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 for application 18566169 filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 23-44 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 1-22 have been cancelled.
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) 23-30, 32-34, and 37-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGSTROM (US 2019/0345409A1) in view of WENTZLER et al. (USPGPUB 5039428).
BERGSTROM teaches a method for purification of animal or vegetable oils.
Regarding claim 23, the process is elaborated on in paragraphs 6-11.
a) storing the lipid material in a settling tank at elevated temperature, (supplying biological material containing the biologicial feedstock to one or moe receiving tanks) (biological material supplied to one or more receiving tanks prior to any part of the biological material received in one or more storage tank or one or more slop tanks)
b) allowing the impurities to settle to the bottom of the settling tank to thereby form an oily sludge phase,
c) separating the formed oily sludge phase from the rest of the lipid material,
d) further processing the lipid material (transferring, from one or more receiving tanks, the biological feedstock separated from the biological material)
e) optionally purifying said separated oily sludge phase from impurities, and optionally (transferring, from one or more receiving tanks, sludge deposited on a bottom portion of each receiving tank)
The formed oil sludge phase and the rest of the lipid material being separated would be expected to comprise separate tanks for holding the formed oil sludge phase and the rest of the lipid material. The tank for holding the separated resting of the lipid material would be considered a storage tank. The tank for holding the oil sludge phase would be considered a slop tank. A first material transfer system and a second material transfer system to enable the transfer into the tanks for holding the formed oil sludge phase and the rest of the lipid material.
f) returning the purified oil from the purifying step e) to said settling tank.
Returning the purified oil would be expected to comprise a third material transfer system configured to transfer the purified oil from the slop tank back into the settling tank.
The settling tank may be considered the one or more receiving tanks.
The separated formed oily sludge phase that is separated is taught in paragraph 60 to be purified by any suitable method. Suitable methods include filtration, and/or other mechanical separation.
WENTZLER provides the teachings of progressive separation of a feed into two outputs: an effluent stream and a sludge stream.
WENTZLER teaches in Fig 4 and lines 52-68 of column 7 and lines 1-6 of column 8 an embodiment.
WENTZLER teaches waste water 40 is fed into a precipitation reactor 41.
An effluent stream 42 from the precipitation reactor 41 is fed into a hydrocyclone.
A first waste sludge stream 45 is removed from the hydrocyclone 43 and fed into an adsorption reactor 49.
An overflow stream 44 from the hydrocyclone 43 is fed into a clarifier 46.
A water effluent stream 47 is removed from the clarifier 46.
A second sludge stream 48 is removed from clarifier 46 and also fed into the adsorption reactor 49.
The first sludge stream 45 and the second sludge stream 48 are sent into the adsorption reactor 49. A line from adsorption reactor flows into precipitation reactor 41.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus that BERGSTROM teaches with further tanks and remove sludge from those further tanks as well and send them to a common reactor where the sludge is treated.
The settling tank of BERGSTROM would be modified as the precipitation reactor 41.
BERGSTROM would be modified to send a separate sludge stream from the storage tank holding the separated lipid material in BERGSTROM (equating to the hydrocyclone 43 in WENTZLER) to the slop tank BERGSTROM where the oil sludge is purified (equating to the adsorption reactor 49 in WENTZLER). (transferring, from one or more storage tanks, sludge deposited on a bottom portion of each storage tank)
Progressively separating sludge streams from multiple tanks or steps would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Performing multiple separation steps for sludge streams would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct a more thorough separation of the sludge.
Regarding claim 37, BERGSTROM teaches a method for purification of animal or vegetable oils and the associated system.
The process and the associated system is elaborated on in paragraphs 6-11.
a) storing the lipid material in a settling tank at elevated temperature, (one or more receiving tanks configured to receive biological material contained the biological feedstock from a source external to the system)
b) allowing the impurities to settle to the bottom of the settling tank to thereby form an oily sludge phase,
c) separating the formed oily sludge phase from the rest of the lipid material,
d) further processing the lipid material
e) optionally purifying said separated oily sludge phase from impurities, and optionally
The formed oil sludge phase and the rest of the lipid material being separated would be expected to comprise separate tanks for holding the formed oil sludge phase and the rest of the lipid material. The tank for holding the separated resting of the lipid material would be considered a storage tank. The storage tank will be used interchangeably with a second series of tanks in BERGSTROM. The tank for holding the oil sludge phase would be considered a slop tank. The slop tank will be used interchangeably with the tank for holding the oil sludge phase in BERGSTROM. A first material transfer system and a second material transfer system to enable the transfer into the tanks for holding the formed oil sludge phase and the rest of the lipid material.
f) returning the purified oil from the purifying step e) to said settling tank.
Returning the purified oil would be expected to comprise a third material transfer system configured to transfer the purified oil from the slop tank back into the settling tank.
The settling tank may be considered the one or more receiving tanks.
The separated formed oily sludge phase that is separated is taught in paragraph 60 to be purified by any suitable method. Suitable methods include filtration, and/or other mechanical separation.
WENTZLER provides the teachings of progressive separation of a feed into two outputs: an effluent stream and a sludge stream.
WENTZLER teaches in Fig 4 and lines 52-68 of column 7 and lines 1-6 of column 8 an embodiment.
WENTZLER teaches waste water 40 is fed into a precipitation reactor 41.
An effluent stream 42 from the precipitation reactor 41 is fed into a hydrocyclone.
A first waste sludge stream 45 is removed from the hydrocyclone 43 and fed into an adsorption reactor 49.
An overflow stream 44 from the hydrocyclone 43 is fed into a clarifier 46.
A water effluent stream 47 is removed from the clarifier 46.
A second sludge stream 48 is removed from clarifier 46 and also fed into the adsorption reactor 49.
The first sludge stream 45 and the second sludge stream 48 are sent into the adsorption reactor 49. A line from adsorption reactor flows into precipitation reactor 41.
BERGSTROM would be modified to send a separate sludge stream from the storage tank holding the separated lipid material in BERGSTROM (equating to the hydrocyclone 43 in WENTZLER) to the slop tank BERGSTROM where the oil sludge is purified (equating to the adsorption reactor 49 in WENTZLER).
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus that BERGSTROM teaches with further tanks and remove sludge from those further tanks as well and send them to a common slop tank/reactor where the sludge is treated and purified.
The settling tank of BERGSTROM would be modified as the precipitation reactor 41.
BERGSTROM would be modified to send the lipid material from the settling tank into a second series of tanks in BERGSTROM (equated to the hydrocyclone 43 in WENTZLER) where another sludge stream such as the first sludge stream 45 may be separated and sent into the slop tank of BERGSTROM for purification such as the adsorption reactor 49 in WENTZLER.
Progressively separating sludge streams from multiple tanks or steps would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Performing multiple separation steps for sludge streams would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct a more thorough separation of the sludge.
Regarding claim 24, BERGSTROM teaches in paragraph 12 that the lipid material includes used cooking oil.
Regarding claim 25, WENTZLER further teaches that the hydrocyclone separates an overflow stream that is fed to a clarifier. From the clarifier, a second sludge stream is sent to the adsorption reactor.
The clarifier provides the teaching to add one or more final tanks and sending associated sludge streams to a common slop tank.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further separate the separated lipid material from the second series of tanks in BERGSTROM (equates to hydrocyclone in WENTZLER) into further separated lipid material and another sludge stream and then further separate the further separated lipid material in a final tank (equates to the clarifier in WENTZLER) to yet separate out another sludge stream and send that sludge stream to the same slop tank that receives the other sludge streams from the settling tank and the second series of tanks.
Progressively separating sludge streams from multiple tanks or steps would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Performing multiple separation steps for sludge streams would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct a more thorough separation of the sludge.
Regarding claim 38, flowing a non-sludge stream from the second series of tanks in BERGSTROM to a final tank and further separating a further sludge stream in a final tank would be expected to comprise a fifth material transfer stream such as pipes.
Regarding claim 26, when 2 or more storage tanks are applied, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that the separated lipid material may be different if not only slightly.
Employing multiple settling tanks and multiple storage tanks would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been established that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 34, employing multiple settling tanks and multiple storage tanks would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been established that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 33, storing the lipid material in the second series of tanks longer than the settling tanks appears to be a design choice and would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
It stands to reason one of ordinary skill in the art may allow for time for settling in the second series of tanks for a longer period of time to allow further separation that did not occur in the settling tank(s).
Regarding claim 39, a transfer system such as pipes for a fifth transfer system to supply different further separated lipid material from the second series of tanks to a final tank would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 27-28 and 40, WENTZLER teaches in lines 52-68 of column 7 waste sludge may be further dewatered with conventional technology such as filters to dewater the sludge. Though not shown in Fig 4, WENTZLER teaches that the water stream may be further treated. A water separator to further treat a water stream would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art. Further waste sludge separated would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be sent to the slop tank (equated to the adsorption reactor of WENZLER)
Regarding claim 29, WENTZLER teaches that a portion from the adsorption reactor may be fed back into the precipitation reactor. Some amount of water would be expected to be fed back into the precipitation reactor.
Regarding claims 30 and 41, WENTZLER teaches in lines 52-68 of column 7 waste sludge may be further dewatered with conventional technology such as filters to dewater the sludge. Though not shown in Fig 4, WENTZLER teaches that the water stream may be further treated. Further waste sludge separated would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be sent to the slop tank (equated to the adsorption reactor of WENTZLER)
Further treating the waste sludge from the slop tank prior to recycling a portion back into the settling tank of BERGSTROM (equates to the precipitation reactor of WENTZLER) with the same steps used to treat the waste sludge that is fed into the slop tank would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further treat the waste sludge prior to recycling a portion back into the settling tank.
Regarding claim 32, BERGSTROM teaches a method for purification of animal or vegetable oils.
The process is elaborated on in paragraphs 6-11 and storing the lipid material in a settling tank at elevated temperature. The settling tank would be expected to allow the phases to settle.
Claim(s) 31 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGSTROM (US2019/0345409A1) in view of WENTZLER et al. (USPGPUB 5039428) as applied to claims 23-30, 32-34, and 37-41 above, and further in view of PIRBAZARI et al. (U.S. 4956093).
The above discussion of is BERGSTROM in view of WENTZLER et al. incorporated herein by reference.
PIRBAZARI et al. teach in lines 53-66 of column 6 that diary wastewater is biodegradable and microbial growth must be inhibited. PIRBAZARI et al. teach that one method to prevent significant growth is a temperature of over 80°C.
One of ordinary skill in the art would apply a heater to settling tank of BERGSTROM and the second series of tanks (equates to hydrocyclone of WENTZLER et al.) to heat the temperature of over 80°C to inhibit the growth of microbials given that the water is sent to drainage.
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) 35-36 and 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGSTROM (US2019/0345409A1) in view of WENTZLER et al. (USPGPUB 5039428) as applied to claims 23-30, 32-34, and 37-41 above, and further in view of MYLLYOJA (USPGPUB 2010/0287821).
The above discussion of BERGSTROM in view of WENTZLER et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
MYLLYOJA teach that it is known to produce diesel range hydrocarbons from hydrotreating and hydroisomerizing a fresh feed. The fresh feed is taught in paragraphs 37-38 to comprise bio-oil and/or fat from animals such as fats from milk. Hydrotreatment is MYLLYOJA is taught in paragraph 26 to comprise hydrodeoxygenation.
Practicing this in an oil refinery location would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art as MYLLYOJA also teach in paragraph 56 further treatment may employ refinery gas.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take some of the dewatered sludge that comprises lipid material that includes animal fat and use them to produce diesel range hydrocarbons.
Diesel range hydrocarbons are valuable and taught in paragraph 2 of MYLLYOGA to have increased demand for diesel fuel.
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 with respect to claim(s) 23-44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KINSEL (US 1525301) teaches a process for recovery of spent plumbite that also teaches an apparatus that show how sludge settles to the bottom of the tank and is flows out the bottom of tanks to another tank.
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
Prosecution Insights