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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 11-12 “at pyrolysis pot” should be “at least one pyrolysis pot”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 6 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 3 recites the limitation "prior to injection in the pollution control device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 specifically states that “injecting the concentrated liquid component of the feedstock into the exhaust in the plenum prior to the exhaust flowing to the pollution control device”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “before injecting the concentrated liquid component of the feedstock into the pollution control device” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 specifically states that “injecting the concentrated liquid component of the feedstock into the exhaust in the plenum prior to the exhaust flowing to the pollution control device”.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soldani (WO2021255614), and further in view of Alyaser (US20170114279) and Soukhojak et al. (US20120045378).
Regarding claim 1, Soldani discloses a treatment apparatus for post-consumer articles to carry out a separation of liquids from the treated articles and also the sanitization of the articles (page 3, lines 11-13). The apparatus is particularly suitable for treating absorbent sanitary products such as baby diapers (page 3, lines 14-16). The articles are fed into a first tank through an input container (page 4, lines 10-12). The first tank is provided with a mixing device configured to break/crush the diaper into several pieces (page 5, lines 3-4). Following the first tank, a dehydration apparatus includes a second tank in which a mounted rotatable basket configured to be placed in rotation and to separate by centrifugation the articles from the liquids contained therein (page 6, lines 4-7). The liquid extracted from the diapers escapes from the holes in the basket and is sucked by the relative pump (page 9, lines 25-26). The dehydrated diapers are moved by the further screw conveyor where they can be conveyed towards a belt conveyor (page 10, lines 3-5).
Soldani does not disclose moving the dehydrated diapers to at least one pyrolysis pot or any exhaust being produced form a pyrolysis process.
Alyaser discloses a pyrolysis apparatus that has insulation to minimize heat loss during the pyrolysis reaction (paragraph 0041). The pyrolysis apparatus has an exhaust stack to exhaust any off-gases produced (paragraph 0085). The pyrolysis reactor uses any organic feedstock (paragraph 0016). Residual mixed unrecyclable waste such as diapers are used in pyrolysis to produce biofuels (paragraph 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to send the diapers produced in Soldani to the pyrolysis apparatus in Alyaser to convert biomass and hydrocarbon-containing materials into gas and liquid fuels (paragraph 0006).
Soukhojak et al. discloses efficient use of a urea-containing material for reducing nitrogen oxide emissions from a diesel engine (paragraph 0010). A liquid urea-containing material is heated using waste heat of exhaust gas producing ammonia to react with NOx in a SCR reactor (paragraph 0011). The liquid is heated in a gas producing reactor with a heat exchanger/heat storage device (paragraph 0034). The heat storage device captures heat from the exhaust gas (paragraph 0035), so the exhaust gas is effectively heating the liquid. The exhaust gas flows through an SCR reactor (paragraph 0036) which is a pollution control device. The gas producing reactor vaporizes the excess water in the liquid (paragraph 0031). The gas producing reactor is located upstream of the SCR reactor (paragraph 0026). The gas reactor producing the concentrated urea has a carrier gas line which can be the exhaust gas (paragraph 0041), mixing the exhaust with the concentrated liquid prior to entering the SCR reactor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Soldani by using the exhaust treatment system of Soukhojak et al. to convert harmful NOx from the pyrolysis apparatus of Alyaser into benign reaction products (paragraph 005).
Regarding claim 2, modified Soldani discloses that the concentrated liquid component is a urea-containing material (Soukhojak, paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 3, modified Soldani discloses a water filter to filter the liquids exiting the apparatus (Soldani, page 8, lines 1-2). The liquid can be concentrated urea-containing material that is heated using waste heat of exhaust gas (Soulhojak, paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 4, modified Soldani discloses the exhaust gas flow through SCR reactor (Soukhojak, paragraph 0036), and it is necessary for a SCR reactor to have a catalytic converter. The gas producing reactor is located upstream of the SCR reactor (Soukhojak, paragraph 0026). The gas reactor producing the concentrated urea has a carrier gas line which can be the exhaust gas (Soukhojak, paragraph 0041), mixing the exhaust with the concentrated liquid prior to entering the SCR reactor.
Regarding claim 5, modified Soldani discloses a dehydration apparatus including a second tank in which a mounted rotatable basket rotates to separate by centrifugation the articles from the liquids contained therein (Soldani, page 6, lines 4-7). It is the position of the examiner that this portion of the apparatus acts identically to a centrifuge.
Regarding claim 7, modified Soldani discloses heat from the gas producing reactor that vaporizes the excess water in the liquid (Soukhojak, paragraph 0031).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soldani in view of Alyaser and Soukhojak et al. as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Abeles (US20190104688).
Regarding claim 6, modified Soldani discloses filtering the liquid with a water filter directly after separation from the diapers (Soldani, page 8, lines 1-2), but does not disclose converting the concentrated liquid component of the feedstock to urea by forward osmosis.
Abeles discloses an apparatus and method for introducing and growing vegetation in arid environments while minimizing maintenance requirements (paragraph 0010). The present invention comprises a urine processing system configured to extract water from urine (paragraph 0021). The system uses forward osmosis to extract urine from water (paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to further modify Soldani by replacing the water filter in Soldani with the forward osmosis filter in Abeles because it requires low energy consumption compared to other filtering methods (paragraph 0023).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights