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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, and 19-21 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.
The term “days” in parent claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “days” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “days” in parent claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “days” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “proportional” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proportional” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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, 8 and 21 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. WALKER et al. further teach a manual shut-off valve for periodically draining a portion of the water fraction from the separator tank.
The removal of at least of portion of the water fraction from the tank would by 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.
WALKER et al. further teach in column 3 effluent is periodically transferred to the separator tank. The effluent is allowed to stand in the separator tank during the interim, allowing the water to settle to the bottom while the grease rises to the top to form a grease/water interface. Water is periodically withdrawn from the separator tank. WALKER et al. teach in column 4 that water is not just periodically withdrawn but automatically withdrawn to maintain the total effluent under a maximum level. The process that WALKER et al. teach will cause the grease/water interface to drop as grease remains while water is removed.
Given that the process and system that WALKER et al. teach in columns 3-4 both periodically and automatically decreases the water content and that the system could be ran for a substantial amount of time until all or a portion of the grease has to be removed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the system could be ran until the amount of water is insignificant and the substantial amount of time may be expected to be more than a month absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 21, UPENDRAKUMAR et al. teach bacteria produces biogases and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that as water comprising the bacteria is removed, the time that the grease remains in the separation reactor of WALKER et al. proportionally increases.
Regarding claim 3, UPENDRAKUMAR et 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, and 21, 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, and 21, 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 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant mentions that the present process is developed to address a problem that is encountered when processing biological material.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach removing water as to address buildup of gases, 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).
The claims are directed toward a process in which a water portion in a storage tank is removed. The intended result is to decrease gas formation.
Applicant argues that WALKER does not suggest that a biological feedstock storage time can be increased from an initial storage time of days to a desired storage time of greater than 1 month by at least partially reducing an aqueous phase.
This is not persuasive as WALKER does teach removing at least partially an aqueous phase from a storage tank comprising a biological feedstock and water in which a grease/oil interface exists by allowing the grease and oil to separate into two different phases and withdrawing from the aqueous phase.
Applicant argues that UPENDRAKUMAR teaches retention times regarding the formation of volatile fatty acids and not unwanted gas formation.
This is not persuasive as UPENDRAKUMAR teaches that there is a level and time for the bacteria to produce volatile fatty acids and furthermore to produce methane gas.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to use the retention times in UPENDRAKUMAR for the process and system taught in WALKER.
This is not persuasive as UPENDRAKUMAR is relied on to teach that it is known that bacteria in water can produce gas.
Applicant argues that WALKER teaches a process that stops the removal of water when a predetermined level is reached. Applicant clarified by stating that WALKER teaches a process in which a free amount of water is allowed to collect at the bottom of the separator tank of WALKER because the process stops withdrawing water when the upper predetermined level is reached.
This is not persuasive as WALKER teaches only withdrawing from the water portion and teaches periodically adding effluent and teaches that a grease/water interface (the separation between the grease and water phases) falls as the process proceeds. The amount of water in the separator tank would therefore continuously fall until the separator tank is mostly grease and the process is stopped based on a determination that the grease needs to be removed.
Applicant argues that WALKER do not teach other elements such as a filter.
It is noted that ZITNIK is relied on to teach other elements.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PERSKE (USPGPUB 2010/0233778) teaches generating biogas from organic materials. PERSKE teaches in paragraph 3 that anaerobic bacteria decompose organic materials and occur everywhere in nature.
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
Prosecution Insights