DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 12-17 in the reply filed on 7/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euroc (GB 1459551 A) in view of Connor et al (US PGPub 2011/0017664 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Euroc teaches a method for treatment of biologically degradable waste [pg. 1 lines 10-15] which employs decomposition reactors (1), (2) with first inlets for liquid (5), (5’) and outlets for effluent (6), (6)’ [pg. 4 lines 75-90, Fig. 1] and may include a second inlet for air from e.g. a compressor (20), (20’) [pg. 4 lines 103-115, Fig. 1]; although taught for the purpose of providing oxygen for aerobic microorganisms, the aeration would also inherently cause reaction of e.g. oxygen in the air with components of the slurry to at least some degree. The slurry and the reactors in use contain microorganisms for degrading waste [pg. 2 lines 25-45]. They process includes heating which may result in evaporation of some of the water in the slurry and thus produces as a portion of the effluent a solvent vapor [pg. 4 lines -27] which may be condensed in embodiments [Fig. 3].
Euroc therefore essentially differs from the instant claimed invention in that Euroc is silent to a porous substrate positioned between the second inlet and the biomass. However, Connor teaches a wastewater treatment system with a bioreactor [Abs] in which a porous substrate in the form of a perforate pipe is used to feed air into the reactor [0228] with various designs and positions employed to optimize suspension of the solids in the reactor [0240]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air injection system of Euroc to include a porous or perforate structure between the air source and the reactor as in Connor in order to gain the benefit of allowing for control over the aeration behavior and solid suspension in the reactor, as in Connor.
PNG
media_image1.png
637
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
469
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, Connor teaches that the pores in the diffuser or similar structure may be 3.2 mm in diameter [0228].
With respect to claim 16, Euroc teaches sourcing the slurry from kitchen or toilet waste such that treating stool, urine, toil paper, food waste, and the like are at minimum obvious [pg. 4 lines 77-90, Fig. 1].
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euroc in view of Connor et al, further in view of Sanchez-Vasquez et al (US PGPub 2014/0239561 A1).
Euroc teaches as above include a loop for condensing vapor from the system [Fig. 2]. Euroc is silent to an arrangement which separates condensed liquid from gases in the condensing side, or which directs gases to the second (air) inlet.
However, Sanchez-Vasquez teaches a bioreactor system and process with control of aeration [Abs] and which includes a vapor cleaning and recovery system with a condenser [Fig. 6] which separates condensate from clean gases [0045] where clean gases exit through an upper outlet (130) and condensed liquid return to the reactor via another path [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such a system to allow for recovery of clean air e.g. for reuse with air injection in the process of Euroc.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euroc in view of Connor et al, further in view of Coze et al (US PGPub 2017/0009257 A1).
Euroc teaches the use of thermophilic bacteria [pg. 2 lines 35-40] but does not specify the specific strains.
However, Coze teaches biomass transformation in bioreactors [Abs] e.g. to treat kitchen or urban wastes [0069] and teaches that thermophilic bacteria such as thermophilic strains of Deinococcus are useful because of their ability to utilize particular sugars for fermentation [0114-0116]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the art for useful bacteria strains known in the art for the process of Euroc and to employ strains of e.g. Deinococcus because, as in Coze, these have useful properties regarding their ability to digest sugars from kitchen wastes or the like.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights