Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 5/16/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-12, 14, 16-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK, in view of U.S. 2,830,869 LIMERICK, hereinafter LIMERICK.
As for claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 21 SMOOK discloses that kraft pulp mills produce odor including TRS (total reduced sulfur) and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) [pg. 393 col. 2; Table 27-3]. The TRS of SMOOK include sulfides and mercaptans. SMOOK discloses both measuring the pollution at the source for process control with automatic monitoring devices[pg. 394 col. 1] and ambient sampling to measure prevailing wind [pg. 395 col. 2 par. 2].
SMOOK discloses controlling TRS by controlling recovery boiler operations [pg. 397 col. 1; in process abatement] and control equipment like wet-scrubbers [pg. 399 col. 1].
SMOOK does not disclose delivery of an odor control agent based on comparison of the measured characteristic to target air characteristic.
LIMERICK discloses kraft pulp mills produce reduced sulfides including hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan and dimethyl disulfide [col. 1 lines 53-57]. LIMERICK suggests adding ozone as an odor control agent to the stack of a recovery boiler, digester, or evaporator [col. 3 lines 1-5]. LIMERICK discloses that the amount of ozone added is based on the level of sulfides in the stack; a higher amount of sulfides requires a higher amount of ozone while a lower amount requires less ozone to be supplied [col. 3 lines 45-50].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to measure the TRS of the stack of SMOOK and use that value to control the amount of ozone added as an odor control agent as suggested by LIMERICK. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to control any TRS that escapes into the stack and therefore control odors as suggested by LIMERICK with a reasonable capital investment and minimal daily operating costs while eliminating noxious odors [col. 1 lines 15-26]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as both LIMERICK and SMOOK discloses control kraft TRS odors and LIMERICK provides an additional solution to do so.
As for claims 6 and 21, SMOOK discloses both measuring the pollution at the source for process control with automatic monitoring devices[pg. 394 col. 1] and discloses a maximum concentration at which TRS is detectable. LIMERICK discloses that the amount of ozone added is based on the level of sulfides in the stack; a higher amount of sulfides requires a higher amount of ozone while a lower amount requires less ozone to be supplied [col. 3 lines 45-50].
As for claim 7, SMOOK discloses hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans [pg. 394 Table 27-2]. LIMERICK also discloses mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide [col. 1 lines 54-56].
As for claim 8, SMOOK discloses that the TRS gases have an odor threshold [pg. 394 Table 27-2]. The odor threshold for each of these gases is below 100 ppb. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to target near these odor thresholds to prevent from being able to smell these gases.
As for claims 9 and 22, SMOOK discloses that TRS is controlled by in process abatement [pg. 197 col. 1 and 2] which includes controlling recovery boiler conditions and black liquor conditions. LIMERICK states that typically a recovery boiler has low TRS but this can increase when it is overloaded [col. 3 lines 25-30]. Likewise, SMOOK discloses incomplete combustion can cause high TRS [pg. 397 col. 2 par. 1]. At the time of invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to start the flow of the ozone of LIMERICK when the TRS was over a certain level and to stop the flow of ozone when it was below a certain level. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as ozone has a cost and therefore stopping the flow when not needed would save money.
As for claim 12, the odor control agent of LIMERICK is added at the stack of the recovery boiler which is the location from where the odorous gases are emitted [col. 3 lines 1-5]
As for claim 16, the ozone of LIMERICK reacts with the TRS to oxidize them [col. 3 lines 10-12 and col. 4 lines 20-22]
As for claim 17, LIMERICK discloses that the amount of ozone added is based on the level of sulfides in the stack; a higher amount of sulfides requires a higher amount of ozone while a lower amount requires less ozone to be supplied [col. 3 lines 45-50].
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK, in view of U.S. 2011/0009986 PAGE et al., hereinafter PAGE.
As for claims 1, 2, 14, 18, and 19, SMOOK discloses that kraft pulp mills produce odor including TRS (total reduced sulfur) and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) [pg. 393 col. 2; Table 27-3]. SMOOK discloses multiple locations for air emissions [pg. 392 Figure 27-2] including digests recovery boilers, and causticizers. The TRS of SMOOK include sulfides and mercapatans. SMOOK also discloses the use of scrubbers for removing odorous pollutants [table 27-2]. SMOOK discloses both measuring the pollution at the source for process control with automatic monitoring devices[pg. 394 col. 1] and ambient sampling to measure prevailing wind [pg. 395 col. 2 par. 2]. SMOOK discloses measuring wind direction and speed [pg. 396 Figure 27-7].
SMOOK does not disclose using wind speed or direction to control the delivery of an odor control agent.
PAGE is in the relevant art of controlling odor from emissions sites [abstract]. PAGE like SMOOK discloses measuring wind direction and speed [0027]. PAGE discloses the use of scrubbers to remove pollutants [0036]. PAGE discloses taking the water information including wind direction and speed along with a measured odor level and calculating an odor level at a remote site [0026]. PAGE discloses supplying oxidants such as ozone and sodium hypochlorite [0039 and 0044] or masking additives like essential oils [0037 and 0045]. PAGE discloses that these odor control agents can be supplied when a target threshold (124) is exceeded and dynamically controlling the odor control systems based upon said target threshold [0031].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the odor control system [Figure 1] of PAGE to the air/emissions odor control system of SMOOK. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the system of PAGE allows dynamic control based potential odors at different locations and different times [0028-0029] thereby saving energy, maintenance and replenishment costs (i.e. the chemicals) [0055].
As for claims 3, 5, 17, and 20, PAGE discloses measuring wind speed and direction [0031] and calculating the effect on a specific location [0029] including residential areas or a hospital [0029] and setting a target threshold (118) for odor at the emission site (the pulp mill of SMOOK). PAGE then discloses that odor control systems [0037 and 0045] can be dynamically controlled based on this data [0031]. Therefore the controller (128) of PAGE will stop if the pollution requirements are under a threshold and will start when the pollution requirements are over a threshold.
As for claim 4, the processing module (116) of PAGE calculates the odor threshold (118) based on the weather data (110), distance (120), specific remote site (126) and odor threshold of said site (124) [Figure 1]. Therefore the odor controller (128) of PAGE will decrease or stop delivery of odor control agents when the remote odor threshold is no longer met [Figure 1, 0031].
As for claim 6 and 21, SMOOK discloses a point source sensor of source sampling [pg. 394 col. 1] PAGE also discloses source sampling (106) at the emission site [Figure 1, 0019, 0022].
As for claim 7, SMOOK discloses hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans [pg. 394 Table 27-2].
As for claim 8, SMOOK discloses that the TRS gases have an odor threshold [pg. 394 Table 27-2]. The odor threshold for each of these gases is below 100 ppb. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to target near these odor thresholds to prevent from being able to smell these gases at the remote locations of PAGE.
As for claims 9 and 22, the processing module (116) of PAGE calculates the odor threshold (118) based on the weather data (110), distance (120), specific remote site (126) and odor threshold of said site (124) [Figure 1; i.e. the target concentration.]. Therefore the odor controller (128) of PAGE will decrease or stop delivery of odor control agents when the remote odor threshold is no longer met [Figure 1, 0031].
As for claims 10, 11, and 13, SMOOK discloses scrubbers with liquid for scrubbing the malodorous gases [pg. 400 Table 27-7] and SMOOK discloses that scrubbers spray the liquid [pg. 4009 Table 27-7]. SMOOK discloses multiple locations for air emissions [pg. 392 Figure 27-2] including digests recovery boilers, and causticizers.
As for claim 12, SMOOK discloses the use of scrubbers which is the location that malodorous gases are emitted [pg. 400 Table 27-7. SMOOK also discloses adding the proper amount of combustion air to the recovery boiler [pg. 397 col. 1]. In this case the combustion air acts as an odor control agent.
As for claim 15, PAGE disclose essential oils can be used to cover up smells [0037, 0045].
As for claim 16, PAGE discloses supplying oxidants such as ozone and sodium hypochlorite [0039 and 0044]. SMOOK also discloses adding the proper amount of combustion air to the recovery boiler [pg. 397 col. 1]. In this case the combustion air (oxygen) acts as an odor control agent which is reacting with hydrogen sulfide to form sulfates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748