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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for divisional priority of the benefit of prior-filed application 17/220,994 filed April 2, 2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 filed on May 1, 2024, are under consideration.
Drawings: Objection
Figure 4a should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: use of the different terms “pressurized screen” and “pressurized screener” raises a clarity issue. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1 step c, the term “wherein the feeding chamber comprising” is not grammatically correct. Consider amending to “wherein the feeding chamber comprises a heat source”.
In claim 12, the term “heat source comprise steam” lacks clarity. Please consider amending to “wherein the heat source comprises steam…”.
In claim 19, the term “suing” is a typo. Please consider correcting e.g. to “using”.
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 1-19 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.
In claim 1, step a, line 1, the term “the pressurized screen” lacks clear antecedent basis. Please consider amending to “a pressurized screen”. See e.g. MPEP 2173.05 (e) Lack of Antecedent Basis.
In claim 1, step a, line 2, the term “biosolids to a pressurized screen” also lacks clear antecedent basis and is confusing since “the pressurized screen” is closed (“the” is a definite article). In contrast, “a pressurized screen” is open (“a” is an indefinite article for “one or more”).
Amending to “the pressurized screen” (in conjunction to addressing item a.) will overcome this rejection. See e.g. MPEP 2173.05 (e ); and MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” cites Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 64 F.4th 1311, 1317-1318, 2023 USPQ2d 412 (Fed. Cir. 2023), for support that “a” or “an” meaning “one or more”; while “The” or “Said” closes the limitation that follows.
In claim 1, the term “unwanted debris” is a relative term. The specification fails to indicate a standard and/or test to discriminated between “wanted” verse “unwanted” debris. See MPEP 2173,05 (b).
In claims 1 and 11 (“screw” embodiment), the term “a self-leveling conveyor” (step d) although provided in the drawings (e.g. reference character 130), there is no specification definition which elaborates on the structure necessary to achieve “self-leveling” capability; nor provide a means of distinguishing a “conveyor” that otherwise meets the required function. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of this term is unclear.
In claim 1, in the phrase “the nip feeder selectively distributing the biosolids through the nip and onto first and second dryer drums” (step d. and recycle step g.), the term “selectively” to qualify the term “distribute” is both “relative” and “ambiguous” as to structural requisite to achieve the claimed function; and a basis (or standard) for distinguishing “selective” as compared to “non-selective“ distribution. The specification doesn’t appear to define “the nip feeder” but provides a drawing reference character 150. See e.g. specification description of drawings and Figures 5-10c particularly Figs 10 and 10c. As such the metes and bounds of this “functional term” is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(b) (Relative Terminology); MPEP 2173.05(g) (Functional Limitations).
Claim 4 (and dependent claim 9) are incomplete since claim 4 is missing a prior claim reference i.e. “The method of claim? further comprising…”. Correction is required.
In claim 7, the phrase “adding an element” is indefinite because an “element” is not a compound or composition and is not otherwise defined in the specification; making the metes and bounds indefinite. Note further that dependent claim 8 identifies nitrogen and phosphorus, but also potash and lime, which are not chemical elements. The specification does not appear to clarify this ambiguity.
In claim 9, “the element” lacks clear antecedent basis in claim 4. The dependency appears to be incorrect.
In claim 13, the term “self-leveling” is a relative term and the specification fails to provide a standard means for determining corresponding structure to achieve this feature.
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.
Claims 1-13;15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnham (USPN 8,491,693) (hereinafter: Burnham) in view of
CN 111115106-A with Google Translation (hereinafter: CN reference),
Daud, Handbook: Chapter 9 “Drum Dryers” (2006) (hereinafter, Daud); and
Vallous, J. Food Engineering 51:171-183 (2002) (hereinafter: Vallous).
Burnham teaches a method and system for processing “wastewater biosolids or sludges” (instant claim 1: “converting biosolids to fertilizer comprising”) by pre-treatment (e.g. dewatering/centrifuging) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Mixer (add nutrients)-[Wingdings font/0xE0] rotary drying -[Wingdings font/0xE0] and pelleting (see e.g. Abstract) as generally illustrated as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
577
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See, also Figure 2 and the following figure 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
569
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Burnham teaches that the “dewatering step” is carried out by “belt filter press or centrifuge” operations (see e.g. col. 6 lines 4-21) as in instant claim 1 (step a. “the pressurized screen “equates to the reference “belt filter press” and instant step b. “centrifuge”). Burnham also teaches storing (e.g. storage tank of the biosolids prior to dewatering (as in instant claim 2). Burnham further teaches that the dewatered product is conveyed (corresponds to “second” conveyor of instant claim 1) to the centrifuge (see figures). From the centrifuge the reference “conveys” (e.g. 3rd conveyor to a “mixer” (see reference figures) that corresponds to the “feeding chamber” of instant claim 1. In a preferred embodiment, Burnham acidifies the dewatered biosolids prior to drying, blends in “plant nutrients” an removes waters as steam (heating component of instant claim 1, step c). See Burnham e.g. col. 11. The reference “feeding chamber” contents are then conveyed to the “dryer” which preferably is a “hot air rotary drum”. See e.g. col. 9, lines 32-40. (as in instant claim 10). The Burnham reference following “hot air rotary drum drying” is then pelletized and recycled if needed. See col. 9 lines 32-62. Burnham also teaches the use of polymer treatment prior to centrifuging to “flocculate” the biowaste (as in instant claims 3 and 5). See e.g. col. 2, lines 5-15. The reference teaching “polymer treated sludges prior to centrifugation is taught to yield 20% solids. See col. 2, lines 5-15. The reference also discloses the amounts of “dry metric tons of sludge to be treated. See e.g. col. 1, lies 40-52 (e.g. “64 dry pounds of sludge for every individual”. Accordingly, the amount of polymer to be added in pounds/dry ton to be added is a “result effective” variable which is optimizable and would be at least 2 lbs/dry ton (rendering instant claim 6 obvious (“polymer added to biosolids about 2-90 lbs/dry ton”). Both the use of a centrifuge and a “belt filter press” (as in instant claim 4) is taught by this reference. See e.gh. col. 6, lines 10-21; col. 8, lines 33-62; Example 2, col. 16, lines 42-45; patent claim 17). The addition of inorganic elements (e.g. N/potash/phosphate lime) prior to pelletizing is taught by Burnham (as in instant claims 7-9. See e.g. patent Figures; col. 5-6; 10-11). Burnham teaches a dewatering step including centrifuging which achieve increasing dried biosolids of about 8-40% to up to 90% within the instantly claimed range of instant claims 11 and 16. See patent col. 6 lines 1-21. Additionally, it is noted that the use of the centrifuge by reference for dewatering is optimizable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Burnhard further teaches the use of a “caustic scrubber” for odorant removal (as in instant claim 15). See e.g. patent col. 16 lines 5-10. Additionally, it is conventional to use a “vapor hood” to additionally remove odorant or other caustic fumes as in instant claim 19.
Although teaching the use of a “heated rotary dryer system” the Burnham reference differs by failing to teach:
“self-leveling conveyor” (operably connected to the feeding claim (instant claims 1 and 13 (“screw” feature);
“nip feeder” to “selectively distributes … biosolids through the nip an onto first/second drums; (instant claim 1);
Heated (at least 250o F) ” first and second dryer drums” (instant claim 1) with pressurized steam of “about 75Psi-125 Psi (claim 12);
“first and second scrapers” to “remove biosolids attached to first and second drums (claim 18).
--ITEM A. above: “self leveling conveyor of claim 1 (with “screw” claim 13:
CN 111115106-A (with Google Translation) teaches an improvement in “the technical field of electromechanical equipment, in particular to a belt conveyor rotary suspension device capable of automatic levelling i.e. a “self-leveling belt conveyor”. See e.g. abstract; claims and figures, particularly claim 5 (“… is a screw rod lifter…)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to utilize the CN 111115106-A improved “self-leveling conveyor (with screw) in the Burnham reference device as an obvious design choice for the benefits describe in the CN reference document, thus rendering obvious instant claims 1 and 13.
---ITEMS B-D: “nip feeder (claim 1) conveying to first and second “pressurized” (about 75 Psi claim 12) heated (250o F or more) with corresponding scrapers (claim 18).
The Daud handbook provides both single and double steam- heated dryer drums for bio applications (see e.g. 9.6 Drum-Dried Products) that include the “nip” and “nip feeder” as well as the corresponding scrapers (or blades) . For Example:
PNG
media_image3.png
312
797
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Daud teaches steam heating drum temperatures within the scope of the instant invention (e.g. (at least 250o F) as illustrated in Fig. 9.10.
PNG
media_image4.png
394
749
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Similarly, the Vallous reference (referenced in the Daud reference above) tests the performance of a “double drum dryer” for producing pregelatinized maize starches by varying reaction parameters, including drum speed and steam temperatures. (p. 171 bottom-172) to meet “industrial demands”. Under the “Materials and Methods section (pages 173-174), Vallous teaches the following pressurized thermal counter-clockwise rotating drum system with corresponding “scrapers” (indicated as “knife” in the figure) wherein the drums were heated at a “pressure of 10 bar “ (corresponds to 145 psi).
PNG
media_image5.png
492
577
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The above apparatus containing a horizontal feed pipe that “selectively” distributes the feed contents into the “nip” area between the drums would correspond to a “selective nip feeder” as instantly claimed. The Vallous teaching of steam (which normally occurs at temperature of at least 212o F) would render obvious the use of pressure/temperature of the drums by “optimization” of a result-effective variable as taught by the Vallous reference.
Accordingly, the Daud and Vallous references, taken separately, or in combination, provide motivation to substitute a “double drum dryer” for the “single” Burnham drum dryer as replacing one functionally equivalent dryer system with another more improved version. The modifications necessary for utilization (optimum pressure/temperature; scrapers etc.) of the “double drum dryer” are taught by Daud and Vallous and additionally would be “optimized” to address the product drying parameters needed for a particular usage.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Burnham reference process to utilize a “double drum dryer” system with a nip feeder that “selectively” feeds or distributes the biomaterial to the heated dryer drums to permit optimum palletization and fertilizer production.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record, fails to disclose or suggest the use of a “nip feeder” that is stabilized with a dual rails support and activated (or actuated) by a hydraulic ram.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNETT CELSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Zachariah Lucas can be reached at 571-272-0905. 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.
/BENNETT M CELSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights