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 .
Claim Status
Claims 26-37 are pending:
Claims 26-37 are rejected.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 06/11/2026 have entered. Amendments to the claims overcome §112 rejections but do not overcome §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Actions mailed 02/19/2026.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 06/11/2026 have entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 7-9 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Regarding claim Claim 26 presently recites a system that treats a fluid that includes a particulate fraction and a soluble fraction, comprising (1) a reactor treatment chamber in which the fluid is treated with microbes to physically and biochemically transform solids in the particulate fraction, (2) a vacuum chamber that is configured to (i) apply a vacuum pressure to the fluid and (ii) evaporate off at least a portion of the soluble fraction of the fluid as evaporate to provide a thickened fluid, and (3) a dewatering unit that receives at least some of the thickened fluid, recovers liquid from the thickened fluid, and returns the recovered liquid to the vacuum chamber or to the reactor treatment chamber.
Applicant respectfully submits that none of Santoro, Mussari, Xu or Gould, separately or in combination, describe or suggest a system having each of features (1)-(3) above.
Santoro describes a system for treating a fluid that includes a particulate fraction and a
soluble fraction, such as wastewater fluid including biosolids. The treatment includes biochemically transforming solids in the particulate fraction of the fluid in a biochemical process while simultaneously subjecting the fluid to a vacuum pressure, and evaporating off at least a portion of the soluble fraction of the fluid and thereby thickening a remaining portion of the fluid. A residence time of the particulate fraction can be controlled to be at least 25% greater than a residence time of the soluble fraction, for example. A solids content of the particulate fraction can be controlled to be in a range of from 4 % to 99 %, for example.
In Fig. 9, cited by the Patent Office, Santoro describes a system that includes an upstream bioprocess treatment chamber that feeds to a downstream bioprocess treatment chamber associated with a vacuum pump. Heated products from the downstream bioprocess treatment chamber are fed to a heat exchanger, and cold thickened products therefrom are sent either back to the upstream bioprocess treatment chamber or to a dewatering treatment sent downstream out of the system. Recycling of the cold thickened product back upstream is indicated to permit control over the particulate retention time. See paragraph [0063] of Santoro.
Santoro does not describe or suggest a dewatering unit that receives at least some of the
thickened fluid, recovers liquid from the thickened fluid, and returns the recovered liquid to the vacuum chamber or to the reactor treatment chamber. Rather, as noted above, the thickened fluid itself, not any liquid obtained from the dewatering of the thickened fluid, is recycled back upstream. The liquid from the dewatering is indicated to be sent downstream out of the system.
The Patent Office alleged that Mussari remedied the above-discussed deficiency of
Santoro. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Mussari describes (and illustrates in Fig. 3) a wastewater treatment process comprising
introducing a wastewater into a biological treatment unit to provide a wastewater having a
reduced nutrient content, separating the wastewater having the reduced nutrient content to provide an effluent (which is discarded) and a waste activated sludge, contacting the waste activated sludge with an amount of chlorine dioxide oxidant for a period of time sufficient to reduce a concentration of microorganisms in the waste activated sludge and provide a treated waste activated sludge having a soluble COD concentration of about 10% of the total COD concentration of the treated waste activated sludge, and anaerobically digesting a portion of the treated waste activated sludge to provide a digested waste activated sludge and methane. The xidant treated or anaerobically digested waste activated sludge may be dewatered, and the liquid from the dewatering returned back to the headworks of the process.
Mussari also does not describe or suggest a dewatering unit that receives at least some of the thickened fluid, recovers liquid from the thickened fluid, and returns the recovered liquid to the vacuum chamber or to the reactor treatment chamber. In Mussari, liquid from the dewatering is returned to a biological treatment that removes nutrients, not to a vacuum chamber (which Mussari does not have) or to a reactor treatment chamber (e.g., the anaerobic digester). The biological treatment in Mussari is not described or suggested to be a reactor treatment chamber in which the fluid is treated with microbes to physically and biochemically transform solids inthe particulate fraction as required in the present claims.
In Mussari, the liquid recycled from the dewatering most likely never reaches the digester/reactor treatment chamber therein, the liquid effluent being separated and removed in the clarifier ahead of the digester. See Fig. 3 of Mussari. One of ordinary skill in the art, understanding the Mussari process and inclusion of a clarifier therein to separate out effluentahead of the digester, would not have been led to have recycled liquid from dewatering to a reactor treatment chamber in Santoro.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to reduce the liquid content of treated wastewater sludge, as in Mussari (see paragraph [0036] therein), would not have been led to intentionally add liquid back into a reactor treatment chamber, which would be expected to have a contrary effect to reducing water content of the waste.
Applicant thus submits that Santoro and Mussari would not have led one to the presently claimed subject matter.
This argument is not persuasive because the combination of Santoro and Mussari teaches the claimed limitation of “a dewatering unit that receives at least some of the thickened fluid, recovers liquid from the thickened fluid, and returns the recovered liquid to the vacuum chamber or to the reactor treatment chamber”. Santoro essentially teaches that wastewater from the treatment chamber subjected to a dewatering treatment to provide a fraction having a total solids content of greater than 20% (see claim 24 of Santoro); Mussari teaches that filtrate/centrate (“recovered liquid”) recover is returned to headworks 110 which then is sent to a biological reactor (see Fig. 1 of Mussari); Mussari further discloses that headworks acts as a primary grit and foreign matter removal system for a wastewater treatment plant and from the headworks wastewater is transferred to a form of biological treatment unit (“BTU”) (i.e. an oxidation ditch, sequential batch reactor, member bioreactor, etc.) (see ¶38 of Mussari). Therefore, the rejection of claim 26 is maintained.
On pgs. 9-11 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
In addition to the foregoing, with respect to claim 31, which requires that the system further include, upstream of the reactor treatment chamber and the vacuum chamber in a process direction, a hydrothermal treatment apparatus configured to treat the fluid fed therein by heating, the cited art also would not have led one to this additional feature.
The Patent Office cited Xu as allegedly suggesting an upstream hydrothermal treatment apparatus in Santoro. However, Xu describes a process of coproduction of biogas and bio-crude oil, comprising a) mixing wastewater sludge with waste lignocellulosic biomass to form a mixture with an overall solid content in a range from about 5 to about 25 wt %, b) subjecting the mixture to hydrothermal liquefaction in a reactor at held at a temperature in a range from about 200 to about 350° C. under pressure in a range from about 50 to about 150 bars and in the presence of a catalyst to give a reaction product, c) removing and collecting solid bio-char from the reaction product in the reactor, removing and collecting bio-oil from the reaction product in the reactor, and removing and collecting aqueous products from the reaction product in the reactor, and d) anaerobically digesting the aqueous products to produce and collecting biogas produced from the anaerobically digested aqueous products.
Xu thus describes a very high temperature hydrothermal liquefication step in a process using different feed components from Santoro, the hydrothermal liquefication being used in order to depolymerize the lignocellulosic components of the feed. Because
Santoro does not use lignocellulosic components, one would have had no reason to use the very high temperature hydrothermal liquefication of Xu in Santoro.
In this regard, Xu clearly also would not have led one to the hydrothermal treatment process (HTP) as further defined in dependent claim 37, requiring that the hydrothermal treatment apparatus be configured to treat the fluid fed therein by heating the fluid to a temperature of 121 °C to 180 °C under a pressure of 1.1 to 10 bar. Xu does not describe or suggest such conditions.
Still further, Santoro and Xu also fail to describe or suggest the unexpected synergistic results achieved as a result of the use of HTP and vacuum treatment together achieving an unexpected synergy in improving the treatment of waste fluids. The specification includes evidence of this unexpected technical (synergistic) improvement in performance.
In Example 2, a waste fluid was treated as follows:
S1 - conventional fermentation treatment (no HTP or vacuum);
S2 - vacuum only treatment (as in D1);
S3 - HTP only treatment (as in D2); and
S4 - HTP + vacuum treatment as claimed in this application.
As shown in Fig. 13, chemical oxygen demand (COD) solubilization was unexpectedly synergistically high (46%) when using HTP and vacuum together (S4) compared to vacuum alone (S2) (31%) or HTP alone (S3) (39%). As shown in Fig. 16, the HTP treated substrate subjected to vacuum (S4) had the highest specific denitrification rate of 7.6 mg NO₃-N/g VSSh, higher than HTP treated substrates alone (S3) and raw (not HTP treated) substrates subjected only to vacuum (S2). As shown in Fig. 17, the HTP plus vacuum treated substrate (S4) achieved an unexpectedly higher methane yield compared to HTP only treated substrates (S3) and vacuum only treated substrates (S2). The novel configuration of HTP and vacuum-integrated reactors promotes hydrolysis and VFA (volatile fatty acids) production and considerably enhances the methane production yield.
Neither Santoro nor Xu describes or suggests that the use of HTP + vacuum treatment together achieves an unexpected synergistic improvement in the anaerobic digestion process.
This argument is moot because amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santoro (WO 2021-097257) in view of Mussari (US 2013/0015129).
Regarding claim 26, Santoro teaches a system (methods and systems, see ABS) that treats a fluid that includes a particulate fraction and a soluble fraction (capable of performing the intended use, see ¶61), comprising:
a reactor treatment chamber (upstream bioprocess which can be anaerobic digester or aerobic digester, see Fig. 9) in which fluid is treated with microbes to physically and biochemically transform solids in the particulate fraction (the digester can be used as a treatment chamber for chemical/biological conditioning of sludge with treatment agents, see ¶86);
a vacuum chamber (bioprocess P < 1 atm, see Fig. 9) that is configured to
(i) apply a vacuum pressure to the received fluid (subjecting the fluid to a vacuum pressure or P <1 atm, see claim 1); and
(ii) evaporate off at least a portion of the soluble fraction of the received fluid as evaporate to provide a thickened fluid (evaporating off at least a portion of the soluble fraction of the fluid and thereby thickening a remaining portion of the fluid, see ¶10); and
a dewatering unit (dewatered device such as a centrifuge, see ¶47) that receives at least some of the thickened fluid (see Fig. 9)…
Santoro further discloses recycling recovered products which includes liquid from thickened fluid (see Fig. 9).
Santoro does not teach wherein the dewatering unit recovers liquid from the thickened fluid and returns the recovered liquid to the vacuum chamber or to the treatment chamber.
In a related field of endeavor, Mussari teaches a biological digestion system and method (see ABS) wherein the dewatering unit (dewatering 140) wherein the dewatering unit recovers liquid from the thickened fluid (filtrate from solids 141) and returns the recovered liquid to the treatment chamber (filtrate to head-works which directed to biological treatment 115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Santoro by configuring the dewatering unit recover and return recovered liquid to the treatment chamber as disclosed by Mussari because it aids in improving conversion rates of degradable organic material to biogas (Mussari, see ¶7) and lowers operating costs by reusing filtrate as process water (Mussari, see ¶9).
Regarding claim 27, Santoro and Mussari teach the system of claim 1 claim 26,wherein the dewatering unit includes a centrifuge (Santoro, i.e. centrifuge).
Regarding claim 28, Santoro and Mussari teach the system of claim 1 claim 26,wherein at least some of the thickened fluid from the vacuum chamber is recirculated to the treatment chamber (Santoro, the system is capable of performing the claimed function, see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 29, Santoro and Mussari teach the system of claim 26, wherein the reactor treatment chamber and the vacuum chamber are in a same vacuum-integrated reactor (Santoro, bioprocess reactor with P < 1atm shown see Fig. 9 is an integrated reactor and see claim 1).
Regarding claim 30, Santoro and Mussari teach the system of claim 26, wherein the system further includes a controller (Santoro, vacuum controller, see ¶117) configured to control the vacuum chamber and removal of the evaporate and control a residence time of the particulate fraction in the reactor treatment chamber to be at least 25% greater than a residence time of the soluble fraction (Santoro, see ¶48).
Claims 31-32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santoro (WO 2021-097257) in view of Mussari (US 2013/0015129) and further in view of Yukumoto (US 2022/0162136).
Regarding claim 31, Santoro and Mussari teach the system of claim 26,
The combination does not teach wherein the system further includes, upstream of the reactor treatment chamber and the vacuum chamber in a process direction, a hydrothermal treatment apparatus configured to treat the fluid fed therein by heating.
In a related field of endeavor, Yukumoto teaches a waste treatment system (see ABS) wherein upstream of the reactor treatment chamber in a process direction, a hydrothermal treatment apparatus (hydrothermal treatment device 2) configured to treat the fluid fed therein by heating (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Santoro by incorporating a hydrothermal treatment device upstream the treatment chamber as disclosed by Yukumoto because it facilitates hydrothermal treatment of waste thereby pre-conditioning for downstream separation devices (Yukumoto, see ¶6-7).
Regarding claim 32, Santoro, Mussari and Yukumoto teach the system of claim 31, further comprising a heat exchanger (Santoro, the heat exchanger shown in Fig. 9) that extracts heat from the evaporate and provides the extracted heat to the hydrothermal treatment apparatus (Santoro, the combination of references teaches the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 37, Santoro, Mussari and Yukumoto teach the system of claim 31, wherein the hydrothermal treatment apparatus is configured to treat the fluid fed therein by heating the fluid to a temperature of 121 °C to 180 °C under a pressure of 1.1 to 10 bar (a pressure between 0.2 MPa and 3.4 MPa, see ¶36 and this range correspond to 2-34 bar which overlaps with the claimed range; the temperature of the hydrothermal treatment in the first hydrothermal treatment device 2 is 120 to 160° C., see ¶37 which overlaps with the claimed range).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 120-160° C. overlaps the claimed range of 121-180 °C. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santoro (WO 2021-097257) in view of Mussari (US 2013/0015129) in view of Yukumoto (US 2022/0162136) and further in view of Gould (USPN 4,246,099).
Regarding claim 33, Santoro, Mussari and Yukumoto teach the system of claim 31.
In one embodiment of Santoro, the treatment chamber is an aerobic digester and but that embodiment does not further comprise at least one of an anaerobic digester and a pre-pasteurization apparatus upstream, in a process direction from the hydrothermal treatment apparatus.
In a related field of endeavor, Gould teaches aerobic/anaerobic sludge digestion process (see ABS) further comprising an anaerobic digester (anaerobic digester 320 downstream aerobic digester 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment comprising aerobic digester of Santoro (as modified by Yukumoto) by incorporating an anaerobic digester as disclosed by Gould because it has sufficient solids retention for further reducing biodegradable volatile suspended solids content of the sludge (Gould, see C6/L10-20).
Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santoro (WO 2021-097257) in view of Mussari (US 2013/0015129) and further in view of Gould (USPN 4,246,099).
Regarding claim 34, Santoro and Mussari teach the system of claim 26.
In one embodiment of Santoro, the treatment chamber is an aerobic digester and but that embodiment does not further comprise, downstream from the reactor treatment chamber and the vacuum chamber in a process direction, at least one of an anaerobic digester and a post-pasteurization apparatus for further processing of fermentate.
In a related field of endeavor, Gould teaches aerobic/anaerobic sludge digestion process (see ABS) further comprising an anaerobic digester (anaerobic digester 320 downstream aerobic digester 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment comprising aerobic digester of Santoro by incorporating an anaerobic digester as disclosed by Gould because it has sufficient solids retention for further reducing biodegradable volatile suspended solids content of the sludge (Gould, see C6/L10-20).
Regarding claim 35, Santoro and Mussari teach the system of claim 26.
Santoro further discloses a vacuum integrated reactor (bioprocess reactor with P < 1atm as shown in Fig. 9).
The combination does not teach further comprising, downstream from the reactor treatment chamber and the vacuum chamber in a process direction, at least one of a denitrification device and a biomethanization device for further processing of the evaporate removed from the vacuum-integrated reactor.
In one embodiment of Santoro, the treatment chamber is an aerobic digester and but that embodiment does not further comprise, downstream from the reactor treatment chamber and the vacuum chamber in a process direction, at least one of a denitrification device and a biomethanization device for further processing of the evaporate removed from the vacuum-integrated reactor.
In a related field of endeavor, Gould teaches aerobic/anaerobic sludge digestion process (see ABS) further comprising an anaerobic digester (anaerobic digester 320 downstream aerobic digester 310; an anaerobic digester is a type of biomethanization device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment comprising aerobic digester of Santoro by incorporating an anaerobic digester as disclosed by Gould because it has sufficient solids retention for further reducing biodegradable volatile suspended solids content of the sludge (Gould, see C6/L10-20).
Regarding claim 36, Santoro and Mussari teach the system of claim 29.
The combination does not teach that downstream from the vacuum-integrated reactor in a process direction, at least one of a denitrification device and a biomethanization device for further processing of the evaporate removed from the vacuum- integrated reactor.
In a related field of endeavor, Gould teaches aerobic/anaerobic sludge digestion process (see ABS) further comprising an anaerobic digester (anaerobic digester 320 downstream aerobic digester 310; an anaerobic digester is a type of biomethanization device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment comprising aerobic digester of Santoro by incorporating an anaerobic digester as disclosed by Gould because it has sufficient solids retention for further reducing biodegradable volatile suspended solids content of the sludge (Gould, see C6/L10-20).
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights