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 .
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.
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUZMA et al (US 2019/0084859) in view of PL 231855 B1 KUZMA et al disclose a process comprising the steps of drying biosolids followed by pyrolysis. The pyrolysis disclosed by KUZMA et al would carbonize the biosolids and generate a plurality of pieces of biochar to no less extent than the process recited in applicant’s claim 9 See Paragraph [0016].) The difference between the process disclosed by KUZMA et al, and that recited in claims 7 and 8, is that KUZMA et al do not disclose that a replacement product should be formed using the biochar. PL 231855 B1 disclose a process for micronizing biochar (see the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of the English translation), and teaches in the last sentence of the English translation that the micronized biochar can be used in building materials It would have been obvious from PL 231855 B1 to micronize the biochar formed in the process of KUZMA et al and use the micronized biochar in building materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since, since one would appreciate that the biochar used for building material could be from any known source which would include the biochar of KUZMA et al.
Regarding claims 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19, KUZMA et al disclose a preferred pyrolysis temperature of 250-400 C in Paragraph [0017] but teach in the last sentence of Paragraph [0017] that biochar produced at a low temperature Can be re-pyrolyzed at a higher temperature. It would have been obvious from PL 231855 B1 to pyrolyze the biochar in the process of KUZMA et al at a temperature of 450 C. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since PL 231855 B1 suggests pyrolysis temperatures greater than 450 C in Paragraph [0017]. Such a temperature would be optimal for the purposes recited in claims 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 to no less extent than in applicant’s process.
Regarding claims 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20, PL 231855 B1 disclose a particle size of about 4 or 5 microns in the first full paragraph on page 3 of the English translation.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US 2021/0032552) in view of Shearer et al (US 10,947,167). Mooney discloses a method comprising the steps of drying biosolids to form high carbon activated biochar. (See Paragraph [0044] and claims 1 and 2. Mooney teaches in Paragraph [0044] that the high carbon activated biochar can be used as a soil amendment. The difference between the product disclosed by Mooney, and that recited in claim 4, is that Mooney does not disclose that nutrients are inserted onto or into the biochar. Shearer et al disclose in the paragraph bridging columns 9 and 10 that biochar is porous, and in col. 11, lines 5-7 that thw3 biochar can be mixed with fertilizer nutrients. It would have been obvious from Shearer et al to mix fertilizer nutrients with the high carbon activated biochar of Mooney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Mooney teaches that the biochar can be used as a soil amendment, and Shearer et al disclose that biochar can be used as a soil amendment by nixing nutrients with the biochar. The mixing of nutrients with biochar would inherently result in nutrients being into or onto the biochar, since the biochar is porous.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, It would have been obvious to mix the biochar and nutrients by spraying the nutrients onto the biochar in the process of Shearer et al, since Shearer et al disclose ammonium nitrate as a fertilizer nutrient in col. 11, lines 8-12. One of ordinary skill in the art that such ammonium nitrate could be applied to the biochar by spraying, since ammonium nitrate is highly soluble in water.
Claims 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney in view of Shearer et al. Mooney discloses a method comprising the steps of drying biosolids to form high carbon activated biochar. (See Paragraph [0044] and claims 1 and 2. Mooney teaches in Paragraph [0044] that the high carbon activated biochar can be used for improving the strength and porosity characteristics of building materials. The difference between the process disclosed by Mooney, and that recited in claims 7 and 8, is that Mooney does not disclose that the biosolids are carbonized using a pyrolysis process. Shearer et al disclose a process wherein biomass is pretreated by drying, and then pyrolyzed to form biochar. (See col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 17.) Shearer et al teach in col. 3, lines 18-20 that the biomass can be sewage sludge. It would have been obvious from Shearer et al to heat the dried biosolids of Mooney to by pyrolysis to form the biochar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Mooney suggests in Paragraph [0028] that the biochar is formed by heating the biosolids.
Regarding claim 11, Shearer et al disclose pyrolysis temperatures of 450-525 C in col. 7, lines 44-50.
Claims 9, 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney in view of Shearer et al, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of PL 231855 B1. PL 231855 B1 discloses a process for micronizing biochar (see the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of the English translation), and teaches in the last sentence of the English translation that the micronized biochar can be used in building materials It would have been obvious from PL 231855 B1 to micronize the biochar formed in the process of Mooney and use the micronized biochar in building materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Mooney discloses that the biochar can be used in building materials, and PL 231855 B1 discloses the benefits of using micronized biochar as the biochar in building materials.
Regarding claims 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20, PL 231855 B1 disclose a particle size of about 4 or 5 microns in the first full paragraph on page 3 of the English translation.
Regarding claims 13, 15, 17 and 19, Shearer et al disclose pyrolysis temperatures of 450-525 C in col. 7, lines 44-50.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shearer et al (US 10,947,167). No distinction is seen between the process disclosed by Shearer et al, and that recited in claims 4-6. Shearer et al disclose a process wherein biomass is pretreated by drying, and then pyrolyzed. (See col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 17.) Shearer et al teach in col. 3, lines 18-20 that the biomass can be sewage sludge. The sewage sludge which is pyrolyzed according to the process of Shearer et al would inherently pass through a stage in which it is dried and then pyrolyzed during the pyrolysis step. The biochar would also be carbonized biochar and would also be in the form of a plurality of pieces, since Shearer et al disclose pyrolysis temperatures of 450-525 C in col. 7, lines 44-50. Shearer et al also disclose in the paragraph bridging columns 9 and 10 that he biochar is porous, and in col. 11, lines 5-7 that thw3 biochar can be mixed with fertilizer nutrients. Such fertilizer nutrients would inherently onto or into some of the plurality of pieces in the pores of the biochar of Shearer et al. Accordingly Shearer et al anticipate claims 4. In any event, it would have been obvious to select sewage sludge as the biomass and to insert fertilizer nutrients into the pores of the biochar, since Shearer et al disclose in col. 12, lines 45-47 that the biochar can be used to improve crop quality or nutritional value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shearer et al. Shearer et al is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore. It would have been obvious to mix the biochar and nutrients by spraying the nutrients onto the biochar in the process of Shearer et al, since Shearer et al disclose ammonium nitrate as a fertilizer nutrient in col. 11, lines 8-12. One of ordinary skill in the art that such ammonium nitrate could be applied to the biochar by spraying, since ammonium nitrate is highly soluble in water.
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 10 and 12 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.
In claim 1o, there is no clear antecedent basis for the step of “using the micronized biochar…”
In claim 12, there is no clear antecedent basis for “the grit being added to a concrete mix”.
Claims 1-3 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Shearer et al (US 10,947,167) discloses a process wherein biomass is pretreated by drying, and then pyrolyzed. (See col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 17.) Shearer et al teach in col. 3, lines 18-20 that the biomass can be sewage sludge. The sewage sludge which is pyrolyzed according to the process of Shearer et al would inherently pass through a stage in which it is dried and then pyrolyzed during the pyrolysis step. The biochar would also be carbonized biochar and would also be in the form of a plurality of pieces, since Shearer et al disclose pyrolysis temperatures of 450-525 C in col. 7, lines 44-50. Shearer et al also disclose in the paragraph bridging columns 9 and 10 that he biochar is porous, and in col. 11, lines 5-7 that thw3 biochar can be mixed with fertilizer nutrients. Such fertilizer nutrients would inherently onto or into some of the plurality of pieces in the pores of the biochar of Shearer et al. However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in Shearer et al to capture water removed from the biochar during the drying step, and inserting the removed water back into the biochar to generate a nutrient rich biochar soil amendment product. Nor would there be any motivation from the prior art to modify the process of Shearer et al Shearer et al by capturing water removed from the biochar during the drying step, and inserting the removed water back into the biochar to generate a nutrient rich biochar. Accordingly claims 1-3 are not rejected over Shearer et al.
Mooney (US 2021/0032552) discloses a method comprising the steps of drying biosolids to form high carbon activated biochar. (See Paragraph [0044] and claims 1 and 2. Mooney teaches in Paragraph [0044] that the high carbon activated biochar can be used as a soil amendment. Shearer et al disclose in the paragraph bridging columns 9 and 10 that biochar is porous, and in col. 11, lines 5-7 that the biochar can be mixed with fertilizer nutrients. Shearer et al disclose a process wherein biomass is pretreated by drying, and then pyrolyzed to form biochar. (See col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 17.) Shearer et al teach in col. 3, lines 18-20 that the biomass can be sewage sludge. It would have been obvious from Shearer et al to heat the dried biosolids of Mooney by pyrolysis to form the biochar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Mooney suggests in Paragraph [0028] that the biochar is formed by heating the biosolids. It would also have been obvious from Shearer et al to mix fertilizer nutrients with the high carbon activated biochar of Mooney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Mooney teaches that the biochar can be used as a soil amendment, and Shearer et al disclose that biochar can be used as a soil amendment by nixing nutrients with the biochar. The mixing of nutrients with biochar would inherently result in nutrients being into or onto the biochar, since the biochar is porous. However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in either Mooney or Shearer et al to capture water removed from the biochar during the drying step, and inserting the removed water back into the biochar to generate a nutrient rich biochar soil amendment product. Nor would there be any motivation from the prior art to modify the process of Mooney by capturing water removed from the biochar during the drying step, and inserting the removed water back into the biochar to generate a nutrient rich biochar. Accordingly claims 1-3 are not rejected over Mooney in view of Shearer et al.
BR 10201900201`4 A is made of record for disclosing the use of micronized biochar in fertilizers.
BURHAM (US 2010/0139346) is made of record for disclosing the incorporation of plant nutrients in heat-dried biosolids in Paragraphs [0091] and [0092].
Kirk et al (US 2013/0295634) is made of record for disclosing the production of biochar absorbent from anaerobic digestate.
Hatcher et al (US 2014/0223981) is made of record for disclosing the use of biosolids in fertilizers in Paragraphs [0039] and [0040].
Piskorz et al (US 5,853,548) is made of record for disclosing the conversion of biomass to char by pyrolysis.
Anderson et al (US 2013/0123103) is made of record for disclosing a composition comprising agricultural biomass and biochar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights