DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application No. 18/562,286, filed 17 November, 2023, as the National Stage Entry of International Application PCT/AU2022/050002, filed 04 January, 2022, and with priority to Provisional Application 63/189,742, filed 18 May, 2021.
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 preliminary amendments filed 17 November, 2023, are acknowledged. Claims 1-7, 20-22, and 28 are cancelled. Claims 8-19 and 23-27 are amended. Claims 29-30 are new. Claims 8-10, 23-27, and 29-30 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because the recitation of “dlutent” at line 3 should read “diluent”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12-15 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 12 and 14-15, each claim recites the term “the material” (claim 12, line 3; claim 14, line 2; and claim 15, line 3) with insufficient antecedent basis. Each of the indicated recitations of the “the material” should be adjusted to read “the aggregate material” to correspond to the “aggregate material” recited in independent claim 8.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 12.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “the system” (lines 2-3) with insufficient antecedent basis. It is suggested that the limitation “or the system comprises” be removed from claim 23.
Claim 24 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 23.
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, 16-19, 25-26, and 29-31 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 materials 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]), such as between 0.1% and 10% ([0267]). Rau further indicates that the composition comprises a diluent ([0015], [0025], [0030], [0039]) and teaches dilution 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 sanitising liquid (disinfectant of Kodis) is selected to be an embodiment of the decanoic acid and L-Arginine composition of Rau, provided at a concentration (i.e., within the claimed range of 1-5% w/w, which overlaps with the range of 0.1-10% suggested by Rau at [0267]) and diluted so for the benefit of providing an appropriate amount of decanoic acid for disinfection of the surfaces of the waste (Rau at [0052] indicates that the composition can be applied to a surface for disinfection).
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 device of Kodis such that a 1-5% w/w decanoic acid and L-arginine solution or 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 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]). 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. Accordingly, 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.
Regarding claim 17, Kodis in view of Rau 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.
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]).
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]).
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 toa 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 he claimed range, 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.
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). Furthermore, it is evident that providing any aggregate material within the method of modified Kodis can advantageously eliminate pathogens within the material. 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 reducing or eliminating pathogens which may reside in the soil.
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 comprising 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 toa 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 vale 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. Thus, the misters of modified Kodis (i.e., the misters 30 of Waldenmaier) fairly define misting devices adapted to spray the aggregate material in an outdoor environment.
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).
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 do not particularly teach the step of providing a diluter for diluting the sanitising liquid with the diluent.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nanayakkara (US 20230135061 A1) teaches pathogen disinfecting systems including spray rings (18) which define a perimeter of tubing provided with a plurality of spray nozzles (20) ([0106], [0112]).
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