DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 1 anticipates present claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 3 anticipates present claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 4 anticipates present claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 5 anticipates present claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 6 anticipates present claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 7 anticipates present claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 8 anticipates present claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 9 anticipates present claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 10 anticipates present claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 11 anticipates present claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 12 anticipates present claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 13 anticipates present claim 14.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 15 anticipates present claim 15.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11629301 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a conveyor driven by a chain is well-known and common knowledge.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vonplon (US 20100196199 A1) in view of Rehmat (US 20170275542 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vonplon discloses a human biosolids treatment system comprising:
a source of human biosolids (para. 2);
a dryer configured to dry the human biosolids to a predetermined moisture content to create dried biosolid output (para. 13) (note: the dryer settings, e.g., temperature, and moisture content of the biosolids before drying, predetermines the moisture content of the biosolid output);
a source of wet biosolids (Fig. 1; 12);
a mixer (14) configured to mix the dried biosolid output and the wet biosolids and output a mixed biosolid feed;
a variable feed conveyor (40, 52, and/or 116) (it can convey feed of different types so it’s a variable feed conveyor); and
a controller (inherently disclosed);
wherein the variable feed conveyor is configured to variably recirculate the mixed biosolid feed to the dryer (Fig. 1);
wherein the controller modulates the recirculation rate (mass flow rate) into the dryer in response to a dryer exit temperature and/or a moisture sensor that corresponds to a target moisture content of the dried biosolids (moisture sensors are used to adjust the amount of wet and dried biosolids entering the mixer, which affects the mass flow into the dryer; the moisture level of the mixture out of the mixer corresponds to the moisture level of the dried biosolids out of the dryer 20) (paras. 18).
Vonplon fails to disclose:
where the controller is programmed;
a gasifier, wherein the mixed biosolid feed is the sole fuel for the gasifier; and
wherein the gasifier is configured to convert the mixed biosolid feed into usable thermal energy for system use and at least one of low carbon ash and high carbon activated biochar.
Vonplon teaches using a programmable controller (para. 27). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Vonplon where the controller is programmed, since programmable controllers are cheap, ubiquitous, and allow for easy customization of the controller functions.
Rehmat teaches a waste treatment system, comprising:
a gasifier (abstract),
wherein the waste feed is the sole fuel for the gasifier (para. 37); and
wherein the gasifier is configured to convert the mixed biosolid feed into usable thermal energy for system use and at least one of low carbon ash (inorganic components of the waste) and high carbon activated biochar (paras. 8, 38) (note: the gasifier is also capable of producing high carbon activated biochar since Rehmat discloses a gasifier that can gasify human biosolids).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Vonplon to include a gasifier, wherein the mixed biosolid feed is the sole fuel for the gasifier; and wherein the gasifier is configured to convert the mixed biosolid feed into usable thermal energy for system use and at least one of low carbon ash and high carbon activated biochar. The motivation to combine is so that the biosolids can be converted into a useful fuel.
Regarding claim 2, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, wherein the dryer creates low carbon ash and the gasifier creates high carbon activated biochar and Class A biosolids (modified Vonplon discloses these products because it discloses all of the elements necessary to produce the products).
Regarding claim 5, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to control carbon content of the biochar. The carbon content is what remains after the water and gases are expelled from the biosolid feed. The amount of water expelled can be controlled by the conveyor of the dryer, and the volume of gases released is controlled by the drying and gasification temperatures.
Regarding claim 6, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, wherein the biochar is used to filter air emissions from the system prior to discharge to atmosphere (the biochar is capable of being used to filter air emissions) (note: this is an intended use claim and is not given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 7, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, wherein the biochar is mixed with the human biosolids as exclusive fuel for the gasifier. The system is capable of treating biochar mixed with human biosolids as exclusive fuel for the gasifier.
Regarding claim 10, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, wherein the treatment system is capable of using different moisture content biosolid fuel sources. The system discloses all of the elements recited in claim 1; therefore, it is capable of using different moisture content biosolid fuel sources.
Regarding claim 11, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, wherein the treatment system is configured to use comingled materials generated by a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) including grit and screenings, fats/oils/grease (FOG), anaerobically digested biosolids, biosolids post thermal hydrolysis treatment, primary/secondary waste activate sludge, non-activated sludge in varying percent of composition as fuel sources for the gasifier without need for supplemental fuel. The system discloses all of the elements recited in claim 1; therefore, it is capable of using different moisture content biosolid fuel sources.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vonplon (US 20100196199 A1) in view of Rehmat (US 20170275542 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Srinivasachar (US 20100178624 A1)
Regarding claim 3, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, except wherein the treatment system includes a blended air intake to temper flue gas entering a dryer, wherein the blended air controls a target temperature in the dryer.
However, Srinivasachar teaches a system for producing carbon-rich products, wherein a treatment system includes a blended air intake to temper flue gas entering a dryer, wherein the blended air controls a target temperature in the dryer (para. 180).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Vonplon wherein the treatment system includes a blended air intake to temper flue gas entering a dryer, wherein the blended air controls a target temperature in the dryer. The motivation to combine is to provide another source of hot gases for the dryer, and where the temperature and humidity of the hot gases can be adjusted as desired.
Regarding claim 4, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, wherein the treatment system includes a fan to recirculate moist dryer exhaust to temper flue gas entering a dryer, wherein blended air controls a target temperature in the dryer and reduces NOx emissions.
However, Srinivasachar teaches a system for producing carbon-rich products, wherein the treatment system includes a fan to recirculate moist dryer exhaust to temper flue gas entering a dryer (see para. 206 and Fig. 5), wherein blended air controls a target temperature in the dryer and reduces NOx emissions (this is intended use language and is given limited patentable weight; moreover, this intended use would inherently be present if the first limitation in this claim is present).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Vonplon wherein the treatment system includes a fan to recirculate moist dryer exhaust to temper flue gas entering a dryer, wherein blended air controls a target temperature in the dryer and reduces NOx emissions. The motivation to combine is to provide another source of hot gases for the dryer, and where the temperature and humidity of the hot gases can be adjusted as desired.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vonplon (US 20100196199 A1) in view of Rehmat (US 20170275542 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hansen (US 20120308441 A1).
Regarding claims 8, 9, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, except further including a water quench that cools the low carbon ash or the high carbon biochar prior to leaving the gasifier (as recited in claim 8), or further including a water quench that serves as an air lock to the gasifier enabling a negative pressure draft to be controlled within the gasifier (as recited in claim 9)
However, Hansen teaches a water quench that cools the carbon ash/ char prior to leaving the gasifier (para. 66), and further includes a water quench that serves as an air lock to the gasifier enabling a negative pressure draft to be controlled within the gasifier (paras. 26, 42).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Vonplon to further include a water quench that cools the low carbon ash or the high carbon biochar prior to leaving the gasifier (as recited in claim 8), and to further include a water quench that serves as an air lock to the gasifier enabling a negative pressure draft to be controlled within the gasifier (as recited in claim 9). The motivation to combine is to cool the ash/biochar so it can be used for downstream purposes.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vonplon (US 20100196199 A1) in view of Rehmat (US 20170275542 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mcintosh (AU 8617598 A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, except further comprising an oxidizer located between the gasifier and dryer. However, Mcintosh teaches a gasification system comprising an oxidizer (4, 104) located between the gasifier (10) and dryer (2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Vonplon to include an oxidizer located between the gasifier and dryer, so that there is an additional source of hot gases for the dryer.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vonplon (US 20100196199 A1) in view of Rehmat (US 20170275542 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sessions (US 1878896 A).
Regarding claim 16-18, modified Vonplon discloses the biosolids treatment system of claim 1, except wherein the variable feed conveyor is driven by a chain (as recited in claim 16), wherein the chain is cooled by cooling rails that extend along a length of the chain (as recited in claim 17), and wherein the cooling rails comprise a duct with an inlet and outlet (as recited in claim 18).
However, Sessions teaches a feed conveyor for furnace, wherein the variable feed conveyor is driven by a chain (16), wherein the chain is cooled by cooling rails (28, 28a) that extend along a length of the chain, and wherein the cooling rails comprise a duct (30, 35) with an inlet and outlet.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Vonplon wherein the variable feed conveyor is driven by a chain, wherein the chain is cooled by cooling rails that extend along a length of the chain, and wherein the cooling rails comprise a duct with an inlet and outlet. The motivation to combine is so that dryer (Vonplon; 20, 102) can supply the biosolids with a liquid cooled chain. Having a liquid cooled chain would prolong the lifespan of the conveyor of the dryer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights