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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's priority to the US provisional application #63/225,264. The priority dates for all of the claims within this application are as follows:
Claims 1-28: 07/23/2021
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. The claim reads “Use of the composition of matter of claim 23 a fertilizer, fish food or a medium …”, however, it is believed the applicant has omitted the word “as”. The claim will be interpreted, but not limited to, the following: “Use of the composition of matter of claim 23 as a fertilizer, fish food, or a medium …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim recites, “the emulsion is formed of Ca(ClO)2 dissolved in water”. It is unclear how this an emulsion can be created from a compound dissolving in water, given an emulsion is created from insoluble components, and the specification provides no further detail regarding this matter.
Claims 1-28 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. The term “sufficient” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Given the applicant has not properly defined “sufficient”, the examiner has interpreted, but not limited, the term in light of Zhang, Qin (NPL - Enhanced volatile fatty acids etc) as to mean 10 hours. Zhang, Qin’s experiment and data were based on similar art such as the applicant (volatile production, waste activated sludge, phosphorus fixation, etc); given the similarities in the field of study, it is believed the 10-hour time period (end limit of Zhan’s experimental data) {P 4, F 1} would be considered “sufficient” in regards to the applicant’s invention. Claims 2-28 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "pretreated wastewater sludge" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant was attempting to reference “wastewater sludge” or “treated sludge” from claim 1, or if the applicant was attempting to define another type of sludge within this claim.
Claim 11 is 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. The claim recites, “the emulsion is formed of Ca(ClO)2 dissolved in water”. It is unclear how this an emulsion can be created from a compound dissolving in water, given, by definition, an emulsion is created from insoluble components. In light of the applicant’s specification, the “emulsion” will be interpreted as, but not limited to, a mixture.
Claim 14 is 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. The claim does not recite an upper limit to the claimed concentration range. In light of the applicant’s specification, the examiner has interpreted the upper limit of the range to be the highest experimental Ca(ClO)2 concentration within the specification of 0.5g/g.
Claim 20 is 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. The term “high” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Given the applicant has not properly defined “sufficient”, the examiner has interpreted, but not limited, the term in light of Kapil (NPL - Effects of mixed liquor etc) as to mean greater than 5g/L. {P 5 Fig. 2} Kapil is measuring MLVSS or (mixed liquor volatile suspended solids) within waste activated sludge. This measurement will include biomass components as claimed, and since the experimentation of Kapil is within the same field of wastewater treatment, specifically activated sludge treatment, as the applicant’s inventor, it can be determined by a person having ordinary skill in the art, that the “high” parameters determined in light of Kapil, would be similar within the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is 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. The term “high” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Given the applicant has not properly defined “sufficient”, the examiner has interpreted, but not limited, the term in light of Whiteman (WO2019204798A) as to mean anything not considered a “Class A sludge”. The invention of Whiteman discloses a Class A sludge as “essentially pathogen free … can legally and efficaciously directly applied to the surface of fields and crops, which the crops can be used for human and animal consumption” {P 18, ¶ 69} Given the invention of Whiteman, similarly appears to exists within the field of activated sludge treatment, it can be determined by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the claimed “high toxicity” would have a similar meaning to how it is interpreted within Whiteman.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 20, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Qin (NPL - Enhanced volatile fatty acids etc), in view of Zhang, Xue-yin (CN109231790A). *Note all teachings and mappings of Zhang, Xue-yin are based on the attached, machine translated, English version *Note that claim 4 has been cancelled by the applicant, prior to this examination.
In regards to claim 1, Zhang, Qin teaches a method of pretreating wastewater sludge, the method comprising: applying an amount of at least 0.01 g/g TSS Ca(ClO)2 to wastewater sludge to enhance digestibility of the sludge and reduce phosphorus concentration therein; {P 1, abstract, "waste activated sludge (WAS) … optimal calcium hypochlorite (Ca(ClO)2 stimulation … 0.01 g Ca(ClO)2 / g TSS addition"} and allowing sufficient time for the wastewater sludge to densify to a treated sludge. {P 3 bottom left, "Based on results obtain from batch tests, the sludge retention time is all set at 9 d" & P 8, Table 2}
In regards to claim 2, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising subsequently subjecting the pretreated wastewater sludge to digestion. {P 3 top left, "The batch fermentation experiments are carried out"}
In regards to claim 3, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the digestion is anaerobic digestion or aerobic digestion. {P 3 top left, "All fermentation reactors are purged with nitrogen gas … to keep anaerobic conditions"}
In regards to claim 5, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the digestion occurs in a batch reactor. {P 3 top left, "Batch fermentation … supplemented with … in each reactor"}
In regards to claim 10, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the Ca(ClO)2 is applied as an emulsion. {P 3 middle left, "3.6 mL of H2O with 10 mg Ca(ClO)2 addition"}
In regards to claim 11, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 10 wherein the emulsion is formed of Ca(ClO)2 dissolved in water. {P 3 middle left, "3.6 mL of H2O with 10 mg Ca(ClO)2 addition"}
In regards to claim 14, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the amount of Ca(ClO)2 applied is at least 0.1 g/g TSS. {P 4, F 1 "The dosage of Ca(ClO)2 (g/gTSS)"} Although Figure 1 of Zhang, Qin does not teach the entire claimed range of the applicant, the experimentation comes to a similar conclusion of a dosage of at least 0.01g/g of Ca(ClO)2 per TSS is sufficient for the treatment process. A person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, would continue the experimentation of Zhang, Qin to teach the remainder of the range not taught (0.2-0.5) with the same reasonable expectation of success as the taught range within Zhang.
In regards to claim 16, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising forming insoluble CaP precipitates in digesters. {P 8 middle left, "the soluble PO43- is likely to precipitate into fermented sludge with the combination of Ca2+ … apatite (AP) in sludge, … consisted of PO43- and Ca2+"}
In regards to claim 17, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 16 further comprising removing the insoluble CaP precipitates from the digesters for subsequent use as fertilizer. {P 8 middle right, "the apatite precipitates in fermented sludge could further be employed as a potential phosphoric slow-release fertilizer"}
In regards to claim 20, Zhang, Qin teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the wastewater sludge has a high biomass or protein content. {P 2 bottom right, "total proteins 9006 +/- 170 mg/L"}
In regards to claim 23, Zhang, Qin teaches a composition of matter resulting from digestion of wastewater sludge pretreated according to the method of claim 1. {P 8 middle right, "fermented sludge"}
In regards to claim 26, Zhang, Qin teaches use of the composition of matter as of claim 23 a fertilizer, fish food, or as a medium for growing mushrooms. {P 8 middle right, "fermented sludge could be further employed as a potential phosphoric slow-release fertilizer in agriculture"}
Zhang, Qin does not teach:
Claim 1: the treated sludge has a specific resistance to filtration (SRF) of 3 to 4 (1010 m/Kg)
However, Zhang, Xue-yin teaches the remaining limitations that Zhang, Qin does not teach.
In regards to claim 1, Zhang, Xue-yin teaches the treated sludge has a specific resistance to filtration (SRF) of 3 to 4 (1010 m/Kg). {P 8 middle, "5.78 * 1010 m/Kg … after processing the CST … SRF is 1.35 * 1010 m/Kg"} While Zhang, Xue-yin does not disclose this exact range, the invention fully encompasses the claimed range. The experimentation shows starting SRF values from untreated sludge, and final SRF values of treated sludge. A person having ordinary skill in the art could determine when discussing SRF, that the sludge SRF values would have to pass through the entire claimed range to reach the final values disclosed from Zhang, Xue-yin; meaning, if Zhang, Xue-yin had stopped treatment earlier in the process, the SRF values for the “treated sludge” could have been entirely within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine invention of Zhang, Xue-yin to Zhang, Qin because both inventions involve the treatment of waste activated sludge through calcium hypochlorite. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions together because the treatment system operation and design of Zhang, Xue-yin allows for stable operation, low costs, and other economic and technical advantages” compared to mainstream sewage techniques {Zhang, Xue-yin, P 2 top}
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Qin (NPL - Enhanced volatile fatty acids etc) and Zhang, Xue-yin (CN109231790A) in view of Coelho (NPL - Evaluation of continuous mesophilic etc). *Note all teachings and mappings of Zhang, Xue-yin are based on the attached, machine translated, English version.
The combination of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin teach all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 20, 23, and 26; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
They do not teach:
Claim 6: The method of claim 5 wherein the batch reactor is operated under mesophilic conditions or thermophilic conditions.
However, Coelho teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 that the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin do not teach.
In regards to claim 6, Coelho teaches the method of claim 5 wherein the batch reactor is operated under mesophilic conditions or thermophilic conditions. {P 1, abstract, " mesophilic and thermophilic reactors treating pretreated and non-pretreated sludge"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Coelho to the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin, because Coelho is similarly investigating properties of anaerobic treatment of activated sludge, similarly to the other combined invention and study. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because some of the thermophilic reactors of Coelho, improve the dewatering [thus treatment] characteristics in comparison with a control reactor. {P 11 top right}
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Qin (NPL - Enhanced volatile fatty acids etc) and Zhang, Xue-yin (CN109231790A) in view of Zhu (NPL - Enhanced dewaterability of waste etc). *Note all teachings and mappings of Zhang, Xue-yin are based on the attached, machine translated, English version.
The combination of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin teach all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 20, 23, and 26; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
They do not teach:
Claim 8: The method of claim 1 wherein the Ca(ClO)2 is applied to the sludge in solid form or a powder.
However, Zhu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 that the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin do not teach.
In regards to claim 8, Zhu teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the Ca(ClO)2 is applied to the sludge in solid form or a powder. {P 8 middle right, "Ca(ClO)2 is stable and cheaper than H2O2 and can be used as a solid"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Zhu with the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin because Zhu similarly is researching the treatment properties of sludge through different experimental procedures, one of which including the addition of calcium hypochlorite. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because the ability to add calcium hypochlorite as a solid allows the chemical to be stable, cheaper, and easier to transport. {Zhu, P 8 middle right, Economic Analysis}
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Qin (NPL - Enhanced volatile fatty acids etc) and Zhang, Xue-yin (CN109231790A) in view of Takechi (JP2000140894A) *Note all teachings and mappings of Zhang, Xue-yin and Takechi are based on the attached, machine translated, English version.
The combination of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin teach all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 20, 23, and 26; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
They do not teach:
Claim 12: The method of any of claim 1 wherein the Ca(ClO)2 is applied to the wastewater sludge when the wastewater sludge is located in transport pipes.
Claim 13: The method of any of claim 1 wherein the Ca(ClO)2 is applied to the wastewater sludge when the wastewater sludge is located in a mixing tank.
However, Takechi teaches all of the limitations of claims 12-13 that the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin do not teach.
In regards to claim 12, Takechi teaches the method of any of claim 1 wherein the Ca(ClO)2 is applied to the wastewater sludge when the wastewater sludge is located in transport pipes. {P 13 top, "calcium hypochlorite … is injected into the pipe 1 for introducing the sludge into pipe 1 to oxidize the sludge"}
In regards to claim 13, Takechi teaches the method of any of claim 1 wherein the Ca(ClO)2 is applied to the wastewater sludge when the wastewater sludge is located in a mixing tank. {P 13 top, "Even if stirring and mixing tank is used instead of a pipe mixer … the sludge mixed liquid can be similarly promoted"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Takechi with the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin because Takechi similarly treats wastewater sludge through the addition of calcium hypochlorite within a wastewater treatment system.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because utilizing the apparatus of Takechi creates a reduced amount of phosphorous byproduct from the treatment system. This allows less transportation equipment creating a more efficient process. {Takechi, P 8 middle}
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Qin (NPL - Enhanced volatile fatty acids etc) and Zhang, Xue-yin (CN109231790A) in view of Wu (NPL - Enhanced methane production etc). *Note all teachings and mappings of Zhang, Xue-yin are based on the attached, machine translated, English version.
The combination of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin teach all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 20, 23, and 26; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
They do not teach:
Claim 15: The method of claim 1 wherein applying the amount of Ca(ClO)2 additionally increases the methane production to at least 50% of organics present in the treated sludge.
However, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 that the combination of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin do not teach.
In regards to claim 15, Wu teaches the method of claim 1 wherein applying the amount of Ca(ClO)2 additionally increases the methane production to at least 50% of organics present in the treated sludge. {P 1, abstract, "increasing methane production of 3.6%-59.7%"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wu with the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin because Wu teaches a similar method of treating waste activated sludge using calcium hypochlorite concentrations to the already combined invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because Wu claims their invention enhances methane reduction, thus improving the anaerobic digestion [treatment] of the system as whole, compared to prior art at the time of it’s publishing.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Qin (NPL - Enhanced volatile fatty acids etc) and Zhang, Xue-yin (CN109231790A) in view of Park (WO2013129778A1). *Note all teachings and mappings of Zhang, Xue-yin and Park are based on the attached, machine translated, English version.
The combination of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin teach all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 20, 23, and 26; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
They do not teach:
Claim 18: The method of claim 1 wherein applying the amount of Ca(ClO)2 additionally results in at least a 40% reduction in phosphorus present in the treated sludge or mitigates sludge foaming.
However, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 that the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin do not teach.
In regards to claim 18, Park teaches the method of claim 1 wherein applying the amount of Ca(ClO)2 additionally results in at least a 40% reduction in phosphorus present in the treated sludge or mitigates sludge foaming. {P 10, Table 4, "T-P" row showing phosphorus concentrations before and after treatment}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Park with the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin because Park teaches a similar method within the same field of endeavor for the treatment of a waste activated sludge with the attempt to remove phosphorus through the addition of calcium hypochlorite from the compound throughout the treatment process. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because the alkali sludge used in the method of Park contains alkali compounds, so the treatment process does not have to introduce “separate alkali compounds, which is both convenient and economical”. {Park, P 3 middle}
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Qin (NPL - Enhanced volatile fatty acids etc) and Zhang, Xue-yin (CN109231790A) in view of Whiteman (WO2019204798A1). *Note all teachings and mappings of Zhang, Xue-yin are based on the attached, machine translated, English version.
The combination of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin teach all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 20, 23, and 26; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
They do not teach:
Claim 21: The method of claim 1 wherein the wastewater sludge has a wastewater with high toxicity.
Claim 24: The composition of claim 23 wherein the composition of matter is sterilized or free of harmful bacteria.
However, Whiteman teaches all of the limitations of claims 21 and 24 that the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin do not teach.
In regards to claim 21, Whiteman teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the wastewater sludge has a wastewater with high toxicity. {P 20, ¶ 74, "In treating sludge to obtain essentially PTE free, Class A sludge"}
In regards to claim 24, Whiteman teaches the composition of claim 23 wherein the composition of matter is sterilized or free of harmful bacteria. {P 20, ¶ 74, "In treating sludge to obtain essentially PTE free, Class A sludge"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Whiteman with the combined invention of Zhang, Qin and Zhang, Xue-yin because Whiteman similarly teaches a method for treated waste activated sludge. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine to combine these inventions because Whitman discusses upgrading already active treatment facilities with new parameters to better treat the sludge, opposed to building an entirely new facility, which will be very costly and take time. Whiteman even states, “An embodiment of the present inventions would be a novel method to upgrade such a facility at minimal cost and would be redesigning the flow regime and function of the primary clarifiers to make these anoxic zones and integral to the biological treatment process. The upgraded treatment design allows for greater treatment … while reducing biosolids production and associated pathogens to create the equivalent of a Class B, clean Class B or Class A biosolids.” {Whiteman, P 43, ¶ 187}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779