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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: subscripts in sulfuric acid are missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-22 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 4-5,9,11-14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 11, 13-14, 21-22 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 11 recites “with the sulfuric acid stabilizing a molecule” it is unclear what the sulfuric acid is stabilizing or what “a molecule” is. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites percentages of amounts of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, and sulfuric acid. It is unclear if the percentages are weight percentages, volume, molecular etc. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 and 21 recite “preparing the special waste for reuse as a raw material in the preparation of a protein product, and wherein the raw material is a protein source, and wherein the protein product is a high-protein compost”. The scope of the claim is unclear. It is not clear how the waste has protein that can be used and how the protein product relates to the rest of the process. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 and 22 recite “the method of claim 3, further comprising destroying waste of animal origin with a high protein content.” The scope of “high” is unclear. For the purpose of search and examining “waste of animal origin” is defined as any waste that was contacted by animals. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5-10, 12, 15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gur et al. (US 2020/0290102 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gur et al. teaches a method to treat medical waste (corresponding to biohazardous waste), in which medical waste is defined as waste generated in medical, veterinary, dental, and laboratory facilities, includes a wide variety of materials and substances such as bandages, gloves, infusion bags, hypodermic needles, syringes, products of dialysis, testing vials, plastic bags, tubes, containers, blood, and human and animal wastes (paragraph [0002]). Gur et al. teaches the method to treat medical waste, comprising a main treatment unit (paragraphs [0069]-[0071]) (corresponding to introducing biohazardous waste in the waste destruction equipment), a waste shredding unit, comprising a shredding bin and at least two rotating shredding blades (paragraph [0073]) (corresponding to grinding and crushing the biohazardous waste by the waste destruction equipment and shredding the waste in a loading chamber), a main liquid/ chemical management unit which comprises a water/disinfectant mixing unit and a first disinfectant delivery unit interconnected to said main treatment unit (paragraphs [0074]-[0076]) (corresponding to performing a first rinse on the biohazardous waste). The treatment unit includes a separation arm with further comprises a centrifuge configured to further remove liquids from the solid waste (paragraph [0023]) (corresponding to transforming the waste into special waste wherein, the special waste includes leachate and solid waste and collecting the leachate). The recommended decontaminating disinfectant is a proprietary product called BIOCETIC, which includes peracetic acid (paragraph [0186]) (corresponding to inactivating pathogens in the biohazardous waste and exposing to a chemical wash which includes a peracetic acid based solution).
Gur et al. does not explicitly state 80-90% reduction of the volume of the waste. Crushing and shredding the waste implies a reduction in volume of the waste. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the process in order to crush and shred the waste to reach an optimal volume reduction of the waste corresponding to the claimed ranges. Optimization would carry with it a reasonable expectation of success given that the waste can be crushed and shredded more if needed. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 5 and 17, Gur et al. does not teach the weight of the waste that is destroyed. However, it is the position of the examiner it would be obvious that the equipment and method taught by Gur et al. meets the range of weights claimed. The amount of waste the equipment can process is dependent on the size of the equipment is used, it is obvious if more waste was to be destroyed than a larger piece of equipment can be used.
Regarding claim 6, the main treatment comprises of a main liquid management unit which comprises of a first disinfectant delivery unit interconnected to said main treatment unit (paragraphs [0008]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 7, Gur et al. teaches a waste shredding unit with a first tray and second tray. In which the second tray comprises a plurality of orifices character by shape and diameter SD2, said shape and diameter configured to allow the passage of liquids and block passage of solids of a predefined particle shape of diameter (paragraph [0031]), in which SD2 is characterized by any geometrical shape a diameter from about 1 mm to about 10 mm.
Regarding claim 8, Gur et al. teaches an activating screw (corresponding to a screw conveyor) therefore separating between the solid treated waste and the used disinfectant formula and allowing the treated waste to fall into a designated ordinary waste bin (figure 17).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, BIOCETIC includes acetic acid, peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and caprylic acid (paragraph [0186]) (corresponding to a chemical wash includes at least one of a bactericidal, fungicidal, and viricidal action).
Regarding claim 10, the concentration of the BIOCETIC is 0.5 to 2% of the total volume of liquid, depending on the type of waste (paragraph [0186]). The concentration of the peracetic acid in BIOCETIC is 5-15% (paragraph [0193]). Gur et al. teaches a disinfection unit sensor, in which the system assesses optimal ratios for mixing between the waste and disinfectant (paragraph [0180]). The disinfection unit sensor comprises a volumetric sensor that measures the volume of material entering the mixing bin, and knows the optimal waste/disinfectant ratio and provides the right quantity of disinfectant through the nozzles (paragraph [0182]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ppm of the peracetic acid to obtain the desired composition (In re Boesch, 617 F .2d.272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 12 and 20, the liquid (corresponding to leachate) can drain from the treated solid waste. The used disinfectant liquid is drained via a dedicated liquid waste management unit, with the second tray comprising of a plurality of orifices of a shape and diameter selected to ensure that only the used disinfectant liquid can pass through into the dedicated disposal valve while all the solid waste remains in the screw in the separation arm (paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claim 15, Gur et al. teaches the method to treat medical waste,
comprising a main treatment unit (paragraphs [0069]-[0071]) (corresponding to introducing biohazardous waste in the waste destruction equipment),
a waste shredding unit, comprising a shredding bin and at least two rotating shredding blades (paragraph [0073]) (corresponding to grinding and crushing the biohazardous waste by the waste destruction equipment and shredding the waste in a loading chamber),
a main liquid/ chemical management unit which comprises a water/disinfectant mixing unit and a first disinfectant delivery unit interconnected to said main treatment unit (paragraphs [0074]-[0076]) (corresponding to performing a first rinse on the biohazardous waste).
Gur et al. teaches a waste shredding unit with a second tray comprises a plurality of orifices character by shape and diameter SD2, said shape and diameter configured to allow the passage of liquids and block passage of solids of a predefined particle shape of diameter (paragraph [0031]), in which SD2 is characterized by any geometrical shape a diameter from about 1 mm to about 10 mm.
Gur et al. does not explicitly state 80-90% reduction of the volume of the waste. Crushing and shredding the waste implies a reduction in volume of the waste. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the process in order to crush and shred the waste to reach an optimal volume reduction of the waste corresponding to the claimed ranges. Optimization would carry with it a reasonable expectation of success given that the waste can be crushed and shredded more if needed. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Gur et al. teaches the concentration of the BIOCETIC is 0.5 to 2% of the total volume of liquid, depending on the type of waste (paragraph [0186]). The concentration of the peracetic acid in BIOCETIC is 5-15% (paragraph [0193]) (corresponding to inactivating the pathogens, and exposing the waste to a peracetic acid chemical wash of about 200-400ppm) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ppm of the peracetic acid to obtain the desired composition (In re Boesch, 617 F .2d.272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
The treatment unit includes a separation arm with further comprises a centrifuge configured to further remove liquids from the solid waste (paragraph [0023]) (corresponding to transforming the waste into special waste wherein, the special waste includes leachate and solid waste and collecting the leachate).
Gur et al. teaches an activating screw (corresponding to a screw conveyor) therefore separating between the solid treated waste and the used disinfectant formula and allowing the treated waste to fall into a designated ordinary waste bin (figure 17).
Claims 4 and 16, 13-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gur et al. (US 20200290102 A1) further in view of Kralovic (US 5,374,394).
Regarding claim 4 and 16 Gur et al. teaches a method to treat medical waste (corresponding to biohazardous waste), in which medical waste is defined as waste generated in medical, veterinary, dental, and laboratory facilities, includes a wide variety of materials and substances such as bandages, gloves (paragraph [0002]) (corresponding to personal protective equipment).
Gur et al. does not teach personal protective equipment exposed to SARS Cov 2.
However, Kralovic teaches medical waste decontamination, and disposal of any products having potentially harmful microorganisms (column 1, lines 33-35). The microbial decontamination connotes the removal of hazardous or unwanted bacteria and other pathogenic life forms (column 1, lines 36-38). Kralovic teaches disinfection connotes the absence of all life forms whether pathogenic or not (column 1, lines 39-40).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the teaching of Gur et al. of personal protective equipment exposed to biohazards with Kralovic which teaches the disposal of microorganisms with a disinfectant which connotes the absence of pathogens. SARS Cov 2 is defined as a pathogen, which is a biohazard. Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply the methods of disinfecting to eliminate biohazards taught by Gur et al. with the definition of disinfecting taught by Kralovic in order to apply a disinfectant to personal protective equipment that was exposed to pathogens, specifically SARS Cov 2.
Regarding claim 14 and 22, the personal protective equipment comes from a human source (i.e. animal). Additionally, SARS Cov 2 is a virus, and viruses inherently have a protein coat, or a capsid. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the disinfecting method of the personal protective equipment to eliminate biohazards taught by Gur et al. and Kralovic could be applied as destroying waste of animal origin with a high protein content. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 13 and 21, it would have been obvious the raw waste contains protein when applied as above with the waste exposed to SARS Cov 2.
Claim 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gur et al. (US 20200290102 A1) further in view of Franciskovich et al. (US 20170128605 A1).
Regarding claim 11 and 19 Gur et al. teaches BIOCETIC as the recommended decontaminating disinfectant which includes 5-15% peracetic acid. Gur et al. does not teach the composition of peracetic acid.
However, Franciskovich et al. teaches a two part composition used for cleaning and disinfecting substrates such as medical devices (paragraph [0001]). The concentration of acetic acid disinfectant medium (A) may be in the range of 34-62%, the concentration of hydrogen peroxide may be in the range from about 5-60%, and the concentration of sulfuric acid may be in the range from 0.5-2% by weight (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the teaching of Gur et al. with Franciskovich et al. and use the composition for the synthesis taught by Franciskovich as the peracetic acid that is used by Gur et al. Gur et al. recommends BIOCETIC, but does not require the use. Franciskovich et al. teaches the peracetic acid is used as the disinfectant medium. The benefit of using peracetic acid is that it is stable at room temperatures over a period of time that spans multiple reprocessing cycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the peracetic acid taught by Franciskovich instead of the BIOCETIC taught by Gur et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kodis et al. (US 7534405 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH E KETCHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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 (571) 272-1176. 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.
/H.E.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights