DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 3 includes writing that is too small to be read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by dividing a temperature section from the temperature raising operation to the heat treatment into temperature sections of six zones or more. Based on the description provided in the specification, for the purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as requiring that the toxic solid waste is heated in six different temperature zones.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear what "returning after liquefaction and incinerating the toxic solid waste” means. In particular, it is unclear what is being returned and to where it is being returned. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring that a toxic component in the by-product gas is returned to the start of the heat treatment process, as described in paragraph [0096].
Claim 15 also recites the limitation “the liquid” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2003266042 (“Takahiro”, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Takahiro teaches a method for detoxifying organochlorine compounds (see e.g. paragraph [0001]). The method of Takahiro includes heat treating the organochlorine compounds at a temperature of between 440 °C and 460 °C, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0021]). The heating rate used in Takahiro is between 3 and 6 °C/min, the majority of which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Takahiro teaches a method for detoxifying organochlorine compounds (see e.g. paragraph [0001]). The method of Takahiro includes heat treating the organochlorine compounds at a temperature of between 440 °C and 460 °C, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0021]). The heating rate used in Takahiro is between 3 and 6 °C/min, the majority of which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Takahiro teaches that the dioxins present are destroyed and not resynthesized, indicating that the residual toxicity of the material is within the claimed safe range (see e.g. paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 14, Takahiro teaches that the method also includes treating the by-product gas generated by the thermal treatment to remove toxic materials such as dust (see e.g. paragraph [0038]).
Regrading claim 15, Takahiro teaches that the removing of the toxic component from the by-product gas includes both high temperature incineration and collecting dust (see e.g. paragraph [0038]).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, et al. "Low temperature pyrolysis characteristics of oil sludge under various heating conditions." Energy & fuels 21.2 (2007): 957-962 (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of thermally treating oil sludge, which is a toxic material (see e.g. page 958, first column, second full paragraph, starting “Inguanzo et al…”). Wang teaches that the pyrolysis is a thermal treatment performed at a temperature of between 400-700 °C, including several examples within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 2). Wang further teaches that the temperature raising rate can be as low as 2.5 °C/min, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 2, first row).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches a method of thermally treating oil sludge, which is a toxic material (see e.g. page 958, first column, second full paragraph, starting “Inguanzo et al…”). Wang teaches that the pyrolysis is a thermal treatment performed at a temperature of between 400-700 °C, including several examples within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 2). Wang further teaches that the temperature raising rate can be as low as 2.5 °C/min, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 2, first row). As Wang does not teach changing the temperature raising rate, the method of Wang includes heating at a rate less than 5 °C/min after the material reaches 200 °C.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches that the temperature raising rate can be as low as 2.5 °C/min, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 2, first row).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches that the sludge is first dried at 105 °C, which is a preliminary heat treatment at under 200 °C (see e.g. page 958, first column, third full paragraph, starting “Samples. The oil sludge...”).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches that the heat treatment is performed for 20-60 minutes, including at least two examples with a treatment time within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 2, rows 8-9).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches that the system is purged with nitrogen, which would mean that the thermal treatment is performed under a nitrogen atmosphere (see e.g. page 958, second column, first paragraph, starting “The pyrolysis experiments…”).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches that the toxic waste is a sludge generated as a by-product of a petrochemical process (see e.g. page 958, first column, third full paragraph, starting “Samples. The oil sludge...”).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches that the content of the waste is nearly all carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur, with additional oxygen (see e.g. Table 1). As such, the amount of copper in the waste would be less than 10,000 ppm (which is 1%) and the amount of chlorine in the waste would be less than 100,000 ppm (which is 10%).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang as evidenced by Gopang, et al. "Characterization of the sludge deposits in crude oil storage tanks." Journal of Faculty of Engineering & Technology 23.1 (2016): 57-64 (“Gopang”).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wang further teaches that the moisture content of the waste is 26.89%, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 1). Although Wang does not provide the specific pH of the material, Wang teaches that the material is oil sludge from a crude oil storage tank (see e.g. page 958, first column, second full paragraph, starting “Inguanzo et al…”). As shown by Gopang, oil sludge in an oil storage tank generally has a slightly alkaline pH of between 7.1 and 7.4, which is within the claimed range (see Gopang at Table 2).
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 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro in view of JP2009136812A (“Sakagami”, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 8, Takahiro teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Takahiro does not teach inputting a coagulant to toxic wastewater, separating a solid and liquid in a flotation tank, and performing a dehydration operation prior to the thermal treatment. However, Sakagami teaches a method for removing harmful substances from incineration ash from municipal waste, which is the same material used in the method of Takahiro (see e.g. Sakagami at page 2, first full paragraph, starting “The present invention…”). Sakagami teaches that water is added to the ash or contaminated substance (see e.g. page 3, last paragraph, starting “Digested ash, coal ash…”). Next, an inorganic coagulant is added to the mixture (see e.g. page 2, third full paragraph, starting “Furthermore, as a solidifying agent…”). The solid and liquids are then separated, with the solids containing dioxins, PCBs, and the like removed, before being dried (see e.g. page 6, fifth paragraph, starting “On the other hand…”). Sakagami teaches that this method allows for the recovery of ash without harmful substances so that the ash can be reused (see e.g. page 2, first paragraph, starting “The present invention…”). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to use the coagulation and separation steps of Sakagami prior to the thermal treatment method of Takahiro in order to effectively obtain reusable material.
Regarding claim 9, Takahiro teaches that, after forming the waste, it undergoes a drying operation (see e.g. paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Sakagami teaches that the filtrate from dewatering is reinput to the flotation tank (see e.g. page 6, sixth paragraph, starting “The, by demagnetizing…”).
Regarding claim 11, Sakagami teaches a flotation process that results in the particle size (see e.g. page 6, fifth paragraph, starting “On the other hand…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Claims 6-7 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
As described above, claim 3 is interpreted as requiring that the toxic solid waste is heated in six different temperature zones. This limitation is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Both Wang and Takahiro teach a single furnace that is used to heat the solid waste. Given that no multi-zone furnace is required for the methods of the prior art, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify either Wang or Takahiro to use a materially different type of furnace having six separate heating zones.
Claims 6-7 and 19 teach specific parameters for the starting waste compositions or off-gas. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest using waste with the specific toxicity of recited in claim 6, the degree of chlorination of claim 7, or that results in the degree of chlorination of claim 19.
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
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736