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 .
Applicant’s traverse of the restriction requirement has been considered, but is not deemed persuasive. Applicant’s argument, that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims, is not convincing, since there is more involved in examining a patent application besides searching, such as formulating rejections and evaluating applicant’s arguments. Moreover, claim 1 recites method limitations which are not recite in claim 7, and claim 7 recites apparatus limitations which are not recited in claim 1. Accordingly there would be a serious burden in examining both groups of claims, and the restriction requirement is made FINAL.
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 2-4 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.
In claim 2, it is indefinite as to whether the limitation of “is supplied with luminous energy” is required, or whether it is an alternative modification of the tank.
In claim 3, it is indefinite as to where the end of the claim is, since it does not end with a period (.).
In claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the heat exchanger”.
In claim 6, the recitation of “is applicable” renders the scope of the claim vague and indefinite, since it would not be ascertainable whether it would be applicable to contact with insect larvae.
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.
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 1and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhalla et al ‘584 (US 9,688,584) in view of WO 2020/028403 A. Bhalla et al ‘584 discloses a process for treating chicken manure by adjusting the pH to a value of from about 3 to about 7 and aerating the pH adjusted manure at a temperature of from about 50 C to about 80 C. (See the paragraph b ridging columns 10 and 11, and col. 12, lines 15-31.) Bhalla et al ‘584 further discloses at col. 13, lines 5-26 that the slurry can be subjected to a filtration step to remove suspended solids, and at col. 15, lines 2-13 that the separated liquid phase can be subjected to an aerobic bioreactor at a temperature from about 30C to 70C. The difference between the process disclosed by BHALLA et al ‘584, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that Bhalla et al ‘584 does not disclose that the chicken manure should be contacted with a ammonia-=based buffer at a pH of at least 8. WO 2020/028403 AQ1 discloses a method for manufacturing biofertilizers from animal manure, and teaches in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 that the pH of the animal waste is adjusted to about 5 to about 8 and maintained at such pH throughout the process. It would have been obvious from WO 2020/028403 A1 to modify the process of Bhalla et al ‘584 by chemically treating the chicken manure by putting it in contact with an ammonia-based buffer at a pH of 8 before the thermal treatment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since the processes of Bhalla et al ‘584 and WO 2020/028403 A1are analogous in that both entail the aerobic treatment of animal manure, and Bhalla et al ‘584 discloses in col. 10, lines 52-54 that poultry manure can have a pH of from about 7.8 to about 8.8.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to provide the tank of Bhalla et al ‘584 with a device regulating the temperature of the water contained in the tank, since Bhalla et al ‘584 teaches in column 15, lines 2-14 that the temperature in the tank should be maintained from about 30C to about 70C.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhalla et al ‘584 in view of WO 2020/028403 A, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Wallace (US 2014/0042061). It would have been further obvious from Wallace to heat the water used in the tank of Bhalla et al ‘584 by heat exchange from the hot water from apparatus for desalination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Wallace discloses a heat exchanger using the heat from a desalination system (see claims 13 and 14), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the source of heat for heating the tank in the process of Bhalla et al ‘584 could come from any known or suitable source.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhalla et al ‘584 in view of WO 2020/028403 A, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Katoch et al (US 2011/0070632). It would have been further obvious from Katoch et al to heat the water in the process of Bhalla et al ‘584 using a geothermal exchanger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Katoch et al establish the conventionality of the use of geothermal heat exchange in Paragraph [0042], and one would have appreciated that any known or suitable heat exchanger could be used to heat the water.
This application apparently discloses allowable subject matter (i.e., regarding claim 6).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. over Bhalla et al ‘584 (US 9,688,584) discloses a process for treating chicken manure by adjusting the pH to a value of from about 3 to about 7 and aerating the pH adjusted manure at a temperature of from about 50 C to about 80 C. (See the paragraph b ridging columns 10 and 11, and col. 12, lines 15-31.) Bhalla et al ‘584 further discloses at col. 13, lines 5-26 that the slurry can be subjected to a filtration step to remove suspended solids, and at col. 15, lines 2-13 that the separated liquid phase can be subjected to an aerobic bioreactor at a temperature from about 30C to 70C. WO 2020/028403 A1 discloses a method for manufacturing biofertilizers from animal manure, and teaches in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 that the pH of the animal waste is adjusted to about 5 to about 8 and maintained at such pH throughout the process. It would have been obvious from WO 2020/028403 A1 to modify the process of Bhalla et al ‘584 by chemically treating the chicken manure by putting it in contact with an ammonia-based buffer at a pH of 8 before the thermal treatment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since the processes of Bhalla et al ‘584 and WO 2020/028403 A1are analogous in that both entail the aerobic treatment of animal manure, and Bhalla et al ‘584 discloses in col. 10, lines 52-54 that poultry manure can have a pH of from about 7.8 to about 8.8. However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in either Bhalla et al ‘584 or WO 2020/028403 A1 to put the liquid fraction of the material after separation in contact with a ligneous substrate colonized by an edible lignivorous fungus and the solid fraction in contact with at least one edible lignivorous fungus, as required by claim 6. Nor would there have been any motivation from the prior art to do so. Accordingly claim 6 is not rejected over Bhalla et al ‘584 in view of WO 2020/028403 A1.
Sabo (US 2014/0151276) is made of record for disclosing a wastewater geothermal heat system.
ILLENBERGER et al (US 2022/0363608) is made of record for disclosing a bioreactor which is impervious to fluid and light. (See Paragraphs [0055], [0056] and [0248].)
MY-168450-A is made of record for disclosing a waste and organic matter conversion including a semi-opaque tank. (See page 1, lines 4-6 and the paragraph bridging pages 13 and 1
WO 2022/015950 A1 is made of record for disclosing a method for solid-liquid separation of manure using microbe-based products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights