewater treatment plant treated sludge cake, obviously resulting in a biosolid able to be dried, 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.). And one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to treat any known sludge cake with the known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first biological component comprises cake solids processed by thermal hydrolysis and anaerobically digested at mesophilic or thermophilic temperatures. The specifics of the first biological component is interpreted as the intended use of the system as it is what the system is acting on, and not a structural feature of the system and therefore only adds patentable weight to the extent that the prior art system must be capable of processing the same material. As the system of Nicoletti can process a cake from a wastewater water treatment plant is can include cake solids processed by thermal hydrolysis and anaerobically digested at mesophilic or thermophilic temperatures (see Nicoletti para. 0143).
Regarding Claim 3:
Nicoletti teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first biological component comprises about 25% (about 25%) (see Nicoletti para. 0160) to about 35% solid material.
Regarding Claim 4:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first biological component comprises a de-watered anaerobically digested sludge processed with a micro-hydrolysis process including hyper- thermophilic bacteria. The specifics of the first biological component is interpreted as the intended use of the system as it is what the system is acting on, and not a structural feature of the system and therefore only adds patentable weight to the extent that the prior art system must be capable of processing the same material. As the system of Nicoletti can process a cake from a wastewater water treatment plant is can include de-watered anaerobically digested sludge processed with a micro-hydrolysis process including hyper- thermophilic bacteria (see Nicoletti para. 0143).
Regarding Claim 5:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second biological component comprises at least a portion of the biodried material produced in the aeration system (see Nicoletti para. 0192).
Regarding Claim 7:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the static pile comprises: an initial mixture between about 38% to about 45% solid material; and/or a pile between about 1.5m and about 4m in height, between about 2m and about10m in width, and between about 4m and about 35m in length; and/or a mass bed having at least two piles situated adjacent to each other (adjacent piles) (see Nicoletti fig, 1).
Regarding Claim 10:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the aeration system comprises: a ventilation conduit (feed line 256) in fluid communication with a pressurized air source (blower 44); and a plurality of delivery conduits (distribution lines 262) disposed within the static pile, the delivery conduits extending from the ventilation conduit and configured to deliver air to the pile to promote an aerobic biological process and control internal pile temperatures (see Nicoletti para 0154-0155).
Regarding Claim 12:
Nicoletti, as modified teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a temperature feedback control system coupled to the aeration system, the temperature feedback control system configured to control pile temperatures and drying rate (see Nicoletti para. 0036).
Regarding Claim 13:
Nicoletti teaches the method for drying wastewater solids, comprising: blending digested and de-watered biosolid cake (sludge cake) with a pre-dried biosolid to form a mixed biomaterial (processed compost material) (see para. 0143); shaping the mixed biomaterial to form a static pile (bed) (see para. 0081); drying, without mechanical agitation, the static pile (see para. 0079, 0085) to form a biodried material, wherein the drying comprises of aerating the static pile by forced air ventilation throughout the mixed biomaterial (see para. 0108); and dividing the biodried material into a recycle biosolid and a dried biomaterial product, wherein the recycle biosolid is recycled to form at least a portion of the previously dried biosolid and the dried biomaterial product is divided to various portions (see para. 0150).
Nicoletti does not teach that the dewatered biosolids cake is anaerobically digested.
Whiteman teaches anaerobically digesting (anaerobic digester 354) (see para. 0103) and dewatering sludge before additional drying (see para. 0101).
Nicoletti and Whiteman are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater sludge. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the anaerobically digester de-watered solids of Whiteman and the sludge cake in Nicoletti because it is the simple substitution of one wastewater treatment plant treated sludge cake with another wastewater treatment plant treated sludge cake, obviously resulting in a biosolid able to be dried, 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.). And one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to treat any known sludge cake with the known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 15:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein aerating the static pile comprises a continuous forced ventilation of the static pile or an intermittent forced ventilation of the static pile (ventilation is actuated based on temperature, therefore it is intermittent) (see Nicoletti para. 0036).
Regarding Claim 17:
Nicoletti, as modified teaches the method of claim 13, wherein aerating the static pile comprises at least one of a positive aeration (blower) or a negative aeration of the static pile (see Nicoletti para. 0114).
Regarding Claim 18:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein blending an anaerobically digested and de-watered biosolid cake with a previously biodried biosolid to form the mixed biomaterial includes between about a 2:1 to 4:1 ratio by volume of the previously biodried biosolids to the anaerobically digested and de-watered biosolid cake. As the volume ratio disclosed by the prior art overlaps the range 0.5:1 ratio and about a 2.0:1 at an endpoint a prima facie case of obviousness exists and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a ratio of about 2:1.
Regarding Claim 19:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising aerating the static pile and maintaining thermophilic temperatures of 40°C or higher within the static pile for at least 72 hours (14 days above 40°C) (see Nicoletti para. 0197).
Regarding Claim 20:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein shaping the mixed biomaterial to form the static pile comprises stacking the mixed biomaterial pile into a static pile between about 1.5m and about 4m in height (five feet depth (about 1.5 meters)) (see Nicoletti para. 0081), between about 2m and about 10m in width (6 to 12 feet (1.8-3.6m)), and between about 4m and about 35m in length (100 to 300 feet long (30-900m)) (see Nicoletti para. 0080). Given that the prior art ranges for width and length partially overlap the claimed ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to stack the pile to the same claimed (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 21:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein shaping the mixed biomaterial to form a static pile comprises placing the mixed biomaterial into an agitated bay composting system (compost handling machine is used in the composting bay) (see Nicoletti para. 0050, 0085).
Regarding Claim 22:
Nicoletti teaches the process for biologically drying municipal waste, comprising: forming a static pile of a mixture of a digested cake solid (sludge cake) and a biodried cake solid( processed compost material) (see para. 0143), wherein the static pile comprises a height between about 1.5 meters and about 4 meters (five feet) (see para. 0081) and the initial mixture includes between about 38 percent and about 45 percent solids (40% solids) (see para. 0193); and forming an aerated pile of biosolid cake material, wherein the forming the aerated pile comprises of aerating, without mechanical agitation (see para. 0079, 0085), the static pile by forced air ventilation to form a biodried material (see par. 0197), wherein the aerated pile comprises an area between about 2m and about 10m in width (6 to 12 feet (1.8-3.6m)), and between about 4m and about 35m in length (100 to 300 feet long (30-900m)) (see Nicoletti para. 0080). Given that the prior art ranges for width and length partially overlap the claimed ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to stack the pile to the same claimed (see MPEP 2144.05).
Nicoletti does not teach that the municipal waste is anaerobically digested.
Whiteman teaches mesophilically or thermophilically anaerobically digesting (anaerobic digester 354) (see para. 0103) and dewatering sludge before additional drying (see para. 0101).
Nicoletti and Whiteman are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater sludge. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the anaerobically digester de-watered solids of Whiteman and the sludge cake in Nicoletti because it is the simple substitution of one wastewater treatment plant treated sludge cake with another wastewater treatment plant treated sludge cake, obviously resulting in a biosolid able to be dried, 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.). And one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to treat any known sludge cake with the known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding Claim 23:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the process of claim 22, wherein the aerated pile comprises at least one of a free- standing pile, a pile contained by walls (see Nicoletti fig. 1), or a mass bed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicoletti et al (US 2010/0184131) and Whiteman (US 2020/0087183) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams (US 2008/0290024).
Regarding Claim 6:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1. Nicoletti teaches mixing on an open pad (bay) (see Nicoletti para. 0162)
Nicoletti does not teach the mixing station comprises at least one of a windrow turner, a rototiller, a pug mill mixer, a mix box, or front end loader mixing.
Williams teaches mixing biological solids with least one of a windrow turner, a rototiller, a pug mill mixer, a mix box, or front end loader mixing (see para. 0039). Williams further teaches that a mix box can be used in place of an open pad for mixing biosolids (see para. 0045).
Nicoletti and Williams are analogous inventions in the art of drying biosolids. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the bay of Nicoletti with a mix box, as disclosed by Williams because it is the simple substitution of one known mixing device with another known mixing device, obviously resulting in mixed biological components 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.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicoletti et al (US 2010/0184131) and Whiteman (US 2020/0087183) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhen et al (CN 104607440, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 11:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1.
Nicoletti does not teach the aeration system comprises a membrane cover over the mixed biomaterial pile.
Zhen teaches an aeration system that comprises a membrane cover (semipermeable membrane) over a biomaterial pile (see abstract).
Nicoletti and Zhen are analogous inventions in the art of biological drying. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the membrane of Zhen over the pile of Nicoletti because it helps controls the moisture within the pile (see Zhen para. 0018) and because it is the simple addition of a known feature to a known system, obviously resulting in a membrane covered pile, 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.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicoletti et al (US 2010/0184131) and Whiteman (US 2020/0087183) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nilsen et al (US 2019/0144320).
Regarding Claim 14:
Nicoletti, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising performing a thermal hydrolysis process to form the anaerobically digested and de-watered biosolid cake (see Whiteman para. 0148).
The combination does not teach wherein the thermal hydrolysis process includes heating a wastewater sludge to between about 140°C to about 185°C.
Nilsen teaches thermal hydrolysis between about 140C and 220C. Given that the prior art range fully encompasses of the claimed range of about 140°C to about 185°C a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to select a temperature of about 140°C to about 185°C (see MPEP 2144.05).
Nicoletti, as modified, and Nilsen are analogous inventions in the art of treating wastewater sludge. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the thermal hydrolysis of Nicoletti (as modified by Whiteman) at a temperature between about 140°C to about 185°C, as disclosed by Nilsen because one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to select a known temperature range for a known process. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
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 2/19/2026