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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 24 of claim 1 (“the second tank via a second orifice.”) contains terminal punctuation (i.e., a period) at the end of the line despite not being the last line of the claim. Applicant should replace the terminal punctuation with a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The preamble of claim 1 is given patentable weight as the preamble limitations are recited in the body of the claim and the claim relies on the preamble for completeness.
Throughout claim 1 applicant recites limitations of certain elements “intended” to have a particular use/function. While pointed out in the instant office action where taught in the applied prior art, the limitations are not given patentable weight as the limitations are recitations of intended use that fail to add structure to the claimed apparatus. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). In each instance, Applicant should amend the claim such that in each instance “intended to” is amended to “configured to.”
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sludge" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that applicant recites a “sludge methanization treatment,” but does not previously recite sludge itself. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]] sludge."
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" lines 4 and 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, the limitations after the phrase are not considered to be part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "preferably" lines 3 and 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, the limitations after the phrase are not considered to be part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, the limitations after the phrase are not considered to be part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, the limitations after the phrase are not considered to be part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2 and 7-9 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Love (US 4530762).
Per claim 1, Love discloses a digester intended for the implementation of a methanation treatment of sludge to generate biogas (32, 80) and a digestate (128), the digester comprising: - a chamber (20) intended to contain a volume of matter (24), the volume of matter comprising the digestate, the digestate comprising on its surface foams and/or floating matter originating from [[the]] sludge or generated during the methanation treatment (col. 7, ln 51-64; This will have the effect of causing the liquid to flush into the launders scum which will tend to collect on the surface of the liquid adjacent the launders adjacent the launders in normal operation of the reactor. This scum normally simply lies on the surface of the liquid and the liquid entering the launders flows out from under the scum so that the scum simply tends to accumulate. This represents a significant and serious sents a significant and serious problem in the operation of conventional anaerobic reactors. However, by the expedient of raising the adjustable weir 102(a) in the gas separator, the liquid level in tank 20 is temporarily raised and will have the effect of flushing the scum into the launders.), the enclosure (20) defining a first volume (38) equal to the volume of material and a second volume (22) located above the first volume (38; Fig. 1); - a roof (Fig. 1) intended to close the enclosure; - a reservoir (98) near the enclosure (20) intended to collect the digestate (discharged via sludge disposal outlet 128); - a dome located on a portion of the roof (top central portion of enclosure 20, Fig. 1), intended to collect the biogas (col. 3, ln 68 – col. 4, ln 1-3, A gas outlet denoted 32 is provided at the top of the tank for removing methane gas which tends to collect in the space above the liquid when the system is in operation.), the digester also including a device for discharging foams and/or floating matter of the digestate (col. 7, ln 51-64; This will have the effect of causing the liquid to flush into the launders scum which will tend to collect on the surface of the liquid adjacent the launders adjacent the launders in normal operation of the reactor. This scum normally simply lies on the surface of the liquid and the liquid entering the launders flows out from under the scum so that the scum simply tends to accumulate. This represents a significant and serious sents a significant and serious problem in the operation of conventional anaerobic reactors. However, by the expedient of raising the adjustable weir 102(a) in the gas separator, the liquid level in tank 20 is temporarily raised and will have the effect of flushing the scum into the launders.) comprising: - a first tank (26) arranged in the enclosure (20), immersed in the volume of material and delimited by a first wall (Fig. 1), the first tank (26) being intended to be fed with digestate and foams and/or floating materials from the volume of material by overflow delimited by a first wall above a first zone delimited by a second wall (102a; Fig. 1; col. 7, ln 51-64; This will have the effect of causing the liquid to flush into the launders scum which will tend to collect on the surface of the liquid adjacent the launders adjacent the launders in normal operation of the reactor. This scum normally simply lies on the surface of the liquid and the liquid entering the launders flows out from under the scum so that the scum simply tends to accumulate. This represents a significant and serious sents a significant and serious problem in the operation of conventional anaerobic reactors. However, by the expedient of raising the adjustable weir 102(a) in the gas separator, the liquid level in tank 20 is temporarily raised and will have the effect of flushing the scum into the launders.); and a second tank (96) sited outside the enclosure (Fig. 1). Love does not disclose that the second tank is connected to the atmosphere.
It is submitted that it would have been readily obvious to connect the second tank to the atmosphere in order to occasionally vent gas from the tank and/or to flare the gas as desired.
Love further discloses a second zone (i.e., the part of a second tank 96 connected to the atmosphere via pipes 110 and 80 downstream of the second wall 102a) in communication with the reservoir (98; Fig. 1); - a conduit (28, 115, 104) connecting the first tank (26) via a first orifice to the first zone (i.e., the part of the second tank 96 upstream of the second wall 102a) of the second tank (96) via a second orifice (Fig. 1), - the first zone being intended to be supplied with digestate and foams and/or floats from the first tank (20) by the conduit (28, 115, 104) (col. 3, ln 61-65, The liquid extends to a level indicated at L in the drawing. A series of launders 26 extend across the tank and are connected to a common collecting pipe 28. Treated water leaves the tank by overflowing into the launders as is conventional in the water treatment art.; col. 7, ln 45- col.8, ln 16); the second zone of the second tank (i.e., the part of the second tank 96 downstream of the second wall 102a) being intended to be supplied with digestate from the first zone of the second tank (96) by overflow above the second wall (102a); upper end of the first wall (26) being located at a first height above a reference point of the first orifice (101) and the upper end of the second wall (102a) being located at a second height above the reference point of the first orifice (col.7, ln 61 -66; However, by the expedient of raising the adjustable weir 102(a) in the gas separator, the liquid level in tank 20 is temporarily raised and will have the effect of flushing the scum into the launders. The scum can then be collected in the gas separator 96 and periodically "blown down" from housing 100 when required.).
The limitations of the first height and the second height being predefined so that a first mixture of variable proportions of digestate and foams and/or floats in the first tank having a first average density is transferred by gravity into the first zone containing a second mixture of variable proportions of digestate and foams and/or floats of second density, the transfer taking place as long as the product of the first average density by the first height is greater than the product of the second average density by the second height by the first height are not given patentable weight as the limitations appear to be process limitations that fails to impose structure on the claimed apparatus. It is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Applicant should recite structure and amend the claim such that the digester is “configured to” have or perform the recited function.
While the limitations are not given patentable weight, the examiner notes that Love discloses the first height and the second height being predefined so that a first mixture of variable proportions of digestate and foams and/or floats in the first tank (20) having a first average density is transferred by gravity into the first zone containing a second mixture of variable proportions of digestate and foams and/or floats of second density, the transfer taking place as long as the first height is greater than the second height (Fig. 1; col.7, ln 48-61, In accordance with a preferred feature of the invention, this weir 102a is designed so that it can be periodically raised from this normal operating position to effectively raise the level of the liquid in tank 20. This will have the effect of causing the liquid to flush into the launders scum which will tend to collect on the surface of the liquid adjacent the launders adjacent the launders in normal operation of the reactor. This scum normally simply lies on the surface of the liquid and the liquid entering the launders flows out from under the scum so that the scum simply tends to accumulate. This represents a significant and serious sents a significant and serious problem in the operation of conventional anaerobic reactors.). It is submitted that the digester of Love would have been capable of the transfer taking place as long as the product of the first average density by the first height is greater than the product of the second average density by the second height by the first height by keeping the first height greater than the second height. Love does not disclose the second orifice being positioned higher than or level with the first orifice.
It is submitted that would have been a matter of routine design choice to position the second orifice higher than or level with the first orifice in order to, for example, feed to the foaming or floating matter from the first tank to the first zone, as the positioning is one of many available from one tank to another. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative data) of any new and expected results obtained by placing the second orifice higher than or level with the first orifice.
Per claim 2, Love discloses a mixing device (65, 66) for mixing the volume of material disposed in the first volume, the configured to move the volume of material Fig. 1; col. 4, ln 35-38; Inlet 62 is coupled to an nozzle 65 disposed within a vertical tubular conduit 66 arranged to constrain the incoming liquid to flow generally vertically upwardly as indicated by the arrow 68.).
Per claim 3, Love discloses one or more chimneys (66) having an upper and a lower end, extending in the enclosure along a first axis (Fig. 1). Love does not disclose one or more first mixers, each preferably positioned under the lower end of one of the chimneys, the first mixer(s) being configured to move the volume of material in rotation around a vertical central axis, substantially parallel to the first axis, and in translation along the first axis from the upper end toward the lower end (62) of said chimney. It is well known in the art to use one or more mixers. The limitations after the phrase “preferably” are considered not to be part of the claimed invention.
Per claim 9, Loves discloses that the digester is made of metal (col. 4, ln 27-29, Tank 20 may typically be a metal or concrete tank and includes a sludge sump at the center of its bottom wall.). Love does not explicitly disclose that the roof is made of metal.
It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to also construct the roof from metal in order to minimize the number of materials required to make the tank and/or in order to integrally form the tank and roof.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Love (US 4530762) in view of Chen et al. (CN 112794596, passages cited below refer to the machine-generated English translation provided with the instant Office Action).
Per claim 4, Love does not disclose wherein the mixing device comprises one or more second mixers, each being arranged in the enclosure wherein the mixing device comprises one or more second mixers, each being arranged in the enclosure.
Chen et al., also directed to a digester configured for sludge methanization treatment for generating biogas (page 2, the facultative bacteria and anaerobic bacteria in the sludge biodegradable organic matter is decomposed into CH4, CO2; and H2O and H2S.) and a digestate (abstract, The invention claims a sludge anaerobic digestion treatment system of sludge-water separation type, comprising a sludge anaerobic digestion tank,), disclose wherein a mixing device comprises one or more second mixers (413), each being arranged in the enclosure wherein the mixing device comprises one or more second mixers (Fig. 5), each being arranged at the periphery of the enclosure (Fig. 5) in order to, for example, facilitate circulation of sludge from inside to outside in the digester and improvement of anaerobic digestion (pages 8-9, In this embodiment, the sludge anaerobic digestion tank 100 is provided with a mechanical stirring component for stirring sludge and marsh gas circulation stirring component. the mechanical stirring assembly is uniformly distributed on the side of the sludge anaerobic digestion tank 100; the mechanical stirring assembly specifically can be electric stirrer 413. As shown in FIG. 5, a plurality of electric stirrer 413 is inclined set on the sludge anaerobic digestion tank 100 side wall, and the included angle β between the two is preferably 45 degrees. marsh gas circulation stirring component collecting marsh gas from the sludge anaerobic digestion tank 100 top, and the marsh gas from the sludge anaerobic digestion tank 100 bottom conveying to the sludge anaerobic digestion tank 100, using marsh gas for sludge stirring. a plurality of electric stirrer 413 the sludge anaerobic digestion tank 100 side part of the sludge to stir, marsh gas circulation stirring component not only collecting the sludge anaerobic digestion generated marsh gas, but also using marsh gas to sludge anaerobic digestion tank 100 the middle of the sludge to stir. through the cooperation of the mechanical stirring assembly and the biogas circulating stirring assembly, so that the sludge in the sludge anaerobic digestion tank is in the stirring state from inside to outside, improving the stirring effect of the sludge, making the sludge more fully anaerobic digestion reaction, greatly improving the effect of sludge anaerobic digestion treatment.).
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the digester of Love such that it comprises wherein the mixing device comprises one or more second mixers, each being arranged in the enclosure wherein the mixing device comprises one or more second mixers, each being arranged in the enclosure in order to, for example, facilitate circulation of sludge from inside to outside in the digester and improvement of anaerobic digestion.
Regarding the second mixers being configured to move the volume of material in rotation around a vertical central axis, substantially parallel to the first axis, it is submitted that it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the digester of Love et al., as modified by Chen et al., such that it comprises the second mixers being configured to move the volume of material in rotation around a vertical central axis, substantially parallel to the first axis in to for example, move the sludge around the digester and from inside to outside.
The limitations after the phrase “preferably” are considered not to be part of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Love (US 4530762) in view of Miller (US 1,806,698).
Per claim 5, Love does not disclose the digester further comprising a device for injecting digestate into the second volume.
Miller, also directed to a digester configured for sludge methanization treatment for generating biogas (page 1, ln 83-86, Now when a digestion tank such as that shown and described is in use the gas generated during the operation rises from the sludge up through the supernatant liquid into the dome 15.), discloses a digester (10) further comprising a device (32, 33) for injecting digestate (via 20, 32, 33, 40, 41) into a second volume (A; page 1, ln 50-54, Above the line B and below the line A is the supernatant liquid and the scum which forms in the upper part of the tank is somewhere above the line A.) in order to, for example, disintegrate foam and facilitate passage of gas through the digestate (page 1, ln 97-100 to page 2, ln 1-9, At the same time the supernatant liquid is forced down through a hollow shaft 20 and discharged onto the, top of the distributor plates 32 thus thoroughly impregnating and disintegrating the scum in proximity to this rotor. This gives ax perfectly free passage for the gas rising from the material within the tank into the dome 15. The disintegrated scum becomes waterlogged and sinks. The sludge thus formed is thicker than it would be if the material were not subjected to the action of this apparatus, because without it, gas bubbles adhere to the particles of sludge.).
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the digester of Love such that it includes the digester further comprising a device for injecting digestate into the second volume in order to, for example, disintegrate foam and facilitate passage of gas through the digestate.
The limitations after the phrase “preferably” are considered not to be part of the claimed invention.
Per claim 6, Love does not disclose wherein the digestate injection device comprises:
- A first injector attached to the roof, preferably to the center of the roof, and in fluid connection with the second volume and configured to inject digestate into the second volume;
- A first recirculation loop between the first volume and the first injector;
- A first recirculation pump configured to recirculate the digestate in the first recirculation loop from the first volume to the first injector.
Miller discloses wherein the digestate injection device comprises:
- A first injector (32,33) attached to the roof (Figure), preferably to the center of the roof (Figure), and in fluid connection with the second volume (Figure)) and configured to inject digestate into the second volume (page 1, ln 97-100 to page 2, ln 1-9, At the same time the supernatant liquid is forced down through a hollow shaft 20 and discharged onto the, top of the distributor plates 32 thus thoroughly impregnating and disintegrating the scum in proximity to this rotor. This gives ax perfectly free passage for the gas rising from the material within the tank into the dome 15. The disintegrated scum becomes waterlogged and sinks. The sludge thus formed is thicker than it would be if the material were not subjected to the action of this apparatus, because without it, gas bubbles adhere to the particles of sludge.);
- A first recirculation loop (20, 40) between the first volume and the first injector (Figure);
- A first recirculation pump (41) configured to recirculate the digestate in the first recirculation loop from the first volume to the first injector (Figure). Miller discloses that the elements facilitate the disintegration of foam and facilitates passage of gas through the digestate (page 1, ln 97-100 to page 2, ln 1-9, At the same time the supernatant liquid is forced down through a hollow shaft 20 and discharged onto the, top of the distributor plates 32 thus thoroughly impregnating and disintegrating the scum in proximity to this rotor. This gives ax perfectly free passage for the gas rising from the material within the tank into the dome 15. The disintegrated scum becomes waterlogged and sinks. The sludge thus formed is thicker than it would be if the material were not subjected to the action of this apparatus, because without it, gas bubbles adhere to the particles of sludge.).
Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the digester of Love such that it comprises a first injector attached to the roof, preferably to the center of the roof, and in fluid connection with the second volume and configured to inject digestate into the second volume; a first recirculation loop between the first volume and the first injector; and a first recirculation pump configured to recirculate the digestate in the first recirculation loop from the first volume to the first injector in order to, for example, in order to, for example, disintegrate foam and facilitate passage of gas through the digestate.
The limitations after the phrase “preferably” are considered not to be part of the claimed invention.
Per claim 7, Love, as modified by Miller, does not disclose wherein the digestate injection device further comprises:
- a second injector attached to a side wall of the enclosure at a first height and in fluid connection with the enclosure and configured to inject digestate into the enclosure at the first height;
- a second recirculation loop between a second height of the enclosure, which is less than the first height, and the second injector;
- a second recirculation pump configured to recirculate the digestate in the second recirculation loop from the second height of the enclosure and to the second injector.
It is submitted that it would have been a matter of routine design choice to provide a second injector, loop and pump having the recited positioning and operational elements in order to provide foam disintegration and facilitate movement of gas through sludge in the digester in centrally and non-centrally located portions of the digester, such as the peripheral portions of the digester, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result achieved. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by providing the recited second injector, recirculation loop and recirculation pump. Moreover, duplication of parts is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 8, Love, as modified by Miller, does not disclose wherein the first recirculation loop and the second recirculation loop are grouped into one and the same recirculation loop, the first recirculation pump and the second recirculation pump forming a single recirculation pump configured to recirculate digestate to the first injector and/or to the second injector.
It is submitted that it would have been a matter of routine design choice to provide the digester wherein the first recirculation loop and the second recirculation loop are grouped into one and the same recirculation loop, the first recirculation pump and the second recirculation pump forming a single recirculation pump configured to recirculate digestate to the first injector and/or to the second injector in order to control the first and second loops and pumps simultaneously, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result achieved. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by providing the grouped recirculation loops and pumps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0900-1730.
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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779