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
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 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gemmell (WO 2019/038561 from IDS) and further in view of Madolora (US 2018/0093909) and Ejlertsson (US 2007/0184542).
Regarding claim 1 Gemmell discloses a composition for increasing and/or accelerating the anaerobic degradation of organic residues, of agricultural, urban and agro-industrial origin, with a view to their
energy recovery by methanization, characterized in that it is in the form of a powder and
comprises a mixture: (See Gemmell Abstract and Pg 7 Lines 7-11)
- of at least one superabsorbent polymer, said superabsorbent polymer being chosen from the group of water-retaining polymers of natural or synthetic origin which has a water retention capacity greater than or equal to 10 times its weight in demineralized water, preferably greater than or equal to 20 times, advantageously greater than or equal to 30 times (See Gemmell Pg. 7 Lines 30-35)
Gemmell also discloses that the composition can be used in combination with water containing iron but does not specifically disclose the composition comprising iron.
Madolora and Ejlertsson discloses a composition for increasing aneraobic digestion of organic materials by utilizing an iron salt in combination with other additives including polymers. (See Madolora [0009]-[0010] and [0036]-[0037] and Ejlertsson Abstract [0036], and [0061])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide iron as described by Madilora and Ejlertsson to the composition of Gemmell because iron is known to improve anerobic digestion of biomass and reduce harmful material production as would be desirable in the composition of Gemmell.
Furthermore it is noted that both super absorbant polymers and iron are known to improve anaerobic digestion and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine a composition comprising a superabsorbent polymer and a composition comprising iron to form a third composition because It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from theirhaving been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted).
Regarding claim 2 modified Gemmell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the composition characterized in that said iron present in the composition is in the form of a salt soluble in water and chosen from ferrous or ferric salts. (See Madilora [0009] and Ejlertsson [0061])
Regarding claim 3 modified Gemmell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and modified Gemmell discloses that the mass or iron may be adjusted according to use the amount of feedstock treated but does not disclose the ratio of SAP/FE. Iit is noted s the cost of iron materials and amount of feedstock treated are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said relative amount iron in the composition added, with said material cost and amount of feedstock treated both increasing as the amount of relative amount iron in the composition is increased, the precise relative amount iron in the composition would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed relative amount iron in the composition cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the relative amount iron in the composition added in the composition of Gemmell to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the feedstock treated (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 4 modified Gemmell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the composition characterized in that said superabsorbent polymer comprises one or more monomers, chosen from the group of partially or totally salified acrylic acid monomers of the sodium or potassium acrylate (co)polymer type crosslinked with or without post crosslinking. (See Gemmell Pg. 8 Lines 10-20)
Regarding claim 5 Gemmell discloses a process for the treatment by anaerobic degradation of organic waste of agricultural, urban and agro-industrial origin, in a digester with a view to their energy recovery by methanization, comprising ligno-cellulosic residue(See Gemmell Abstract and Pg 5 Line 23- Pg 6 Line 12 wherein anaerobic digestion of ligno-cellulosic residue, i.e. biomass, occurs ina digester, i.e. fermenter, with methanization to produce energy.)
, characterized in that it comprises a step of implementation contact of said waste with a composition comprising at least one superabsorbent polymer and iron and (See Gemmell Pg. 7 Lines 12-35 wherein the composition comprises a superabsorbent polymer and iron is contacted with the waste, i.e. biomass)
characterized in that said composition is brought into contact with water before introduction into the digester SO that the superabsorbent polymer is prehydrated, preferably as close as possible to its maximum water retention capacity. (See Gemmell Pg. 7 Lines 12-38 wherein the composition is prehydrated.)
Gemmell also discloses that the composition can be used in combination with water containing iron but does not specify specifically the composition comprising iron.
Madolora and Ejlertsson discloses a composition for increasing aneraobic digestion of organic materials by utilizing an iron salt in combination with other additives including polymers. (See Madolora [0009]-[0010] and [0036]-[0037] and Ejlertsson Abstract [0036], and [0061])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide iron as described by Madilora and Ejlertsson to the composition of Gemmell because iron is known to improve anerobic digestion of biomass and reduce harmful material production as would be desirable in the composition of Gemmell.
Furthermore it is noted that both super absorbant polymers and iron are known to improve anaerobic digestion and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine a composition comprising a superabsorbent polymer and a composition comprising iron to form a third composition because It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from theirhaving been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted).
Regarding claim 6 modified Gemmell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the process characterized in that the ligno-cellulosic residues are chosen from cereal straw and/or from woody residues. (See Gemmell Pg 10 Lines 30-35 and Pg 12 Lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 7 modified Gemmell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the composition is added as a mixture at some quantity but does not specify the exact amounts being between 0.01 g/L and 0.5 g/L, relative to the volumes of additions of organic cosubstrate, and is carried out as a mixture.
As the cost of materials and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of composition added, with said material cost and operating efficiency both increasing as the amount of composition added is increased, the precise amount of composition added would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of composition added cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of composition added in the method of Gemmell to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 8 modified Gemmell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the process characterized in that said iron present in the composition is soluble in water and chosen from ferrous or ferric salts. (See Madilora [0009] and Ejlertsson [0061])
Regarding to claim 9 modified Gemmell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as and modified Gemmell discloses that the mass or iron may be adjusted according to use the amount of feedstock treated but does not disclose the ratio of SAP/FE.
It is noted s the cost of iron materials and amount of feedstock treated are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said relative amount iron in the composition added, with said material cost and amount of feedstock treated both increasing as the amount of relative amount iron in the composition is increased, the precise relative amount iron in the composition would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed relative amount iron in the composition cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the relative amount iron in the composition added in the composition of Gemmell to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the feedstock treated (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 11 modified Gemmell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the process wherein the superabsorbent polymer is chosen from the group of water-retaining polymers of natural or synthetic origin which has a water retention capacity greater than or equal to 10 times its weight in demineralized water, preferably greater than or equal to 20 times, advantageously greater than or equal to 30. (See Gemmell Pg. 7 Lines 30-35)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-7065. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M HURST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights