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 13-20 in the reply filed on 22 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 January 2026.
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.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to independent claim 13, it is unclear if the recitation “the water vapor and volatile compounds” in line 12 refers back to the water vapor and volatile compounds produced by the first heater, the water vapor and volatile compounds produced by the second heater, or both.
Claims 14-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 13.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed that claim 17 should be dependent on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (US 20150329399).
With respect to claim 13, Kumar discloses a system for manufacturing a liquid fertilizer comprising a waste tank (Figure 1:14) configured to hold a liquid organic waste. A filter (Figure 1:20) is in communication with the waste tank and is configured to filter organic waste to obtain a clarified liquid organic waste (Figure 1:22). This is described in paragraphs [0028]-[0034]. A first heater comprising at least one stripping tank (Figure 6:34) heats the clarified liquid organic waste to remove water vapor and volatile compounds to obtain a salt-rich concentrate (Figure 6:44). A condenser (Figure 6:38) configured as a gas scrubbing unit condenses the water vapor and volatile compounds to obtain a first condensate (Figure 6:42) through the addition of a cold absorbent liquid. This is described in paragraphs [0037]-[0039] and [0082]-[0084] (“The ammonia is scrubbed into the absorbent liquid as ammonium hydroxide and at the same time, entrained water is condensed”). A second heater (Figure 6:78) configured as a distillation column receives the first condensate. Water vapor and volatile compounds from the second heater are treated in a second condenser (Figure 6:74) to obtain a second condensate (Figure 6:80).
With respect to claim 14, Kumar discloses the system as described above. Kumar further indicates in paragraph [0032] that the filter is a microfilter (“The first solid-liquid separation device 20 may have openings larger than 400 microns but smaller than 1000 microns”).
With respect to claim 15, Kumar discloses the system as described above. Kumar states in paragraph [0021] that the liquid organic waste is livestock manure and/or food waste, and that it may be provided raw to an anaerobic digester.
With respect to claim 16, Kumar discloses the system as described above. Any of Kumar’s products and biproducts are combinable to create a mixture for use as a fertilizer. This recitation relates to what is done with produced concentrate and condensate streams, and does not require or describe any additional structural detail. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 17, Kumar discloses the system as described above. Kumar teaches in at least paragraph [0034] that the nitrogen content of the product mixture is greater than 5% nitrogen.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Kumar discloses the system as described above. Kumar further indicates in paragraphs [0042] and [0043] that a dehydrator (Figure 1:50 and Figure 1:54) configured as a dryer is used to dehydrate the salt-rich concentrate (Figure 1:44) to create a semi-solid or solid product (Figure 1:56).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20150329399) as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Orentlicher (US 20190210904).
Kumar discloses the system as described above. As previously discussed, Kumar indicates that a microbial reactor 14 functions as a waste tank to deliver liquid organic waste to a filter, which in turn produces a clarified liquid organic waste. Kumar, however, does not state that the microbial reactor is downstream from the filter, so that the microbial reactor processes and adjusts the contents of the clarified liquid waste.
Orentlicher discloses a system for manufacturing a liquid fertilizer comprising a waste tank configured to hold a liquid organic waste (“raw manure 10 with or without associated dairy waste generated at the CAFO is transported to a solids separation unit/process 20 (it being understood that a mixing or holding tank/vessel could be used prior to solids separation and/or can be used for solids separation”). A filter (Figure 1:20) is in communication with the waste tank and is configured to filter the organic waste to obtain a clarified liquid organic waste. The clarified liquid organic waste is sent to an anaerobic digester (Figure 1:30) to further process the clarified liquid organic waste and adjust a concentration of ammonia present in the clarified liquid organic waste. This is described in paragraphs [0029]-[0036]. From there, the organic waste is sent to at least one heater (Figure 1:40) and at least one condenser (Figure 1:50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Kumar system to ensure that the microbial reactor is downstream from the filter. Orentlicher shows how it is common to collect waste material in a mixing or holding tank/vessel before it is transferred to a filter in order to produce a clarified liquid organic waste, which is then treated in an anaerobic digester. Orentlicher teaches that this sequence of operations produces an effluent digestate characterized by optimal levels of dissolved ammonia and carbon dioxide that can be recaptured as solid ammonium bicarbonate. Orentlicher, therefore, shows how this modification to Kumar would facilitate the generation of a nitrogen rich fertilizer product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Josse (WO 2012109737) reference teaches the state of the art regarding systems for manufacturing a liquid fertilizer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799