DETAILED ACTION
Objections and rejections raised in prior Office Actions are withdrawn unless restated below.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
In discussion of prior art below, performance of fermentation in a fermenter of a material is storage of such material for a time period to generate biogas.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assefa et al. (Thermal And Chemical Pre-Treatments Of Cow Dung And Poultry Litter Enhance Biogas Production In Batch Fermentation, Int. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 3, 2014, 165-70) further in view of Wahid et al. (Improved anaerobic biodegradability of wheat straw, solid cattle manure and solid slaughterhouse by alkali, ultrasonic and alkali, ultrasonic pre-treatment, Environmental Technology 31, 2020, 997-1006) and Somers et al. (Ultrasonication affects the bio-accessibility of primary dairy cow manure digestate for secondary post-digestion, Fuel 291, 2021, 120140).
Assefa, abstract, provides:
Low degradability of substrates is one of the factors that hinder the production of biogas. With the aim of maximizing biogas yields from cow dung (CD) and poultry litter (PL), a series of experiments were carried out under mesophilic conditions at 38 ºC using batch digester operating for 21 days hydraulic retention time (HRT). Temperature pre-treatment at 60 and 80 ºC and chemical pre-treatment with NaOH (0.45 g, 1.35 g and 2.25 g) were applied as a pre-treatment. Cumulative biogas production and VS reduction from anaerobic digestion of 80 ºC pre-treated substrate was 46.3% and 26.1% higher than the control, respectively. However, thermal pre-treatment at 60 and 80 ºC did not show statistically significant difference in biogas production. Biogas yields of substrates that received 0.45 g, 1.35 g, and 2.25 g of NaOH increased biogas production by 0.03%, 21% and 56% over that of the control, respectively. Overall results indicated that the biogas yield and VS and TS reduction can be enhanced through thermal and chemical pretreatments prior to anaerobic digestion.
Assefa, sec. 2.2, provides:
PNG
media_image1.png
695
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The described pretreatments are understood as hydrolysis reactions performed on animal manure (i.e. cow dung). “Biogas yield, however, can be improved by increasing the rate of hydrolysis of lignocellulose through different mechanisms.” Assefa, page 165, right col. With respect to at least Fig. 1 of Assefa, Assefa has extensive discussion of the presence of volatile and total solids such that cow dung/manure as discussed includes biosolids as recited in claim 12. As such, Assefa describes the following process:
A method of processing an animal manure that includes biosolids to provide an output biogas, the method comprising:
heating the animal manure to a predetermined hydrolysis temperature of 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C for a hydrolysis time period of three hours between five and 15 minutes, causing a pH of the animal manure to be between 8.5 and 9.5 to produce a hydrolyzed animal manure digestate.
Regarding the specific recitation in claim 12 of a hydrolysis temperature specifically between 70 and 80 [Symbol font/0xB0]C, for example 79[Symbol font/0xB0]C and a time period of between five and 15 minutes, it is noted that the control examples of Assefa receiving no pretreatment or hydrolysis as described still produced substantial amounts of biogas. See Assefa, Fig. 3. “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Here, in the absence of some criticality of a temperature slightly less than 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C (e.g. 79[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or a time period of less than three hours falling within the recited range of 5-15 minutes, differences in temperature or similarly quantities such as time do not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating criticality.
Regarding recitation of “subjecting the biosolids to shearing for the hydrolysis time,” Wahid, abstract, teaches:
Wheat straw and animal wastes are important feedstock for biogas production in Europe.
Yet, the high content of lignocellulosic and refractory materials causes the process to be
relatively slow. Therefore, pretreatment methods have been proposed to shorten the
hydrolysis phase. The present study examined the effectiveness of alkali pre-treatment (AP),
ultrasonic pre-treatment (UP), and alkali-ultrasonic pre-treatment (AUP) applied on wheat
straw (WS), solid fraction of cattle manure (SCM) and solid fraction of slaughterhouse waste
(SSHW), by monitoring solubilisation ratio, anaerobic biodegradability and methane yield.
The results indicate that the solubilisation ratio of the substrates improved regardless of the
types of pre-treatment applied. Though, AP was more effective on WS and SSHW than other
pre-treatments (UP and AUP), with approximately 47% and 17% extra methane, respectively.
Moreover, AP of SCM caused an increased in methane production rate by 100% and
minimised lag phase from 16 days to 1 day during anaerobic digestion. Based on Danish
conditions, only AP of WS was economical prior to the biogas process due to high extra
methane yield.
Wahid, sec. 2.2.1., describes ultrasonication performed on samples including cattle manure (sec. 2.1). Wahid, sec. 2.2.2, describes alkaline pretreatment of alkaline manure by exposure to 8% NaOH. Wahid, Sec. 2.2.3, describes: “The substrates were firstly treated with AP and then undergone UP. Similar AP and UP procedure were followed as mentioned in section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.”
Wahid, sec. 1 Introduction, explains that “During ultrasonic pretreatment (UP), the occurrence of acoustic cavitation, disrupt the cell walls of the substrates, which increase the specific surface area for enzymatic attack, and reduce the degree of polymerization.” Somers further explains “Ultrasound (US) applies cycling sound pressure waves (minimum frequency of 20 kHz) to create cavities in the liquid that cause mechanical shear forces upon implosion, thereby disintegrating the organic matter.” Somers, page 2, left col. As such, ultrasonication as employed by Wahid is understood to be within the broadest reasonable meaning of subjecting biosolids to shearing as recited in claim 12.
It is noted that since AP is done followed by the ultrasonic (UP) treatment, the manure was under alkaline condition upon sonication. As such, Wahid suggest that a combination of an alkaline treatment and a sonication treatment performed on the same sample is beneficial for the hydrolysis/pretreatment of cattle manure for later biogas production.
Assefa does not teach in addition to the alkaline treatment at pH 9 of animal dung/manure as a pre-treatment hydrolysis step, as discussed above, further subjecting the same to an ultrasonic treatment, wherein ultrasonic treatment is within the broadest reasonable meaning of “subjecting the biosolids to shearing.” However, Wahid positively teaches that it is beneficial for later biogas production to subject manure/dung to both an alkaline pretreatment and ultrasonic pretreatment. As such, at the time of filing, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the pretreatment (i.e. hydrolysis) suggested by sec. 2.2 of Assefa (that includes heating as discussed) to further include ultrasonication, since Wahid teaches that a combination of alkaline treatment and ultrasonication of manure is beneficial for biogas production.
Regarding any requirement in claim 12, paragraph (a), for the heating and alkaline treatment and ultrasonication to be performed simultaneously during a single hydrolysis time period (of 5-15 minutes as discussed above), selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). Again, it is noted that the sonication taught by Wahid appears to be manure that has been made alkaline such that manure is subjected to both alkaline conditions and ultrasonication (shearing) at the same time. Regardless, in the view of MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C) performing an alkaline and heat treatment as taught by Assefa and ultrasonication as taught by Wahid simultaneously is the selection of the order of performing process steps that is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, for example, relative to performance of the alkaline/heat treatment and ultrasonication separately.
It is noted that Wahid, sec. 2.2.1, teach applying ultrasonic energy for a period of 20 minutes with a 40 seconds on 40 seconds off pattern. Intermittent application of ultrasonication is considered to be within the broadest reasonable meaning of “shearing for the hydrolysis time period,” since the claims do not affirmatively require no break in shearing but only that shearing occurs coextensive with the hydrolysis time period. Further, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Here, the prior art teaches that ultrasonication/shearing is beneficial but not necessary for biogas production. As such, application of shearing/ultrasonification for shorter periods of time coextensive with the alkaline/heat treatment of Assefa is the discovery of workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Upon additional performance of ultrasonication as discussed, the cite prior art suggests the following method for the reasons discussed above:
A method of processing an animal manure that includes biosolids to provide an output biogas, the method comprising:
heating the animal manure to a predetermined hydrolysis temperature of 79[Symbol font/0xB0]C or 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C for a hydrolysis time period between five and 15 minutes, causing a pH of the animal manure to be between 8.5 and 9.5, and subjecting the biosolids to shearing by ultrasonification for the hydrolysis time period, to produce a hydrolyzed animal manure digestate.
Regarding the features of paragraph (b), of claim 12, following an appropriate pretreatment (i.e. hydrolysis) as taught by Assefa to produce a hydrolyzed animal manure, Assefa, sec. 2.3, describes a mesophilic anaerobic digestion of the same to produce biogas performed at 38[Symbol font/0xB0]C (i.e. an anaerobic digestion temperature). The figure at bottom of page 167 (sec. 3.2) of Assefa shows that biogas measurement was performed over a length of 21 days (i.e. the length of an anaerobic digestion time period). That is, the above is a description of:
Regarding recitation of to produce an output animal manure digestate, it is understood that not all of the hydrolyzed animal manure digestate subjected to anaerobic digestion is converted to biogas. More specifically, “Substrates were analyzed for total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS) and pH before and after AD [anaerobic digestion] process based on the Standard Methods.” Assefa, sec. 2.4. The substrate that is analyzed after anaerobic digestion is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an output animal manure digestate that is produced by the anaerobic digestion. The claims do not recite that such an output animal manure digestate is collected nor put to any further use. As such, Assefa teaches the features of claim 12, paragraph (b), and claims 16 and 18.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assefa et al. (Thermal And Chemical Pre-Treatments Of Cow Dung And Poultry Litter Enhance Biogas Production In Batch Fermentation, Int. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 3, 2014, 165-70) further in view of Wahid (Environmental Technology) and Somers et al. (Ultrasonication affects the bio-accessibility of primary dairy cow manure digestate for secondary post-digestion, Fuel 291, 2021, 120140) as applied to claims 12, 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Bernhard (DE 102006015496 A1). A translation of Bernhard has been previously provided and is cited herein.
Regarding claim 17, Bernhard further relates to production of biogas from manure: “It is proposed to bring biomass consisting of biogenic products into a pumpable state, in fermenters to promote the biogas formation process with constant stirring by mesophilic fermentation takes place at 38 to 42 ° C or thermophilic fermentation at 50 to 60 ° C. The resulting biogas is stored and subsequently recycled. Part of the digestate is heated to 70 to 90 ° C, in a stripping ammonia / ammonium nitrogen is withdrawn, the sanitized low-nitrogen digestate is separated in solid and liquid phase. The stripping process takes place under reduced pressure in a batch process. The discharge of the gas ammonia is not specified.” Bernhard, page 2. “The object is achieved in that biogenic substances, in particular manure or animal feces suspension during the process of biogas production.” Bernhard, page 3.
As discussed, Assefa teaches a mesophilic fermentation at 38[Symbol font/0xB0]C for biogas production. However, Bernhard teaches that a thermophilic fermentation can be performed for biogas production from manure as an alternative to mesophilic fermentation. Substitution of known elements is obvious upon a finding of:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Here, (1) Assefa teaches a mesophilic fermentation. (2) Bernhard teaches that either a mesophilic fermentation or thermophilic fermentation can be used for biogas production from manure. (3) Bernhard evidences that either type of fermentation can be performed readily by an ordinarily skilled artisan. (4) No other findings are particularly necessary to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
As such, in view of the guidance of MPEP 2143(I)(B), an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motivated to substitute a thermophilic fermentation for biogas production in replacement of the mesophilic fermentation taught by Assefa or in methods of producing biogas consistent with the teachings of Assefa in view of the additional cited prior art discussed above.
Regarding the particular temperature range of 55-60[Symbol font/0xB0]C recited in claim 17, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.“ MPEP 2144.05(I). Here, the range for thermophilic fermentation taught by Bernhard of 50-60[Symbol font/0xB0]C overlaps with the claimed range of 55-60[Symbol font/0xB0]C such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The claim terms “animal manure,” animal manure digestate” and “hydrolyzed animal manure digestate” are understood to be structurally distinct and non-overlapping. Animal manure is understood to be manure that has not been subjected to any of the processing techniques recited including biogas production, hydrolysis or digestion. “Animal manure digestate” is the product of paragraph (a) of claims 1 and 11 to a hydrolysis process as in paragraph (b) to produce “hydrolyzed animal manure digestate.”
Burkhard et al. (WO 2010/034685 A2) remains the closest identified prior art. The teachings of Burkhard can be understood by reference to Fig. 1 and Example 1
PNG
media_image2.png
324
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The fermentation residue I 3 produced from biogenic substances agricultural effluents 1 in a biogas production plant with a fermenter 2 is pumped to a vibrating screen 4 with a mesh width of 1 mm. The resulting after the vibrating screen 4 thick material 5 is transferred to a Feldrandmiete. The liquid phase 6 after the vibrating screen 4 is pumped in a tubular reactor 7 with an ultrasonic sonotrode and flows at 0.1 m / s into the tubular reactor 7. The ultrasonic sonotrode operates at a frequency of 25 kHz. The liquid phase is exposed to the ultrasound for 7 seconds. In the process, biogas dissolved in the liquid phase is transferred into the gas phase from the tubular reactor to the entire volume of biogas. After flowing through the tubular reactor, it is treated Liquid phase pumped into another fermenter 8 and remains there for 1 day. During this time, the existing biogenic substances are converted into biogas 10 and produced an additional 10% of the total biogas volume produced so far, which also increases the total biogas yield. The remaining digestate Il 9 is fed to the hydrolysis process step of the biogas production plant. The biogas produced is utilized in a combined heat and power plant.
Biogass production in fermenter 2 corresponds to the biogas production in paragraph (a) of claims 1 and 11. Biogass production in fermenter 8 corresponds to the biogas production in paragraph (c) of claims 1 and 11. However, the material entering fermenter 8 is not “hydrolyzed animal manure digestate” since the same has not been subjected to a hydrolysis process. That is, Burkhard does not describe a hydrolysis process occurring between fermenters 2 and 8. Although Burkhard describes the animal manure digestate 9 being routed to the hydrolysis process step of a biogas production step, such material is mixed with fresh incoming material is mixed with mostly fresh material and is not considered to be hydrolyzed animal manure digestate.
The process step of paragraph (b) of claims 1 and 11 is similar to hydrolysis or pre-treatments commonly applied to incoming animal manure prior to biogas production as taught, for example, in Assefa. Burkhard is silent regarding details of the “hydrolysis process step of the biogas production plant.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to arguments
Applicant argues: “Applicant submits that the present disclosure does not separate solids from the liquid. Rather the whole material is treated in the hydrolysis process followed by the anaerobic digestion.”
The disclosure was not previously subject to any rejection and the claims are silent regarding any requirement prohibiting separation of solids. Burkhard a method of enlarging the solid surface area such that any liquid-solid separation is not complete and solids are still present.
Regardless, rejections of claims 1 and 11 are withdrawn for the reasons set forth above. The remainder of applicant’s remarks have been examined, but are not understood as having particular relevance to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M EPSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00a-5:30p.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached at (408) 918-7584. 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.
/TODD M EPSTEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights