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
This is the response to amendment filed 12/11/2025 for application 18566162.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALKER et al. (U.S.4145287) in view of UPENDRAKUMAR e al. (USPGPUB 2006/0175252).
Regarding claim 1, WALKER et al. teach a device for separating and recovering grease from a waste effluent containing mixed grease and water (aqueous phase).
The device comprises a tank (storage tank containing biological feedstock) with a withdrawal means for withdrawing at least a portion of the water fraction from the tank.
The removal of at least of portion of the water fraction from the tank would be definition reduce the relative portion of the aqueous phase with respect to all material in the storage tank.
(reducing an amount of an aqueous phase contained in the storage tank by at least partial removing the aqueous phase from the storage tank so that a relative portion of the aqueous phase with respect to all material in the storage tank gets reduced).
Although not explicitly stated, bacteria present in waste water producing methane are known to be from anaerobic digestion of fats, oils and greases (FOG).
UPENDRAKUMAR e al. teach in the abstract and paragraphs 5 and 6 that bacteria produces biogases, such as methane from anaerobic digestion of fats, oils, and greases.
Decrease of a fraction of the water fraction in the process that WALKER et al. teach would decrease the amount of bacteria that would be present.
Regarding claim 3, UPENDRAKUMAR e al. teach in the abstract and paragraphs 5 and 6 that bacteria produces biogases, such as methane from anaerobic digestion of fats, oils, and greases.
Regarding claim 4, WALKER et al. teach in lines 34-38 of column 2 that the grease comprises oils and other fatty materials.
Regarding claim 8, WALKER et al. teach in lines 18-28 of column 3 that the tank is heated to a temperature to maintain the grease in a liquid state.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALKER et al. (U.S.4145287) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 8, above, and further in view of SALAZAR-GUILLEN (USPGPUB 2012/0101014).
The above discussion of WALKER et al. in view of UPENDRAKUMAR et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
SALAZAR-GUILLEN teach producing biofuels and bio-lubricants from lipid material. The lipid material is taught in paragraph 47 to be from feedstocks that include grease.
SALAZAR-GUILLEN teach in paragraph 74 that pretreatment may be applied to the feedstock.
SALAZAR-GUILLEN teach in paragraph 91 that the lipid material may be subjected to hydrodeoxygenation to produce paraffinic and branched hydrocarbon biofuels.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the grease taught in WALKER et al. and convert them into paraffinic and branched hydrocarbon biofuels. WALKER et al. explicitly teach that the grease may be used as usable byproducts.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 7, 11-15, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALKER et al. (U.S.4145287) in view of UPENDRAKUMAR e al. (USPGPUB 2006/0175252) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 8, above, and further in view of ZITNIK (USPGPUB 2015/0050402).
The above discussion of WALKER et al. in view of UPENDRAKUMAR et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, ZITNIK is relied on to teach further treatment of portions of the water fractions that are withdrawn.
ZITNIK teaches systems and methods for improved rendering.
ZITNIK teaches in paragraphs 6 and 18-19 transferring oil and water to a decanter wherein residual solids are removed to form a solution. The solution is sent to a centrifuge wherein water and fine materials are removed from the oil. A vertical separator or other similar mechanism may be used for residual oil collection with water and sludge coming off. A waste water oil separator and a sludge oil separator may be used to separate oil. The separated oil may be returned to the decanter.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the portions of the water fractions that are withdrawn from WALKER et al. by subjecting the portions of the water fractions to a centrifuge and the vertical separator and recycle any grease back into the storage tank of WALKER et al.
The motivation to do so would be to improve the collection of grease that WALKER et al. teach may be usable byproducts.
The centrifuge may be considered the filtering system.
The vertical separator and/or the waste water oil separator may be considered the water separator.
The line recycling the grease back into the storage tank may be considered the material transfer system.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, performing the process to a predetermined schedule using a control system would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
When the process is controlled by a person manually, the process would be performed to a predetermined schedule.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, ZITNIK teaches in paragraph 15 the use of pumps.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use pumps to move the portions of water fractions and grease in the process that WALKER et al. teach.
ZITNIK teaches that the pumps allow for pushing material through the system without the need for additional mechanical action.
Regarding claim 7, WALKER et al. teach in lines 34-56 of column 3 an area defined by a skewed floor 43 wherein a portion of a water fraction is periodically drained. The skewed floor 43 has been considered the recession.
Regarding claim 14, WALKER et al. teach in lines 47-50 of column 3 a drain conduit 47.
Regarding claim 15, WALKER et al. teach in lines 18-28 of column 3 that the tank is heated by an electric heater rod to a temperature to maintain the grease in a liquid state.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, UPENDRAKUMAR e al. teach in the abstract and paragraphs 5 and 6 that bacteria produces biogases, such as methane from anaerobic digestion of fats, oils, and greases in waste water.
Regarding claim 19, WALKER et al. teach in lines 34-38 of column 2 that the grease comprises oils and other fatty materials.
Regarding claim 20, When the process is controlled by a person manually, the process would be performed to a predetermined schedule.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALKER et al. (U.S.4145287) in view of UPENDRAKUMAR e al. (USPGPUB 20060175252) and ZITNIK (USPGPUB 2015/0050402), as applied to claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 11-15, 18, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of SALAZAR-GUILLEN (USPGPUB 2012/0101014).
The above discussion of WALKER et al. in view of UPENDRAKUMAR et al. and ZITNICK is incorporated herein by reference.
SALAZAR-GUILLEN teach in paragraph 16 that it is known in the art to perform hydrogenation with an integration with an oil refinery.
SALAZAR-GUILLEN teach producing biofuels and bio-lubricants from lipid material. The lipid material is taught in paragraph 47 to be from feedstocks that include grease.
SALAZAR-GUILLEN teach in paragraph 74 that pretreatment may be applied to the feedstock in an area prior to entering a nozzle reactor.
SALAZAR-GUILLEN teach in paragraph 91 that the lipid material may be subjected to hydroisomerization in reactors to produce paraffinic and branched hydrocarbon biofuels.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the grease taught in WALKER et al. and convert them into paraffinic and branched hydrocarbon biofuels. WALKER et al. explicitly teach that the grease may be used as usable byproducts.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has also changed the dependencies on some claims that have necessitated new grounds of rejections.
Applicant argues WALKER does not suggest reducing unwanted gas inside a storage tank by removing an aqueous phase such that a relative portion of the aqueous phase with respect to all material in the storage gets reduced.
This is not persuasive as WALKER does teach removing an aqueous phase from a storage tank such that a relative portion of the aqueous phase with respect to all material in the storage gets reduced.
Applicant argues that WALKER teaches a process that stops the removal of water when a predetermined level is reached.
Examiner agrees that WALKER teaches that the process that WALKER teaches can be stopped when a predetermined level is reached. It is unclear how this teaches away from the presently claimed process. This also suggests that the process WALKER teaches does remove at least part of an aqueous phase when the predetermined level is not reached.
It is unclear how a process that can be started and stopped teaches away from the present process.
Applicant recognizes that UPENDRAKUMAR teaches a well-known fact that bacteria produce biogases such as methane from anaerobic digestion of fats, oils and greases.
Applicant argues that ZITNIK teaches a process and system for improved rendering of animal products and does not teach a filtering system, a water separation system nor the transfer of residual grease to a separator tank.
This is not persuasive as ZITNIK explicitly teaches a centrifuge for separation of fine material from the oil. ZITNIK further teaches a vertical separator or other similar mechanism. A waste water oil separator is also taught. Separated oil is taught to be returned to the decanter.
Applicant also states that they do not share the equation of the decanter in ZITNIK to the storage separation tank of WALKER.
Applicant argues that ZITNIK teaches in paragraph 16 of ZITNIK that employed a decanter may eliminate the need for settling tanks.
This is not persuasive as WALKER is the primary reference and is being modified to include further separation steps and the corresponding separators from ZITNIK to further produce better separation.
ZITNIK do not teach that the process taught could not be used with settling tanks but teach that the process that ZITNIK teach do not require settling tanks.
Applicant argues that teachings of WALKER do not withdraw a water fraction when there are situations of a risk of gas formation as taught in UPENDRAKUMAR.
This is not persuasive as the claims are directed a process that reduces unwanted gas formation. The claims do not require that water being withdrawn when there is a risk of gas formation. The claims also do not require that all gas formation is prevented. The claims are directed toward a process for reducing unwanted gas formation by partially removing aqueous phase or for reducing gas formation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PERSKE (USPGPUB 20100233778) teaches generating biogas from organic materials. PERSKE teaches in paragraph 3 that anaerobic bacteria decompose organic materials and occur everywhere in nature.
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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771