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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-8, drawn to a method for conditioning advanced anaerobic digestion sludge.
Group II, claim(s) 9, drawn to a floc particle.
Group III, claim(s) 10, drawn to use of a method for sludge treatment and disposal.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I, II and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of particles having D10: 70-150 μm, D50: 200-400 μm, D90: >500 μm, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Zare et al. (WO 2021/184073) teaches dewatering of sludge, wherein sludge particles comprises a D10 in the range of from about 10 μm up to 120 μm, and/or a D50 in the range of from about 50 μm up to 400 μm, and/or a D90 in the range of from about 130 μm up to 500 μm.
During a telephone conversation with Ronni Jillions on 06/02/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The non-patent literatures cited at Cite No 1 and 2 in the information disclosure statement dated 02/27/2024 have not been considered by the examiner because the non-patent literatures are not in English.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the floc particles meet the following requirements: D10: 70-150 μm, D50: 200-400 μm, D90: >500 μm” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is range for D90. D90 represents 90% of floc particles that are below a specific size limit. >500 is indefinite because it does not have an upper limit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 is allowable over prior arts Liu et al. (CN113415963A, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), Wu et al. (WO 2018/046676A1)
Liu teaches a sludge treatment method comprising mixing sludge with cationic organic flocculant (polyacrylamide) (refer abstract) and carrying out primary dehydration treatment to obtain primary dehydrated sludge (Refer abstract); amount of polyacrylamide to be 1% to 10% (Refer page 3); adding aggregate to the flocculated particles (refer page 3 disclosing adding biological carbon), wherein amount of biological carbon is 10 to 40 wt% of sludge (refer page 3); adding inorganic agent to the mixture (Refer page 3 disclosing adding flocculating agent comprising inorganic polymer flocculating agent), wherein amount of inorganic agent is 0 to 20 wt% (Refer page 3), and dehydrating sludge to reduce water content 55 to 70wt% (refer page 3-4).
Liu does not disclose the step of “( 4) adjusting a particle size of floe particles obtained in step (3) using second cationic organic flocculant, so that the floe particles meet the following requirements: D10: 70-150 μm, D50: 200-400 μm, D90: >500 μm”.
Wu teaches a method similar to Liu comprising steps of providing an inorganic coagulant; adding said inorganic coagulant to the sludge to provide a chemically treated sludge; providing a polymer; providing microparticles; adding the polymer and microparticles to the chemically treated to provide a chemically conditioned sludge; and dewatering the chemically conditioned sludge using a mechanical equipment to obtain a dewatered sludge cake (Refer abstract). However, Wu fails to remedy deficiencies of Liu.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights