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 Objections
Claims 8-9 objected to because of the following informalities: The abbreviation MBR is not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 Claims 1-9, the term “harmless” as used in the phrase “A harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste” does not provide a clear and definite meaning to one of the skilled in the art. Therefore, the claims 1-9 has an indefinite scope.
Regarding Claim 1, line 6, it is unclear if “for usage as a raw material for biodiesel” is a part of the recycling treatment method. The Examiner notes that “for usage as a raw material for biodiesel” is not a positive recitation of a method step. As stated in MPEP § 2115, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. For the purpose of examination, “for usage as a raw material for biodiesel” is examined as not being part of the recycling treatment method.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, the term “is made from” does not specify whether the demulsifier is limited to the listed components (i.e., “consisting of” transitional phrase) or other components are allowed (i.e., “comprising” transitional phrase). See MPEP § 2111.03. Therefore, the claims 1,3 have an indefinite scope.
Regarding claim 5, the term “is made from” does not specify whether the deodorant is limited to the listed components or other components are allowed. See MPEP § 2111.03. Therefore, the claim 5 has an indefinite scope.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan Minghua (CN107879505A, machine translation) herein known as Pan, in view of Li J et al. (CN105169446A, machine translation) herein known as Li, and further in view of Zhang Xiao-jing et al. (CN109231722A, machine translation) herein known as Zhang, Dhyllon (US 20220169926 A1) herein known as Dhyllon and Yuan Xin et al. (CN 119822429 A, machine translation) herein known as Yuan.
Regarding claim 1, The recitation “for usage as a raw material for biodiesel” is merely a statement of intended use and not a structural limitation.
Pan is directed to treatment method for kitchen wastewater (Abstract). Pan discloses a harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste, comprising: step S1: sorting the kitchen waste, and then implementing a solid-liquid separation to the kitchen waste to obtain solid and filtrate; step S2: adding a demulsifier to the filtrate (Abstract; [0002], [0004], [0009]- [0010], [0024], [0032], [0040], [0048], [0056], [0064], [0071]).
However, Pan is silent to deodorizing the kitchen waste.
Li discloses deodorizing the kitchen waste ([0002], [0004] – [0006], [ [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste to deodorize the kitchen waste, as taught by Li, because using microorganisms for deodorization is an environmentally friendly method. It decomposes and eliminates odor sources through biological oxidation and inhibits the number of anaerobic bacteria or other harmful bacteria through the balancing effect of biological species, preventing them from producing odors. Microbial deodorization has advantages over traditional methods, such as high treatment efficiency, no secondary pollution, simple and easy-to-operate equipment, and low cost and maintenance (see Li, [0005]- [0007]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
However, modified Pan is silent to step S2: adjusting pH of the filtrate obtained in the step S1 to 12-13, adding a demulsifier to the filtrate, heating to 40-60°C under stirring to react; after the reaction, standing still, recovering an upper layer of oil for usage as a raw material for biodiesel and obtaining a lower layer of clear liquid; and step S3: implementing an advanced oxidation treatment and a biochemical treatment to the lower layer of clear liquid obtained in the step S2, to obtain water.
Zhang discloses step S2: adjusting pH of the filtrate obtained in the step S1 to 13-14 which overlaps the claimed pH range of 12-13 , adding a demulsifier to the filtrate, heating to 40-80°C which overlaps the claimed range of 40-60°C under stirring to react; after the reaction, standing still, recovering an upper layer of oil for usage as a raw material for biodiesel and obtaining a lower layer of clear liquid; and step S3: implementing an advanced oxidation treatment and a biochemical treatment to the lower layer of clear liquid obtained in the step S2, to obtain water (Abstract;[0010], [0013], [0018]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste to comprise step S2: adjusting pH of the filtrate obtained in the step S1 to 12-13 adding a demulsifier to the filtrate, heating to 40-60°C under stirring to react; after the reaction, standing still, recovering an upper layer of oil for usage as a raw material for biodiesel and obtaining a lower layer of clear liquid; and step S3: implementing an advanced oxidation treatment and a biochemical treatment to the lower layer of clear liquid obtained in the step S2, to obtain water, as taught by Zhang, to solve the problems of difficult oil-water separation, low treatment efficiency and poor biodegradability of emulsified wastewater (see Zhang, [0007]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
However, modified Pan is silent to drying and burning the solid obtained in the step S1, to obtain biochar.
Dhyllon discloses drying and burning the solid obtained in the step S1, to obtain biochar (Abstract, [0002]- [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste to comprise drying and burning the solid obtained in the step S1, to obtain biochar, as taught by Dhyllon, to convert biomass into useable fuel such as charcoal (see Dhyllon, [0003]- [0004]).
However, modified Pan is silent to wherein the demulsifier is made from pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride, and a mass ratio of pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride is 1:1:1:1-3:1-3.
Yuan discloses an agent for wastewater treatment compromise pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride, and a mass ratio of pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride is 3-5%: 15-20%: 5-10%: 15-20%: 30-55% when normalized, these percentages corresponding to the ratio 1:4:2:4:11 ([n0004]- [n0015], [n0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste wherein the demulsifier is made from pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride, and a mass ratio of pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride is 1:1:1:1-3:1-3, since the claimed ranges of the components of the demulsifier are so close to the ranges described in Yuan that one of ordinary skill would have expected the resultant demulsifier to have the same properties as disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(I). A person of ordinary skill of the art has reasonable expectation of success to use and optimize Yuan’s wastewater treatment agent to recover the oil from the kitchen waste and obtain a lower layer of clear liquid, due to the advantages of low energy consumption, simple operation, low cost, and suitability for industrial production (Yuan, [n0029]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Pan, Li, Zhang, Dhyllon and Yuan teaches all the limitations in the claim 1 as set forth above.
Pan is silent to the mass ratio of pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride is 1:1:1:1-2:1-2, and a mass ratio of anhydrous calcium chloride and polyaluminum chloride is 1:1.
Yuan discloses an agent for wastewater treatment compromise pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride, and a mass ratio of pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride is 3-5%: 15-20%: 5-10%: 15-20%: 30-55% when normalized, these percentages corresponding to the ratio 1:4:2:4:11 and a mass ratio of anhydrous calcium chloride and polyaluminum chloride is 1:3 ([n0004]- [n0015], [n0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste wherein the mass ratio of pulverized coal ash, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, anhydrous calcium chloride, and polyaluminum chloride is 1:1:1:1-2:1-2, and a mass ratio of anhydrous calcium chloride and polyaluminum chloride is 1:1 since the claimed ranges of the components of the demulsifier are so close to the ranges described in Yuan that one of ordinary skill would have expected the resultant demulsifier to have the same properties as disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(I). A person of ordinary skill of the art has reasonable expectation of success to use and optimize Yuan’s wastewater treatment agent to recover the oil form the kitchen waste and obtaining a lower layer of clear liquid, due to the advantages of low energy consumption, simple operation, low cost, and suitability for industrial production [n0029], yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Pan, Li, Zhang, Dhyllon and Yuan teaches all the limitations in the claim 1 as set forth above.
As recited in the rejection of Claim 1, Zhang discloses in the step S2 adding a demulsifier to the filtrate, heating to 40-80°C which overlaps the claimed range of 40-60°C under stirring to react water (Abstract; [0010], [0013]).
However, modified Pan is silent to in the step S2, the demulsifier is used in such a way that the anhydrous calcium chloride and the polyaluminum chloride are first mixed to prepare a first mixture, the first mixture is added to the filtrate and heated up to 40-60°C for stirring, and a second mixture made from the pulverized coal ash, the calcium oxide and the magnesium oxide is added, and then a stir is implemented to allow reaction to continue.
Yuan teaches that an active ingredient is added to water and stirred to form a first solution. The iron salt is then added to the first solution and stirred to form a second solution. The polyaluminum Chloride is added to the second solution and stirred to form a third solution. The anhydrous calcium chloride, calcium oxide and magnesium oxide are added to the third solution, stirred, to form the fourth solution. The pulverized coal ash is added to the fourth solution and stirred to form a suspension ([n0005]-[n0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to change the order of mixing of Yuan to be the anhydrous calcium chloride and the polyaluminum chloride are first mixed to prepare a first mixture, the first mixture is added to the filtrate and heated up to 40-60°C for stirring, and a second mixture made from the pulverized coal ash, the calcium oxide and the magnesium oxide is added, and then a stir is implemented to allow reaction to continue since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C).
Regarding Claim 4, Pan, Li, Zhang, Dhyllon and Yuan teach all the limitations in claim 3 as set forth above.
Modified Pan is silent to in the step S2, keeping stirring for 20-30 minutes after the first mixture is added, and continuing stirring for 30-60 minutes after the second mixture is added.
Yuan discloses the stirring time is 60-180 min for adding the iron salt to the first solution to form a second Solution, adding polyaluminum chloride to the second solution to form a third solution, adding the anhydrous calcium chloride and calcium oxide and magnesium oxide to the third solution to form a fourth solution, adding the pulverized coal ash to the fourth solution to from the suspension ([n0025]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize stirring until ingredients are fully mixed or any reactions are complete.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste wherein, in the step S2, keeping stirring for 20-30 minutes after the first mixture is added, and continuing stirring for 30-60 minutes after the second mixture is added, as taught by Yuan, to stir until ingredients are fully mixed or any reactions are complete [n0025], yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Pan, Li, Zhang, Dhyllon and Yuan teaches all the limitations in the claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Pan is silent to the sorted kitchen waste is added with a deodorant for deodorization, and the deodorant is made from bacillus licheniformis, nitrite bacteria, sulfur bacteria and thiobacillus denitrificans, and a mass ratio of bacillus licheniformis, nitrite bacteria, sulfur bacteria and thiobacillus denitrificans is 2-4: 2-4: 1-2: 1-2.
LI discloses the sorted kitchen waste is added with a deodorant for deodorization, and the deodorant compromises bacillus licheniformis, nitrite bacteria, sulfur bacteria and thiobacillus denitrificans, and a mass ratio of bacillus licheniformis, nitrite bacteria, sulfur bacteria and thiobacillus denitrificans is 1-2: 1-2: 1-2: 1-2 which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste wherein, in the step S1, the sorted kitchen waste is added with a deodorant for deodorization, and the deodorant is made from bacillus licheniformis, nitrite bacteria, sulfur bacteria and thiobacillus denitrificans, and a mass ratio of bacillus licheniformis, nitrite bacteria, sulfur bacteria and thiobacillus denitrificans is 2-4: 2-4: 1-2: 1-2 as taught by Li because using microorganisms for deodorization is an environmentally friendly method. It decomposes and eliminates odor sources through biological oxidation and inhibits the number of anaerobic bacteria or other harmful bacteria through the balancing effect of biological species, preventing them from producing odors. Microbial deodorization has advantages over traditional methods, such as high treatment efficiency, no secondary pollution, simple and easy-to-operate equipment, low cost and maintenance (Li, [0005]- [0007]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 7-9, Pan, Li, Zhang, Dhyllon and Yuan teaches all the limitations in the claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Pan is silent to in the step S3, adding ferrous salt to the lower layer of clear liquid obtained in the step S2 and keeping stirring, then adding hydrogen peroxide and continuing stirring for 5-10min; heating wastewater to 40-60°C, to allow reaction for 2-4h, and then discharging supernatant (claim 7).
Pan is silent to in the step S3, the supernatant is passed into a MBR reaction tank in such a condition of a hollow fiber membrane working as a membrane module, a membrane pore diameter of 0.1-0.2 microns, a sludge concentration of 6-10g/L, a hydraulic retention time of 5-8h, a temperature of 20-30°C, a pH of 7.5-8.5, and a dissolved oxygen of 0.1-0.3 mg/L (claim 8).
Pan is silent to in the MBR reaction tank, a composite functional flora includes 15-35% of aerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria, 25-35% of anaerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria, 10-15% of denitrifying bacteria, 5-15% of sulfate reducing bacteria, 5-10% of iron reducing ammonia oxidizing bacteria (claim 9).
Zhang discloses in the step S3, adding ferrous salt to the lower layer of clear liquid obtained in the step S2 and keeping stirring, then adding hydrogen peroxide and continuing stirring for 5-10 min; heating wastewater to 40-80°C which overlaps the claimed temperature range of 40-60°C, to allow reaction for 3-5h which overlaps the claimed reaction time range of 2-4h, and then discharging supernatant ([0011], [0013]- [0014]).
Zhang discloses the supernatant is passed into a MBR reaction tank in such a condition of a hollow fiber membrane working as a membrane module, a membrane pore diameter of 0.1-0.2 microns, a sludge concentration of 7-10 g/L which overlaps the claimed concentration of 6-10g/L, a hydraulic retention time of 6-10 h which overlaps the claimed hydraulic retention time of 5-8h, a temperature of 15-30℃ which overlap the claimed temperature range of 20-30°C, a pH of 7.5-8.5, and a dissolved oxygen of 0.1-0.3 mg/L ([0012], [0015]).
Zhang discloses in the MBR reaction tank, a composite functional flora includes 20-30% of aerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria which overlaps the claimed range of 15-35% of aerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria, 30-40% of anaerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria which overlaps the claimed range of 25-35% of anaerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria, 10-20% of denitrifying bacteria which overlaps the claimed range of 10-15% of denitrifying bacteria, 5-10% sulfate reducing bacteria which overlaps the claimed range of 5-15% of sulfate reducing bacteria, 5-10% of iron reducing ammonia oxidizing bacteria ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste wherein, the step S3, adding ferrous salt to the lower layer of clear liquid obtained in the step S2 and keeping stirring, then adding hydrogen peroxide and continuing stirring for 5-10min; heating wastewater to 40-60°C, to allow reaction for 2-4h, and then discharging supernatant (claim 7), wherein, in the step S3, the supernatant is passed into a MBR reaction tank in such a condition of a hollow fiber membrane working as a membrane module, a membrane pore diameter of 0.1-0.2 microns, a sludge concentration of 6-10g/L, a hydraulic retention time of 5-8h, a temperature of 20-30°C, a pH of 7.5-8.5, and a dissolved oxygen of 0.1-0.3 mg/L (claim 8), wherein, in the MBR reaction tank, a composite functional flora includes 15-35% of aerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria, 25-35% of anaerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria, 10-15% of denitrifying bacteria, 5-15% of sulfate reducing bacteria, 5-10% of iron reducing ammonia oxidizing bacteria (claim 9) as taught by Zhang to combine physicochemical pretreatment with MBR biological treatment to improve the treatment efficiency and biodegradability of emulsified wastewater and solve the problem of difficult oil-water separation ([0011]-[ 0015]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan Minghua (CN107879505A, machine translation) herein known as Pan, in view of LI J et al. (CN105169446A, machine translation) herein known as Li, and further in view of Zhang Xiao-jing et al. (CN109231722A, machine translation) herein known as Zhang, Dhyllon (US 20220169926 A1) herein known as Dhyllon, Yuan Xin et al. (CN 119822429 A, machine translation) herein known as Yuan, as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Hochwalt et al. (US 20040213755 A1) herein known as Hochwalt.
Regarding claim 6, Pan, Li, Zhang, Dhyllon and Yuan teaches all the limitations in the claim 5 as set forth above.
Pan is silent to in the step S1, an amount of the deodorant added is 0.5%-1% of a mass of the sorted kitchen waste.
Hochwalt discloses odors is controlled by contacting an effective amount of deodorant, in preferred embodiment, an amount of the deodorant added is in the range of about 0.1% to about 10% (Abstract, [0042]- [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and optimize Pan’s harmless and recycling treatment method for kitchen waste wherein, in the step S1, an amount of the deodorant added is 0.5%-1% of a mass of the sorted kitchen waste as taught by Hochwalt because removing odors from an odor emitting environment is provided by contacting an effective amount of the deodorant with the odor emitting environment and allowing for a sufficient time to pass for the deodorant to essentially remove the odor [0015], yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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, Benjamin L 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773