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 26-35 are pending:
Claims 26-35 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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 34-35 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.
Claim 34 recites “wherein the reactor treatment chamber and the vacuum chamber are in a same vacuum-integrated reactor”; it is unclear how the reactor treatment chamber and vacuum chamber are in the same reactor because the vacuum chamber is configured to receive fluid from the treatment chamber which implies that the vacuum chamber is downstream of the treatment chamber therefore it is unclear an integrated can perform the configured function?
Claim 35 recites “the vacuum-integrated reactor”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear what the vacuum-integrated reactor further limits the reactor treatment chamber or the vacuum chamber or something else?
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) receive at least a portion of the fluid that has been treated in the treatment chamber (see Fig. 9);
(ii) apply a vacuum pressure to the received fluid (subjecting the fluid to a vacuum pressure or P <1 atm, see claim 1); and
(iii) 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 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 Xu (US 2019/0263700).
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, Xu teaches a hydrothermal liquefaction process and system (see ABS) wherein upstream of the reactor treatment chamber in a process direction, a hydrothermal treatment apparatus configured to treat the fluid fed therein by heating (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, see ¶14-16).
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 incoporating a hydrothermal liquefaction device upstream the treatment chamber as disclosed by Xu because it aids in co-processing of high-water-content wastewater sludge for co-production of biogas and bio-crude oil (Xu, see ABS).
Regarding claim 32, Santoro, Mussari and Xu 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).
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 Xu (US 2019/0263700) and further in view of Gould (USPN 4,246,099).
Regarding claim 33, Santoro, Mussari and Xu 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 Xu) 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 34-35 are 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 Xu (US 2019/0263700) 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).
Conclusion
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