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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 25 June, 2026, have been entered. Claims 8-9, 12, 14-15, 23, 29, and 31 are newly amended. Claims 1-7, 20-22, and 28 remain cancelled. Claims 8-19, 23-27, and 29-31 are pending and have been fully considered.
The previously set forth objection of claim 29 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 29.
The previously set forth rejections of claims 12-15 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 June, 2026, have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejections of independent claims 8 and 9, the applicant argues that:
“the proposed combination of Kodis and Rau would not achieve the objectives of the claimed invention” (response filed 25, June, 2026, at page 8, line 21, through page 9, line 25) ;
“the Examiner’s reliance on the overlap between Rau’s broad disclosure and the claimed range is unsupported by any teaching in Rau that directs a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed subrange” (response at page 9, line 26, through page 10, line 19);
“Rau is drawn from a different technical field than the claimed invention, and a person of ordinary skill in the art designing an industrial aggregate-material sanitizing system would not have looked to Rau’s laboratory disinfectant chemistry” (response at page 10, line 20, through page 11, line 5); and
“the proposed combination of Kodis and Rau is the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction” (page 11, lines 6-23).
With respect to certain dependent claims, the applicant further argues:
-Claim 11: Kodis does not teach sanitizing of crushed glass for recycling-grade reuse (response at page 12, lines 4-11)
-Claim 16: Kodis does not teach a spray ring (response at page 12, lines 12-24)
-Claim 19: The combination of Kodis and Rau cannot be presumed to achieve the result of providing effective sanitizing for at least 30 days (response at page 12, line 25, through page 13, line 9)
Regarding the applicant’s first argument (I.) that the proposed combination of Kodis and Rau would not achieve the objectives of the claimed invention, the applicant points to (see response at page 3, 2nd to last paragraph, through page 4, 4th paragraph) differences in the context of the disclosure of Kodis, Rau, and the instant invention, with the invention of Kodis being a contained process for treating medical waste, the invention Rau being a chemistry reference directed to anti-pathogenic compositions for surface application, and the instant application pertaining to sanitizing bulk aggregate material in industrial and field-relevant conditions wherein the material may be stored in open air conditions and exposed to reinfection from animal excrement.
In response to the conclusion of applicant’s first argument (I.) that the combination of Kodis and Rau the does not achieve the objectives of the claimed invention, it is first emphasized that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Furthermore, the applicant’s argument (I.) attempts to distinguish the instant invention from the cited art based on features not actually required by the independent claims. For example, claims 8 and 9 do not impose a definition of “aggregate material” which would limit the claim to recycled glass cullet, plastics, soil or agricultural products, nor do claims 8-9 require the process or any portion thereof be performed in open air conditions, nor do claims 8-9 specify the sanitizing composition include L-Arginine or be diluted to a particular ratio. Additionally, the instant specification does not set forth definitions of claim language which would necessitate reading such limitations into the claim.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of independent claims 8 and 9 does not include any requirement that the aggregate material be of a particular type, that the process meet an open air condition, or that the sanitizing composition meet any limitation beyond comprising 1%-5% decanoic acid and being diluted; therefore, the applicant’s arguments relying on such distinctions with respect to the instant application and the cited prior art are immaterial with respect to the obviousness of the actual scope of claim 8 and claim 9 when given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Accordingly, the applicant’s first argument (I.) is not persuasive
Regarding the applicant’s second argument (II.) that the range of Rau would not guide a person of ordinary skill in the art toward the claimed range, the applicant points to/emphasizes that the cited range of Rau (0.1-10% decanoic acid) is broader than the claimed range of about 1% to about 5% w/v and alleges that Rau does not establish “operability within the claimed subrange in the relevant context” (response at 2nd to last paragraph of page 9, through 2nd paragraph of page 10).
In response, the examiner first notes that the effectively claimed range for the concentration of decanoic acid is 0.9-5.5% (the instant specification at paragraph [251] indicates that the term “about” can encompass variations of up to ±10% from a stated value), which includes substantial overlap with the cited range of Rau (0.1-10%). Also, the cited portion [0267] of Rau also clearly indicates an exemplary range of “about 1.0% and 5%” decanoic acid and an exemplary range of about 1.5% (In some variations, Decanoic acid may be between 0.1% and 10%. e.g., between about 0.5% and about 5%, between about 1.0% and about 5%, about 1.5%, etc.—[0267], lines 8-11); said exemplary ranges are identical to or lay within the claimed range of decanoic acid. Furthermore, Rau explicitly indicates that such compositions have “been shown to be an effective sanitizing agent” ([0267], lines 14-15). Thus, Rau explicitly discloses the claimed range and indicates that compositions comprising the claimed range of decanoic acid are operable as sanitizing agents.
To the extent that the “context” of the laboratory tests of Rau and the intended industrial applications of the instant invention may differ, the examiner does not find any such difference would prevent a person of ordinary skill in the art from considering the composition of Rau for use in an industrial application because Rau explicitly suggests applying the disclosed antimicrobial compositions for industrial use ([0270]), with it being evident that the laboratory tests of Rau are meant to establish the usefulness of the disclosed compositions in various contexts. Also, as discussed above, the independent claims do not establish any requirement with respect to the process/system being used in an industrial application, nor do the claims establish any manipulative steps or structural limitations which are strictly unique to the intended industrial use of the instant application. Additionally, a sanitizing agent effective for surfaces (i.e., the composition of Rau) is reasonably suitable for sanitizing aggregate material because an aggregate material comprises surfaces. Thus, the applicant’s argument (II.) that Rau does not establish the operability of the claimed range within a relevant context is not persuasive because Rau explicitly discloses the claimed range and its operability (see [0267], lines 8-11 and 14-15) in a context which is reasonably analogous to the instant claims (especially when considering the actual scope of the independent claims).
Regarding the applicant’s third argument (III.) which essentially alleges that Rau is non-analogous art, the applicant emphasizes that Rau teaches compositions which are used in laboratory bench testing for MRSA elimination, whereas the present application is directed to industrial bulk sanitizing of aggregate material.
In response, it is first reiterated that the independent claims do not establish any requirement that the process/system be used in an industrial application, nor do the independent claims set forth manipulative steps or structural or compositional limitations are strictly unique to the intended industrial application of the instant application. Additionally, as discussed above, Rau explicitly indicates that the disclosed compositions can be used in an industrial context ([0270]), and that the disclosed compositions are effective sanitizing agents ([0267]). Furthermore, it is evident to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the laboratory tests performed by Rau are performed to demonstrate the potential usefulness of the disclosed composition as a sanitizing agent in various contexts (i.e., this is a well-established purpose of most laboratory testing), contrary to the applicant’s implication that the laboratory testing in Rau would prevent a person of ordinary skill in the art from applying the composition to any other context. Also, there is no meaningful barrier preventing a person of ordinary skill in the art from applying “surface” sanitizer composition (consider Rau at [0187], [0267]) on an “aggregate material” composition because an aggregate material is comprised of surfaces.
Furthermore, with respect to the applicant’s implied assertion that Rau is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the instant case, it is evident that Rau is reasonably pertinent to the instant invention because the composition of Rau is an effective sanitizing agent ([0267]) with industrial applications ([0270]) which can suppress microbial proliferation on surfaces ([0187], [0267]), which is reasonably pertinent to the instant disclosure’s interest in suppressing the proliferation of microbes on the surfaces of an aggregate material. Therefore, the applicant’s argument (III.) that Rau is from a different technical field and non-analogous art is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s fourth argument (IV.) that the proposed combination of Kodis and Rau is the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction, the applicant alleges that the only roadmap for making the proposed modifications is the pending claims of the present application.
In response, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the examiner holds that the rejections of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 rely only on the disclosures of Kodis and Rau and is proper. Thus, the applicant’s argument (IV.) of improper hindsight reconstruction is not persuasive.
Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections of independent claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to dependent claim 11 that Kodis does not teach sanitizing of crushed glass for recycling-grade reuse (response at page 12, lines 4-11), the examiner first emphasizes that claim 11 does not require that the crushed glass be of “recycling-grade reuse”. Instead, the claim indicates the aggregate material be “a recyclable material”—the broadest reasonable interpretation of which includes any material which is at least capable of being recycled [and thus may encompass most ordinary solid materials, and especially materials like aluminum, glass, paper, and various plastics]—wherein the recyclable material is at least one of “crushed glass, pulverized glass, or glass cullet”. Furthermore, the process of Kodis is performed on waste which is shredded to a small size (see e.g., claim 1), with Kodis explicitly suggesting use of a system associated with the process to prepare materials for recycling, and Kodis suggesting use of at least a cutting portion of the system to shred glass ([0055]). These teachings provide sufficient basis for a person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the process with a glass material [which is a type of recyclable material and] which is shredded so as to fairly define “crushed” or “pulverized” glass for the benefit of preparing the material for recycling.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to dependent claim 16, it is acknowledged that Kodis does not explicitly teach a spray ring (response at page 12, lines 12-24). However, as indicated in the rejection of claim 16, Kodis indicates that additional spraying devices (jets) can be arranged along a conveyor portion (wetting tunnel 70), and Kodis indicates that it is desirable to expose all surfaces of the aggregate material to the sprayed disinfectant ([0003]). Furthermore, it is evident to a person having ordinary skill in the art that spraying the waste material from as many sides as possible would facilitate the delivery of disinfectant to all surfaces of the waste material pieces, and that a ring (i.e., a circumferentially arranged set of jets) would enable each piece of waste material to be sprayed from more sides at once. The rejection thus concluded it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange at least one spray ring within the wetting tunnel of Kodis for the evident benefit of improving the coverage of disinfectant on the surfaces of the pieces of aggregate material. With further respect to said rejection, it is emphasized that the structure of the claimed spray ring is set forth quite broadly, that spray rings are generally known in the art, and that the claimed spray ring amounts to a particular arrangement of spraying devices which has not been established to provide a significant (i.e., new or unexpected) result. As per MPEP 2144.04(VI.)(C.), the rearrangement of parts of the prior art is prima facie obvious absent evidence of significance. Thus, the examiner maintains that claim 16 is obvious. Nonetheless, to better establish this obviousness, the rejection of claims 16 and 17 have been adjusted to better establish that spray rings are known in the art and provide a suitable means for exposing all sides of a material to a sanitizing agent.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to dependent claim 19 that the combination of Kodis and Rau cannot be presumed to achieve the result of providing effective sanitizing for at least 30 days (response at page 12, line 25, through page 13, line 9), the argument is not persuasive because the combination of Kodis and Rau presented with the rejection of claim 19 does not have any patentably distinguishable differences from the method of claim 19 with respect to the manipulative steps and/or structures actually encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 19 (it is emphasized that Rau does teach a composition having decanoic acid concentrations within the claimed range—see [0267]—which would be obvious to incorporate into the process of Kodis as established in the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103).
As per MPEP 2112, the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. Also, as per MPEP 2112(I.), the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, as indicated in MPEP 2112(IV.), in Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements."
In view of the above, the combination of Kodis and Rau is fairly presumed to achieve the claimed effect of sanitizing for at least 30 days because the combination of Kodis and Rau is patentably indistinguishable from (i.e., identical to) the method of claim 19. Also, the cited preference provide reasonable support that the claimed effect could be expected as a result of performing the method, because the method of Kodis operates to kill pathogens on the surfaces of aggregate material upon contact with a disinfectant ([0014]), and Rau indicates that a decanoic acid composition may reduce a pathogen on a surface by 95% or more over an extended period of time ([0119]). Therefore, the applicant’s argument with respect to claim 19 is not persuasive; it is suggested claim 19 be adjusted to recite the actual manipulative steps or structural/compositional limitations which yield the claimed result/effect.
The grounds for rejection of claim 8-9, 12, 14-15, 23, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are presented below.
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.
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 8-11, 18-19, 25-26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodis (US 2010/0012755 A1) in view of Rau (US 2020/0282067 A1, cited in the IDS filed 17 November, 2023).
Regarding claim 8, Kodis teaches a method of sanitising an aggregate material (waste is cut into small pieces [0015] and sprayed with a liquid disinfectant [0016]), the method including the steps of:
providing one or more sanitising liquid delivery lines (63/64) that receive a sanitising liquid (disinfectant supply lines 63 conduct disinfectant to trough 60 through individual feeder lines 64, which are provided with disinfectant inlets 62 [0039]; disinfectant is a liquid [0049]);
connecting the one or more delivery lines to one or more liquid spraying devices (62) (feeder lines 64 provided with disinfectant inlets 62—[0039]; disinfectant inlets 62 such as jets [0048]);
applying the sanitising liquid to the aggregate material using the one or more liquid spraying devices (disinfectant from disinfectant source 50 is sprayed through inlets 62 onto the waste—[0048]), including by one or more of the following process(es):
spraying the material as it travels along a conveyor path (additional jets may be provided in the wetting tunnel 70 to aid the wetting and disinfection process [0050]; tunnel 70 fairly defines a conveyor path, the material being sprayed as it moves through the tunnel)
spraying a pile of the material (disinfectant is sprayed onto the waste which collects in trough 60—[0048]; a collection of waste in a trough fairly defines a “pile”).
Kodis does not teach that the sanitising liquid comprises a composition including decanoic acid in a range between about 1% and about 5% w/w; and the sanitising liquid composition is diluted with a diluent.
However, in the analogous art of anti-pathogenic compositions (abstract), Rau teaches compositions which can be applied to a surface for disinfection, the composition comprising a mixture of decanoic acid and L-Arginine at a concentration of at least 0.001%w/w ([0052]), especially between 0.1% and 10%, such as about 1% to about 5% (Decanoic acid may be between 0.1% and 10%, e.g., between about 0.5% and about 5%, between about 1.0% and 5%, about 1.5%, etc. … This compositions has been shown to be an effective sanitizing agent—[0267], lines 9-11 and 14-15). Rau further indicates that the disclosed sanitizing composition can be provided in concentrated form and be diluted by a user for use ([0265]), thus defining a step of diluting the liquid composition with a diluent. Also, related embodiments of Rau disclose compositions comprising a diluent ([0015], [0025], [0030], [0039]) with various dilution ratios, such as 1:16 ([0232]) or 1:128 ([0233]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kodis such that the sanitizing liquid (disinfectant of Kodis) is selected to be an embodiment of the decanoic acid and L-Arginine composition of Rau which includes decanoic acid at a concentration of 1-5% w/w (which is substantially identical the exemplary range of about 1% to about 5% decanoic acid disclosed by Rau at [0267]), and wherein the sanitizing liquid is diluted before use, for the benefit of providing an appropriate amount of decanoic acid for disinfection of the surfaces of the waste material (Rau at [0052] indicates that the composition can be applied to a surface for disinfection; Rau at [0266] suggest diluting a concentrated form of a sanitizing composition before use; Rau at [0267] indicates a composition comprising decanoic acid at concentrations within, encompassing, or overlapping the claimed range are effective sanitizing agents).
Regarding claim 9, Kodis teaches an aggregate material sanitising system of sanitising a recyclable material (waste is cut into small pieces [0015] and sprayed with a liquid disinfectant [0016]), the system comprising:
a sanitising liquid delivery line (63/64) for receiving a sanitising liquid (disinfectant supply lines 63 conduct disinfectant to trough 60 through individual feeder lines 64, which are provided with disinfectant inlets 62 [0039]; disinfectant is a liquid [0049]);
one or more liquid spraying devices (62) connected to the delivery line (feeder lines 64 provided with disinfectant inlets 62—[0039]; disinfectant inlets 62 such as jets [0048]);
wherein
the one or more liquid spraying devices are configured to apply sanitizing liquid to the aggregate material (disinfectant from disinfectant source 50 is sprayed through inlets 62 onto the waste—[0048]), including by one or more of the following process(es):
spraying the material as it travels along a conveyor path (additional jets may be provided in the wetting tunnel 70 to aid the wetting and disinfection process [0050]; tunnel 70 fairly defines a conveyor path, the material being sprayed as it moves through the tunnel);
spraying the material as it exits or falls from a conveyor;
spraying a pile of the material (disinfectant is sprayed onto the waste which collects in trough 60—[0048]; a collection of waste in a trough fairly defines a “pile”).
Kodis does not teach that the sanitising liquid comprises a composition including decanoic acid in a range between about 1% and about 5% w/w; and the sanitising liquid composition is diluted with a diluent.
However, for substantially the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 8 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kodis such that a 1-5% w/w decanoic acid and L-arginine solution of Rau, which further comprising a diluent, is selected as the sanitising liquid within the system of Kodis for the benefit of providing an appropriate amount of decanoic acid for disinfection of the surfaces of the aggregate material (Rau at [0052] indicates that a decanoic acid composition can be applied to a surface for disinfection).
Regarding claim 10, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. Kodis indicates in most embodiments that that the aggregate material is contaminated medical waste ([0004]), the medical waste containing metal, plastic, and other materials ([0025]), and further envisions that the system may be used to prepare materials for recycling, including glass or wood materials ([0055]). Accordingly, Kodis fairly teaches that at least some of the aggregate material is a recyclable material (at least certain types of plastics and metals are recyclable).
Regarding claim 11, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 10. As discussed with respect to claim 10 above, Kodis indicates that the aggregate material is typically contaminated medical waste ([0004]) which contains metal, plastic, and other materials ([0025]), and envisions that the system may be used for shredding glass materials and preparing materials for recycling ([0055]). It is noted that Kodis teaches that the waste is sprayed with disinfectant after being shredded into small pieces (see Fig. 1, steps B-C). From these teachings, Kodis fairly suggests adapting the method for use with crushed or pulverized (shredded) glass for the benefit of preparing the glass material for recycling (consider Kodis at [0055]).
Regarding claim 18, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. Kodis teaches that waste material moves from a loading chamber (20), is passed to a cutting system (29), and falls through a chute (28) into a trough (60) where it is understood to at least temporarily form a pile and be sprayed by sanitising liquid ([0017], Figs. 4 and 4A). Accordingly, Kodis is understood to teach spraying the material with the sanitising liquid as it forms the pile, and the pile is below the conveyor path (at least chute 28 forms a conveyor path, and a pile forms in trough 60 below where the disinfectant is sprayed onto the material).
Regarding claim 19, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. Claim 8 recites a result of a step of the claimed method, indicating that: application of the sanitising liquid provides effective sanitising for at least 30 days. The claim does not establish further manipulative steps which yield the recited result. Accordingly, the modified method of Kodis—which is consistent (i.e. not distinguishable) with the method of independent claim 8—is presumed to achieve the same result of providing effective sanitising for at least 30 days. This presumption is supported by Kodis indicating that the method is intended to kill pathogens on the aggregate material upon contact with the disinfectant ([0014]), and Rau indicating that a decanoic acid composition may reduce a pathogen by 95% or more over an extended period ([0119]). See MPEP 2112 regarding the requirements of rejections based on inherency.
Regarding claim 25, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. As modified with respect to claim 8 above, the method of Kodis incorporates the composition of Rau as a sanitising liquid, wherein said composition of Rau is a composition including a mixture of the decanoic acid and an amino acid (decanoic acid and L-arginine composition for disinfection—see Rau at [0052]).
Regarding claim 26, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 25. As modified with respect to claim 8, the method of Kodis incorporates the composition of Rau as a sanitizing liquid, said composition including an amino acid which is L-Arginine (Rau: mixture of decanoic acid:L-Arginine—[0052]; solution of GS-2, decanoic acid: Arginine… e.g., L-Arg—[0267]).
Regarding claim 29, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. Kodis does not particularly indicate that the sanitizing liquid composition is diluted to a concentration in a range between about 1:100 and about 1:300 sanitising liquid composition: diluent. However, Rau indicates that various dilutions of a decanoic acid composition can be suitable for eliminating or reducing the presence of pathogens, such as a 1:128 dilution of a decanoic acid composition which substantially eliminated a population of MRSA (GS-2 corresponds to a mixture of Decanoic acid:LARG at a dilution of 1:128—Fig. 20, [0070], [0237]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try diluting the sanitizing liquid of modified Kodis at a ratio of 1:128, which lays within the claimed range of dilution ratios, for the benefit of yielding a composition effective for eliminating MRSA populations (see Rau at Fig. 20, [0070], [0237]).
Regarding claim 30, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. As discussed with respect to claims 10-11 above, Kodis indicates in most embodiments that that the aggregate material is contaminated medical waste ([0004]), the medical waste containing metal, plastic, and other materials ([0025]), and further envisions that the system may be used with material including euthanized animals, animal waste and by-products, or organic matter ([0055]), all of which fairly constitute organic material . Thus, Kodis fairly suggests selecting the aggregate material to be organic or partly organic material.
Claims 12-15 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodis (US 2010/0012755 A1) in view of Rau (US 2020/0282067 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Waldenmaier et al. (US 2016/0228590 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kodis in view of Rau taches the method according to claim 8. Kodis is understood to spray the material in an indoor environment (system defines a closed state isolating the system from the ambient environment –[0019]; room temperature—[0014]; see Fig. 4 ). Kodis and Rau do not particularly indicate if the one or more liquid spraying devices comprise one or more fogging devices and/or misting devices.
However, in the analogous art of systems for disinfecting waste (title, abstract), Waldenmaier teaches spraying medical waste with a disinfecting spray prior to or during a shredding process, wherein the spray reduces dust that is generated during the process ([0012]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kodis such that the liquid spraying devices comprise misting devices (as suggested by Waldenmaier) for the benefit of reducing dust generated by the process and mitigating associated dust hazards ([0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Kodis in view of Rau and Waldenmaier teaches the method according to claim 12. Kodis and Waldenmaier do not particular teach that the sanitising liquid is diluted to a concentration in a range between about 1:150 and about 1:250 sanitising liquid composition: diluent for application in the indoor environment by the one or more fogging devices.
However, as discussed with respect to claim 29 above, Rau indicates that various dilutions of a decanoic acid composition can be suitable for eliminating or reducing the presence of pathogens, such as a 1:128 dilution of a decanoic acid composition which substantially eliminated a population of MRSA (GS-2 corresponds to a mixture of Decanoic acid:LARG at a dilution of 1:128—Fig. 20, [0070], [0237]). Although the dilution ratio (1:128) of Rau is not within the claimed range (about 1:150 to about 1:250), it is noted that the value is close to the range (note that “about” indicates a value of ±10% based on the instant specification at page 35), and that it is evident that any dilution which results in an effective concentration of decanoic acid being delivered to the aggregate material is suitable. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Kodis such that the sanitising liquid distributed by the fogging device is diluted to a concentration in a range between about 1:150 and about 1:250 sanitising liquid composition: diluent by way of routine optimization for the benefit of providing an effective amount of decanoic acid to the aggregate material for disinfection; see MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.) regarding the obviousness of the routine optimization of prior art conditions.
Regarding claim 14, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. Kodis and Rau do not clearly teach that the aggregate material comprises dust particles and the one or more liquid spraying devices comprise fogging devices adapted to spray a fog to suppress the dust particles.
However, in the analogous art of systems for disinfecting waste (title, abstract), Waldenmaier teaches spraying medical waste with a disinfecting spray prior to or during a shredding process, wherein the spray reduces dust that is generated during the process ([0012]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kodis such that the liquid spraying devices comprising fogging devices (misters of Waldenmaier) which is sprayed onto waste material and dust generated by processing of the waste material for the benefit of mitigating any potential hazard posed by the spread of the dust ([0012]).
Regarding claim 15, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. As discussed with respect to, e.g., claims 12-14 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art incorporate the misters of Waldenmaier into the method of Kodis as liquid spraying devices. Waldenmaier in Fig. 4 fairly depicts the misters (30) being used in an unenclosed space. Accordingly, when modifying the method of Kodis in view of Waldenmaier as discussed above, it would be obvious to include at least one misting device adapted to spray the aggregate material in an unenclosed outdoor environment (e.g., mister 30 spraying into hopper 28 in Fig. 4) for the benefit of provide surface disinfection to the waste while minimizing dust (see Waldenmaier at [0041]).
Regarding claim 23, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. Kodis indicates that the system associated with the method may include a controller ([0053]), but does not explicitly suggest that the controller is adapted to control flow of the sanitising liquid along the delivery line and to the one or more liquid spraying devices.
However, in the analogous art of systems for disinfecting waste (title, abstract), Waldenmaier teaches spraying medical waste with a disinfecting spray prior to or during a shredding process ([0012]), wherein a controller (44) monitors or implements substantially all steps of the disinfecting method (controller 44 includes a processor 45 and a memory device 46 configured to perform the methods, steps, calculations, and the loke disclosed herein—[0039]; controller 44 performs various functions—[0040]), which is understood to include steps in which misters (30) are activated to spray the medical waste at a suitable time during treatment ([0041]). That is, Waldenmaier is understood to suggest configuring a controller to control the flow of sanitizing liquid out from a spraying device based in part on zone or time. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Kodis to be configured for controlling the activation of spray device (i.e., the flow of the sanitising liquid along the delivery line) based in part on the position of the spray devices or a time, as substantially seen in Waldenmaier, for the benefit of automating the performance of the method so that less direct human action is required.
Regarding claim 24, Kodis in view of Rau and Waldenmaier teaches the method according to claim 23. As modified with respect to claim 23 above, modified Kodis requires the controller is adapted to provide zoned and/or timed application of the sanitising liquid (see rejection of claim 23 above).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodis (US 2010/0012755 A1) in view of Rau (US 2020/0282067 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nanayakkara et al. (US 2022/0347336 A1, filed 29 April, 2021).
Regarding claim 16, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 8. Kodis indicates that additional spraying devices (jets) can be arranged along a conveyor portion (wetting tunnel 70), and Kodis indicates that it is desirable to expose all surfaces of the aggregate material to the sprayed disinfectant ([0003]). These teachings of Kodis would guide a person of ordinary skill in the art to at least consider arrangements of spray nozzles along the conveyor portion (wetting tunnel 70) which can improve the exposure of all surfaces of an aggregate material to a sprayed sanitizing agent. Nonetheless, Kodis and Rau do not directly disclose that the one or more liquid spraying devices comprise one or more spray rings.
However, in the analogous art of pathogen disinfecting systems (title), Nanayakkara teaches an arrangement of spray nozzles (20) arranged at an open end of a duct (14), wherein the arrangement comprises a spray ring (18) surrounding a perimeter of the duct near the open end thereof and wherein the nozzles (20) are mounted from the spray ring to extend into the duct through apertures (16) so as to spray a disinfecting material toward an interior of the duct from at least four directions (see Figs. 1-2B, [0089], [0105]). Thus, Nanayakkara at least shows that spray rings are a known arrangement for delivering a sanitizing composition to a material (air) moving through a conveyance means (duct), the arrangement evidently allowing spray to be directed toward a material from multiple sides.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Kodis such that the liquid spraying devices include a spray ring surrounding the conveyor path (wetting tunnel 70), as similarly seen in Nanayakkara, for the benefit of spraying the aggregate material from multiple directions so as to increase the exposure of all surfaces of the aggregate material to the sprayed sanitizing composition.
Regarding claim 17, Kodis in view of Rau and Nanayakkara teaches the method according to claim 16. As discussed with respect to claim 16 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to position a spray ring at a position along the path of the wetting tunnel (70) of Kodis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any position along the length of the tunnel would be suitable as long as the spray ring is arranged to spray waste material traveling through the tunnel from substantially 360° degrees. Therefore, it would be obvious to arrange a spray ring at the end of the tunnel such that the material passes through the one or more spray rings as it exits the conveyor (wetting tunnel 70) for the benefit of improving the coverage of disinfectant on the surfaces of the pieces of aggregate material. See MPEP 2144.04(VI.)(C.) regarding the obviousness of the rearrangement of parts of the prior art.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodis (US 2010/0012755 A1) in view of Rau (US 2020/0282067 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of McKinzie et al. (WO 94/10837, cited in the IDS filed 17 November, 2023).
Regarding claim 27, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according claim 8. Kodis and Rau are not explicitly clear in teaching a step of providing a diluter for diluting the sanitising liquid with the diluent (although Rau does disclose diluting a sainting composition before use—see [0265]).
However, in the analogous art of sanitizer comprising decanoic acid (abstract), McKinzie indicates that sanitizer compositions are often sold in concentrated form and later diluted with a large fraction of water prior to use (page 1, line 34, through page 2, line 2; concentrates are diluted—page 3, lines 19-22). Accordingly, it is evident that diluting a sanitizing fluid prior to application is standard practice in the art. Also, it is well known that concentrates advantageously can be shipped to a user more efficiently and cost effectively relative to a final diluted solution. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Kodis to include a step of providing a diluter for diluting the sanitising liquid with a diluent for the benefit of converting a concentrated form of the sanitising liquid acquired from a seller into a diluted final solution effective for sanitization (consider McKinzie at page 2, lines 24-35).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodis (US 2010/0012755 A1) in view of Rau (US 2020/0282067 A1), as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Goeldner (US 6,926,863 B1).
Regarding claim 31, Kodis in view of Rau teaches the method according to claim 30. As discussed with respect to claim 30 above, Kodis suggests embodiments wherein the aggregate material comprises organic matter ([0055]). Kodis and Rau do not particularly indicate that the aggregated material is soil. However, soil is a type of organic matter (i.e., a species within the genus of organic matter). It is evident that providing any aggregate material within the method of modified Kodis can advantageously eliminate pathogens within the material.
Furthermore, Goeldner—in the analogous art of treating contaminated waste materials (title, abstract)—indicates that a device typically used for the treatment of hospital waste is also suitable for treating contaminated soils to ensure they are reliably disinfected and/or sterilized (column 6, lines 30-37). Goeldner also indicates that the prior art discloses devices for regeneration and sterilization of soil (column 1, liens 33-42). Thus, it is evident the prior art recognized a demand for sterilizing soil.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kodis such that soil is selected as the aggregate material for the evident benefit of disinfecting and/or sterilizing the soil (consider Goeldner at column 6, lines 30-37). Sterilized soil can advantageously be used to grow crops with a reduced risk of infection due to the sterilization removing all or most pathogenic microorganisms from the soil.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-US 2005/0214159 A1 teaches a cart sanitizing system wherein a fluid conduit (60) substantially defines a spray ring (spray arch 58) having a plurality of nozzles (68) mounted thereto which direct a sanitizing composition toward an object (cart 54) which passes through the ring in order to provide a complete spray pattern that covers the entire object passing through the ring (Fig. 3, [0037]-[0039]).
-US 2021/0299293 A1 discloses a solid waste treatment center for mitigation of infectious pathogen spread (title), wherein waste materials may be sorted into recyclable materials including metal, glass, aggregates, and plastics, and sprayed with an electrostatic spray to decontaminate the material ([0048]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights