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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13, and Species C, as shown in Fig. 6, in the reply filed on May 6, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8-13 are directed to the embodiments of Species D, as shown in Fig. 8, and Species E, as shown in Fig. 14, which are non-elected species.
Accordingly, claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration because it is drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoerle et al. (US 2017/0305774) [hereinafter Knoerle].
With respect to claim 1, Knoerle discloses a device for the treatment of organic matter, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a digester 5 (digestion tank) that digests organic matter in excess sludge by anaerobic bacteria (see paragraphs 0020-0023); a first piping that supplies the excess sludge to the digestion tank 5, as shown in Fig. 1; a second piping, as shown in Fig. 1; a storage tank 2 (first reservoir tank) that communicates with each of the first piping and the second piping, and that stores the excess sludge transported by the second piping, as shown in Fig. 1; a pump 3 (transporting unit) that transports the excess sludge stored in the first reservoir tank 2 to the digestion tank 5 via the first piping, continuously for a predetermined period, as shown in Fig. 1; and a heater that heats the excess sludge in the first piping by a fluid (see paragraph 0060, system 4 includes a heat exchanger).
Knoerle lacks the second piping that having a larger pipe diameter than a pipe diameter of the first piping. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to achieve a desired flow rate. Furthermore, the specific diameters claimed by applicant, i.e., the second piping that having a larger pipe diameter than a pipe diameter of the first piping, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious during routine experimentation based among other things, on desired accuracy, since the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (FED. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
With respect to claim 3, Knoerle discloses a valve 10 (control device) that controls an amount of the excess sludge that the transporting unit continuously transports to the digestion tank, in accordance with an amount of the excess sludge stored in the first reservoir tank, as shown in Fig. 1 (see paragraph 0062).
Claim(s) 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoerle (US 2017/0305774) in view of Buchhave et al. (US 6,117,203) [hereinafter Buchhave].
With respect to claim 2, Knoerle lacks a second reservoir tank that communicates with the second piping and that stores the excess sludge to be transported to the first reservoir tank, wherein the transporting unit transports the excess sludge stored in the second reservoir tank to the first reservoir tank via the second piping, intermittently for a predetermined period.
Buchhave discloses a pathogen reduction system, as shown in Fig. 2, having: a digester 105, a storage tank 30 (second reservoir tank) and a reactor network 35 (first reservoir tank) that stores or holds the sludge for a predetermined amount of time (see col. 5, lines 60-65), as shown in Fig. 2. The second reservoir tank 35 is designed to treat sludge and to remove pathogens (see col. 4, lines 46-48). The second reservoir tank 30 communicates with second piping and stores sludge to be transported to the first reservoir tank 35, wherein valves and piping (transporting unit) transports sludge stored in the second reservoir tank 30 to the first reservoir tank 35 via the second piping, intermittently for a predetermined period (see col. 2, lines 59-67, col. 3, lines 1-12, col. 7, lines 41-45, col. 9 and lines 42-49; first reservoir tank 35 receive sludge as a series of batches, which is intermittently). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device disclosed by Knoerle with a second reservoir tank, as taught by Buchhave, in order to treat sludge and to remove pathogens (see col. 4, lines 46-48) and improve the treatment of the sludge.
With respect to claims 4-5, Knoerle as modified by Buchhave discloses a control device 70 that controls an amount of the excess sludge that the transporting unit intermittently transports from the second reservoir tank 30 to the first reservoir tank 35, in accordance with an amount of the excess sludge stored in the second reservoir tank/first reservoir tank, as shown in Fig. 2 of Buchhave (see col. 5, lines 37-50 of Buchhave).
With respect to claims 6, Knoerle lacks a control device that controls an amount of the fluid supplied to the heater, in accordance with at least one of an amount of the excess sludge that the transporting unit transports to the digestion tank, a temperature of the excess sludge prior to heating by the heater, and a temperature of the excess sludge following heating by the heater. Buchhave teaches a programmable controller 70 controlling valves 62 and the flow of sludge to and from the first reservoir tank 35, said flow is directed to the heat exchanger 95, as shown in Fig. 2. Buchhave further teaches that programmable controllers are used extensively in wastewater treatment systems to control the flow of wastewater and sludge through various system components. In addition, those people ordinarily skilled in the art understand and appreciate how programmable controllers are used to direct and control flow of wastewater and sludge through various components of wastewater treatment systems (see col. 5, lines 37-50 of Buchhave). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Knoerle with a control device to control the amount of fluid supplied to the heater, as taught by Buchhave, in order to optimize the process and since one of ordinary skill would recognize to use a control device to control the flow of wastewater and sludge through various system components (see col. 5, lines 37-50 of Buchhave).
With respect to claim 7, Knoerle lacks wherein the fluid is a fluid of which a temperature has been raised by at least one of potential heat of exhaust gas discharged from an incinerator that incinerates the excess sludge that has been digested in the digestion tank, and potential heat of exhaust gas discharged from an electric power generating system that generates electricity using digestion gas generated by digestion of the excess sludge in the digestion tank. Buchhave teaches a heat exchanger 85 to heat the incoming sludge, as shown in Fig. 2. The heat exchanger 85 is communicatively coupled to a boiler 90, as shown in Fig. 2. Boiler 90 is powered by the methane or biogas produced by the digester 105. More particularly, the source of the heat that is ultimately transferred to the sludge is typically water (see col. 6, lines 19-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device disclosed by Knoerle with a heat exchanger having a fluid, as taught by Buchhave, in order to heat the sludge (see col. 6, lines 19-33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights