DETAILED ACTION
Claims 9-26 are pending and under consideration in this 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 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 9-26 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 9, as well as each of the dependent claims, recites a suppressant formulation. However, it is unclear from the text of the claim what exactly this formulation is suppressing. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine which formulations would meet the limitations of the claims because it is unclear what type of suppressing properties the formulation must include.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 13-18, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5352444 (“Cox”).
Regarding claim 9, Cox teaches a method of treating biomass waste (see e.g. column 9, lines 26-30). The method includes providing a formulation that can comprise at least one free-radical scavenger (see e.g. col. 18, lines 36-40, showing that the composition includes N and S radical scavengers). The formulation is then applied to the biomass waste to produce a treated biomass (see e.g. col. 17, lines 17-23). Cox teaches that the formulation is applied to the biomass waste, which means that the biomass waste has been isolated. Although Cox does not specifically teach that applying the formulation to the biomass waste reduces the self-exothermicity of the biomass waste, the instant application indicates that using a radical scavenger as taught by Cox does in fact reduce self-exothermicity (see e.g. instant specification at paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Cox teaches that the biomass waste can be transported to a disposal site (see e.g. col. 3, lines 57-62).
Regarding claim 14, Cox teaches that the formulation can be applied in repeated treatments over long periods of time (see e.g. col. 29, lines 32-49). Cox further teaches that the formulation can be applied on waste already disposed of in a landfill (see e.g. col. 29, line 66 to col. 30, line 4).
Regarding claim 15, Cox teaches that the waste can be transported using pipelines or augers (see e.g. col. 17, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 16, Cox teaches that the waste can be transported using a vehicle such as a truck (see e.g. col. 17, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 17, Cox teaches that the containers can be treated with the formulation, which, because the containers are reusable, would occur prior to adding the waste (see e.g. col. 17, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 18, Cox teaches that the waste can be dewatered (see e.g. col. 6, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 22, Cox teaches that the formulation can include water or an organic solvent (see e.g. col. 16, lines 63-66).
Regarding claim 23, Cox specifically teaches that the solvent can be propylene glycol, which has a flash point of over 100 °F (see e.g. col. 28, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 25, Cox teaches that the radical scavengers can comprise more than 2% of the formulation, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. col. 18, lines 36-40). When water is used as the solvent, it is in an amount of 10-99.1%, which includes the entirety of the claimed range (see e.g. col. 28, line 8).
Regarding claim 26, Cox teaches that, in certain embodiments, a carboxylic acid can be included in the formulation (see e.g. col. 15, lines 62-65). As recited in claim 26, carboxylic acids are considered metal deactivators.
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 5695650 (“Held”).
Regarding claim 19, Cox teaches the limitations of claim 18, including the importance of dewatering the waste to reduce volume. Cox does not specifically teach that the dewatering comprises a first and second dewatering step. However, Held teaches a method for removing water from biomass waste (see e.g. col. 1, lines 21-30). Held teaches that, after initial dewatering, the waste still retains about 65-85% water and that this water can be reduced by a subsequent dewatering step (see e.g. col. 1, lines 59-65). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a two-step dewatering process as taught by Held in order to remove further water from the biomass waste.
Regarding claim 20, Held teaches that the water removed is returned to the wastewater treatment facility (see e.g. col. 4, lines 32-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 21, and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 10 recites that the formulation comprises and organic carbonate solvent. Similarly, claim 24 recites specific carbonate solvents used with the formulation. Cox does not teach or fairly suggest the use of any carbonate solvent. Claims 11-12 depend from claim 10 and are allowable over the prior art for the same reason.
Claim 21 recites a list of specific radical scavengers used in the formulation. These radical scavengers are fundamentally different from the types of radical scavengers disclosed by Cox, which are limited to metal compounds (see e.g. col. 22, lines 38-41). There is no teaching or suggestion in Cox that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use the organic based radical scavengers recited in claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights