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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, “the exit of the digester” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 2, “species of Stratiomyidae family of flies” is grammatically incorrect (re-insertion of “the” between “of” and “Stratiomyidae” is suggested).
In claim 3, “larvae are of black soldier flies” is grammatically unclear, (it is suggested that the term “of” be deleted).
In claim 4, “at inoculation” lacks antecedent basis, independent claim 1 lacks recitation of an inoculation method step, or whether such inoculation step occurs before, with or subsequent to the step of introducing.
In claim 5, the term “recyclable metallic, glass and plastic materials” is vague and subjective, depending upon transient standards or criteria for one or more end uses for the materials.
In claim 6, “angle between 10 and 60” is grammatically incorrect (re-insertion of “of” between “angle” and “between” is suggested).
In each of claims 9 and 12, it is unclear whether the recited “digestible organic matter” is comprised within the “organic matter” of independent claim 1.
In claim 11, the meaning of “volumes” is unclear (does volumes relate to a total available volume within the digester vessel?).
In claim 13, the meaning of the phrase “egg weight resultant larvae” is unclear, (does such term relate to or correspond to a number of worm eggs?), and “the digestible organic matter” lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with independent claim 1 which recites “organic matter”.
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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gitschel PGPUBS Document US 2017/0253891 (Gitschel) in view of Olivier patent 6,001,146 (Olivier) and Bakhsh PGPUBS Document US 2019/0194082 (Bakhsh).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Gitschel discloses a method for treatment of mixed solids waste [0003, 0009, and 0013 re “handle…highly variable mixed waste material”], wherein the waste comprises 10% to 80% organic matter ([0023 re the waste containing at least 10% wet organic material and at least 10% dry organic material with the balance comprising inorganic waste material], [0045 re the waste containing an amount between at least 15% up to less than 80% dry organic material] and [0057-0058 re a mixed waste stream treated comprising any of variable amounts of inorganic waste including metals up to 30% by weight of recyclable metal material]), comprising:
controllably introducing the mixed solids waste into an entrance of a digester vessel, using biological treatment and/or biological conversion techniques, including wet, dry and/or composting techniques ([0102 and 0108 re conversion or processing of the wet organic fraction by anaerobic and aerobic digestion and composting], as in “digesters” which may include a horizontal septum [see also 0103], and including digestion by adding bacteria or other microbials into a vessel or tank [see also 0104 and 0105], the digestion, thus including introduction of bacteria or other microbials being conducted continuously [see 0104 re digestion being conducted in a plurality of tanks, thus allowing maintenance without interrupting overall service, i.e. hence suggesting uninterrupted or continuous digestion at all times in a tank in a digester vessel system]) ; and,
controllably collecting treated, reduced organics waste at an exit of the digester vessel (see [0108 re digestion systems 126 or 128 producing removed separated inorganic and organic products, with reduced amounts of organic waste in the form of pathogens and seed content, aided by extensive separation processes 112], and [see 0104 re digestion being conducted in a plurality of tanks, thus allowing maintenance without interrupting overall service, i.e. allowing uninterrupted or continuous digestion at all times in a tank in a digester vessel system, hence suggesting uninterrupted or continuous collection of waste from the digester vessel], and see [0080 regarding metering and optimizing mass flow and depth of waste streams throughout the system and ensuring a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices throughout the system] ) .
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, differ from Gitschel, by requiring that the digestion be performed by continuous introduction of a plurality of dipteran larvae into a digester vessel,
by explicitly requiring that the collection of waste at an exit from the digester vessel is continuous, and
also by requiring that such dipteran larvae are continuously harvested at one or more desired locations along the digester vessel.
Bakhsh teaches introduction of a plurality of dipteran larvae into a digester vessel, and also harvesting dipteran larvae at one or more desired locations along the digester vessel, for the digestion treatment of mixed types of organic waste (Abstract, [0002-0003 regarding treatment of mixed organic waste], and [0036 and 0038-0042 to decomposing, i.e. “digesting” of the organic waste by black soldier fly larvae (i.e. “dipteran larvae) in a vessel of a treatment system 100], with separate introduction of organic waste to be treated and the larvae by selective pumping [0046-0054], and separate collecting of waste which has been converted into value-added products into exit collection tray 110 and harvesting of the larvae through a separate outlet location 116 to obtain fertilizers and animal feed [0044 and 0057].
Bakhsh teaches that such larvae effectively treats the mixed organic waste, and that the larvae effectively converts the organic waste into harmless and commercially valuable products such as fertilizers and animal feed, with the continuous harvesting resulting in efficient utilization and material conservation of the digestion process (Abstract and [0036]).
Olivier teaches continuous treatment of organic waste (Abstract) and thus operable to treat large amounts of waste, in a relatively short time period, thus (Abstract, column 1, lines 36-40, effected by slow movement of the waste and larvae by slow moving conveyor belts through treatment zones (column 2, lines 40-67), inherently enabling also continuous introduction of both waste and the larvae and continuous collecting of both reduced organics waste product and the larvae.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating mixed solids waste, to have modified the Gitschel method by digesting or composting the mixed waste by method steps of introduction of a plurality of dipteran larvae into a digester vessel, collecting of the organics waste continuously, and also by continuously harvesting dipteran larvae at one or more desired locations along the digester vessel, as cumulatively taught by Bakhsh and Olivier,
so as to effectively treat the mixed organic waste, and convert the organic waste into harmless and commercially valuable products such as fertilizers and animal feed, and treat large amounts of waste, in a relatively short time period, with the continuous harvesting advantageously resulting in efficient utilization and material conservation of the digestion process.
For claim 2, Bakhsh specifically teaches wherein the plurality of dipteran larvae are a species of the Stratiomyidae family of flies [0036 to “black soldier fly larvae”].
Such type of dipteran larvae would have been an obvious selection, since such larvae are readily commercially available in the proximity of treatment of the waste over a large area.
For claim 3, Bakhsh specifically teaches wherein the plurality of dipteran larvae are of black soldier flies [0036 to “black soldier fly larvae”].
Such type of dipteran larvae would have been an obvious choice or selection, since such larvae are readily commercially available in the proximity of treatment of the waste over a large area.
For claim 4, Bakhsh suggests wherein the plurality of dipteran larvae encompass larvae which are five days old at inoculation ([0036 re the black fly larvae effective to decompose more than 80% of the organic waste within a period of 5 days,] and [0054 to a user pumping 5 days old larvae into selected floor sections of apparatus to yield better results]).
It would have been inherently obvious to have utilized such maturity of larvae in the modified Gitschel method, as further taught by Bakhsh, since such aged and inoculated larvae inherently have biochemical processing ability to decompose more than 80% of the organic waste within a period of 5 days.
For claim 5, Gitschel discloses the method further comprising:
shredding the mixed solids waste at least once [0080 re “shredders and grinders”] and [0126 re shredding using shredder 316]; and
separating recyclable metallic, glass, and plastic materials from the mixed solids waste ([0085 re conversion techniques to recycle plastic materials into oil, fuel and chemical plastics products], [0115 re separators to separate different types of metals from each other to produce recyclable products], [0138 re separation of stream fractions to produce recyclable film plastics], and [0036, 0041, 0056, 0098-0099 and 0133 re separating and sorting of plastics, metals and glass material from each other and reprocessing of glass material to produce recycled glass products]) .
Also see Gitschel at [0104 re digestion being conducted in a plurality of tanks, thus allowing maintenance without interrupting overall service, i.e. allowing uninterrupted or continuous digestion at all times in a tank in a digester vessel system, hence suggesting uninterrupted or continuous collection of waste from the digester vessel, suggesting uninterrupted or continuous operation of upstream or downstream method steps of shredding and separating of materials being recyclable], and at [0080 regarding metering and optimizing mass flow and depth of waste streams throughout the system and ensuring a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices throughout the system] ) .
For claim 6, Bakhsh further teaches or suggests wherein a digester vessel is a substantially cylindrical vessel disposed at a descending angle of between 1° and 6°, and wherein said vessel is axially rotated at a speed of between 1 and 50 revolutions per day [0018 and 0056-0057 to variable amounts of time being allotted to conducting the bio-conversion process with the black fly larvae and to rotation of floors of sections of a digester vessel in the form of a tower, accompanied by rotation of a conveyor, respectively, such vessel inherently being configured substantially horizontally or vertically, hence disposed at a low descending angle of below about 1%] .
Such digester vessel descending angle, and particular speed of axial rotation, are deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize movement of the material being treated and the black fly larva, in the digester vessel.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Gitschel method, by introducing the mixed solids waste entrance of the digester vessel at any controlled volume rate, such as at a volume rate of between 0.05 and 0.3 volumes per day, as suggested by Bakhsh, so as to optimize movement of the material being treated and the black fly larva, in the digester vessel..
Thus, it would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating mixed solids waste, to have modified the Gitschel method by utilizing such rotational movement and configuration of the digester vessel utilized , as taught by Bakhsh, to further enhance increasing digestion efficiency, so as to enable processing and recycling of a larger volume of waste which is continuously being generated.
For claim 7, Gitschel further teaches or suggests wherein the digester vessel is maintained at a controlled fill level, by controlling rate of flow of waste material through the system, thus operable to achieve a digester vessel fill level of between 15% and 60% [0080 to metering, sensing and controlling of mass flow, burden depth, flow rate and material level on belts and other metering devices].
Such digester vessel fill level, is deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize mass flow, amount of material treated, flow rate and material level, in the digester vessel.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Gitschel method, by introducing the mixed solids waste entrance of the digester vessel at any controlled volume rate, such as at a volume rate of between 0.05 and 0.3 volumes per day, as suggested by Gitschel, to optimize quantity and value of the recovered materials and ensure a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices, and to optimize use of and effectiveness of the dipteran larvae relative to level of digestible organic matter in the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel.
For claim 8, Gitschel further teaches wherein the mixed solids waste optionally comprises 40% to 60% organic matter [0046-0051 to varying amounts and percentages of wet and dry organics of the waste stream, encompassing the claimed percentage range].
For claim 9, Gitschel further teaches wherein the mixed solids waste optionally comprises 15% to 50% digestible organic matter [0046-0051 to varying amounts and percentages of wet and dry organics of the waste stream, inherently being “digestible”, encompassing the claimed percentage range ].
For claim 10, Bakhsh further suggests wherein a digester for mixed organics and solid waste has an extended residence time of days, such as having a mean residence time of approximately 2 days to 5 days in the digester vessel (suggested by [0036 and 0054 to the black soldier flies being effective to decompose more than 80% of the organic waste within a period of 5 days] and [0056 to the bio-conversion process being preferably limited to 14 days or less]).
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have controlled the Gitschel method so as to induce a residence time of 2-5 days in the digester vessel, as taught by Bakhsh, in order to optimally and thoroughly treat and convert and decompose more than 80% of the organic matter in the vessel.
For claim 11, Gitschel teaches or suggests wherein the mixed solids waste optionally is introduced into the entrance of the digester vessel at any controlled volume rate, such as at a volume rate of between 0.05 and 0.3 volumes per day [0080-0081 to variable speed control to optimize mass flow through a plurality of types of separators to optimize quantity and value of the recovered materials and ensure a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices, including being controlled by level sensors which measure material building up on conveyors or upstream of metering devices].
Such rate of introduction of mixed solids waste at a volume rate, is deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize quantity and value of the recovered materials and ensure a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices, and to optimize use of and effectiveness of the dipteran larvae relative to level of the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Gitschel method, by introducing the mixed solids waste entrance of the digester vessel at any controlled volume rate, such as at a volume rate of between 0.05 and 0.3 volumes per day, as suggested by Gitschel, to optimize quantity and value of the recovered materials and ensure a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices, and to optimize use of and effectiveness of the dipteran larvae relative to level of digestible organic matter in the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel.
For claim 12, Bakhsh teaches or suggests wherein a rate of inoculation of the plurality of dipteran larvae is adjustable and may be adjusted for a level of digestible organic matter in the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel [0056 to a variable specific period of time for which the organic waste and BSFLs are allowed to remain under the bio-conversion process];
while Olivier, at column 4, line 52-column 5, line 4, teaches a variable speed control system 23 to determine speed or intermittent movement of a conveyor belt 43 for transporting both the waste and fly larvae into the treatment zone, with column 6, lines 20-24 being directed to controlling residence time of the waste within the treatment zone.
Gitschel teaches or suggests wherein the mixed solids waste optionally is introduced into the entrance of the digester vessel at any controlled volume rate, such as at a volume rate of between 0.05 and 0.3 volumes per day [0080-0081 to variable speed control to optimize mass flow through a plurality of types of separators to optimize quantity and value of the recovered materials and ensure a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices, including being controlled by level sensors which measure material building up on conveyors or upstream of metering devices].
Such rate of inoculation of the plurality of dipteran larvae to or in the digester vessel at an adjustable rate, is deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize quantity and value of the recovered materials and ensure a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices, and to optimize use of and effectiveness of the dipteran larvae relative to level of digestible organic matter in the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Gitschel method, by a rate of inoculation of the plurality of dipteran larvae is adjustable and may be adjusted for a level of digestible organic matter in the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel, as cumulatively suggested by Gitschel, Bakhsh and Olivier in combination, to optimize quantity and value of the recovered materials and ensure a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices, and to optimize use of and effectiveness of the dipteran larvae relative to level of digestible organic matter in the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel.
For claim 13, Bakhsh teaches wherein the plurality of dipteran larvae are introduced at the entrance of the digester vessel at an adjustable rate and may be adjustable and may be adjusted to a rate of between 5 and 25 egg weight resultant larvae per ton of the digestible organic matter [0056 to a variable specific period of time for which the organic waste and BSFLs are allowed to remain under the bio-conversion process]; while Olivier, at column 4, line 52-column 5, line 4, teaches a variable speed control system 23 to determine speed or intermittent movement of a conveyor belt 43 for transporting both the waste and fly larvae into the treatment zone, with column 6, lines 20-24 being directed to controlling residence time of the waste within the treatment zone.
Gitschel teaches or suggests wherein the mixed solids waste optionally is introduced into the entrance of the digester vessel at any controlled volume rate, such as at a volume rate of between 0.05 and 0.3 volumes per day [0080-0081 to variable speed control to optimize mass flow through a plurality of types of separators to optimize quantity and value of the recovered materials and ensure a metered and evenly distributed presentation of material to individual devices, including being controlled by level sensors which measure material building up on conveyors or upstream of metering devices].
Such adjustable rate of introduction plurality of dipteran larvae to the digester vessel at an adjustable rate, is deemed to constitute a results-effective variable for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize use of and effectiveness of the dipteran larvae relative to level of digestible organic matter in the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
Thus, it would have been also obvious to the skilled artisan, to have also modified the Gitschel method, by introducing the plurality of dipteran larvae to the entrance of the digester vessel at an adjustable rate and optionally adjusting such rate to correspond to between 5 and 25 egg weight resultant larvae per ton of the digestible organic matter, as cumulatively suggested by Gitschel, Bakhsh and Olivier in combination, to optimize use of and effectiveness of the dipteran larvae relative to level of digestible organic matter in the mixed solids waste and residence time of the mixed solids waste in the digester vessel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest, Popa et al patent 8,815,539 additionally teaches digesters utilizing black soldier flies, while Logan et al PGPUBS Document US 2018/0127790 and Leo PGPUBS Document US 20210137137 concern methods and systems for treating mixed waste containing both organic and inorganic types of waste requiring a combination of types of separators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
06/05/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights