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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 05 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the inventions of claims 1-10 and 11-16 share a common technical feature. This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the requirement for restriction mailed 05 June 2026, the invention of claims 1-10 is directed at the composition/process for disinfection and flocculation of medical waste while the technical feature of the claims 11-16 is directed at the structure of a container.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 1-10 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 claims 1, 3, and 9, the phrases "inter alia" and “such as” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “wherein amount of the waste added is less than 1:1000 (v/v) of solution B for liquid waste” does not properly define the necessary amount of liquid waste added in comparison to the amount of solution used. Therefore, it is unclear when the limitations of claim 6 are met. Thus, making the claim indefinite. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “solution B” in line 2 of the claim.
Claims 2, 4-8, and 10 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burns (US 20090245939 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burns teaches a process for disinfection followed by in situ flocculation and solidification by disinfection-flocculation-solidification and disposal system, wherein disinfection composition comprising of a four chemical components A, B, C, and D (method and method for clean-up of spills or contaminates, abstract), wherein: (a) A is a silicate of an alkali metal selected from the group consisting of sodium, potassium, and combinations thereof in its 20-40% aqueous solution at a concentration of 0.5-80% (w/v) (at least one alkali metal, abstract, and alkali metal is sodium, potassium or combination with a concentration between 20-60%, paragraph [0078], and Table 2 Entry 6 sodium silicate “N-Clear” 36% of solution); (b) B is a base at a concentration of 0.1-90% w/v added to an aqueous solution of A (sodium silicate solution was modified by adding sodium percarbonate at 12 weight percent, paragraph [0147]); (c) C is an organic or inorganic acid miscible completely in water (water soluble acid, abstract, and soluble acid is selected from organic acids, claim 6); (d) D is a solidifying agent selected from an oxide or a phosphate based powder inter alia oxides/phosphates of silicon, titanium, zinc, aluminum, or lanthanide elements such as cerium or lanthanum (water soluble flocculation agent selected from a group including aluminum chlorohydrate, claim 12).
Regarding claim 3, Burns teaches wherein C is an organic or inorganic acid with a general formula HnX wherein X is selected from a group of anions inter alia halides, acetate, sulphate, and phosphate, and n is an integer such that 1 ≤ n ≤ 3 (the water soluble acid is selected from a group consisting of phosphoric acid or acetic acid, claim 7).
Regarding claim 5, Burns teaches the steps of: (a) additional of B to an aqueous solution of A (sodium silicate solution was modified by adding sodium percarbonate at 12 weight percent, paragraph [0147]); (b) additional of a biomedical waster to be disinfected to the said aqueous solution as prepared in step (a) (allowing first solution to contact the contaminant by mixing, claim 19, and toxic materials include medical wastes, paragraph [0025]); (c) homogeneous mixing of the mixture as in (b) and/or resting for 10-30 minutes, wherein the obtained mixture is characterized as flocculated (set mixture aside until thirty total minutes have elapsed, paragraph [0170]); and (d) addition of material C and material D as its solid powder followed by mixing and/or resting, wherein the obtained mixture is characterized as solidified (allowing second solution containing acid and flocculating agent to contact first solution and contaminant to form a homogeneous mixture, claim 19).
Regarding claim 8, Burns teaches wherein solid A is added at a minimum of 1% (w/v) and a maximum of 500% (w/v) of the total aqueous volume in the mixture obtained in step (c) (at least one alkali metal, abstract, and alkali metal is sodium, potassium or combination with a concentration between 20-60%, paragraph [0078], and Table 2 Entry 6 sodium silicate “N-Clear” 36% of solution).
Regarding claim 9, Burns teaches wherein the biomedical waste samples used in step (b) is selected from the group consisting of salt, sugar, metal salts and complexes, aqueous waste, hospital chemicals such as iodine, saliva, urine, blood, or and solid sample, inter alia cotton, tissue paper, needle, syringes, or swabs alone or in combination thereof, whereby disinfection is effected by the high pH of solution A containing B (hazardous materials include toxic industrial chemicals, toxic materials, and chemical biological agents, paragraph [0024], and toxic materials include biological substances like blood borne pathogens, paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Burns teaches wherein said process assists in either flocculation leading to soft flocculated solids when terminated at step (c) (flocculation-coagulation interaction is immediate, paragraph [0056]) or solidification leading to hard solids when continued to step (d) (second formation added for the purpose of microencapsulating the by-products in a non-leachable solid form, paragraph [0025]).
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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns.
Regarding claim 6, while Burns does not explicitly teach wherein the amount of waste added is less than 1:1000 (v/v) of solution B for liquid waste and any immersible amount of solid waste or a mixture thereof. Burns teaches adjusting the ratio of disinfection flocculation solution based on the target waste being treated (add 1 mL of spore suspicion to a total of 25 mL solution of sodium silicate and acidic polymer, paragraph [0183], and waste was encapsulated with a ratio of 1 part waste to 2 parts sodium silicate and acidic polymer formulation, paragraph [0133]). Burns additionally teaches the use of the composition on solid waste (surface with spores and anthrax stimulant was washed by immersing the object, paragraph [0198]). Generally, differences in concentration will not support patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio between the target waste and the disinfection flocculation composition to achieve the desired waste treatment through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns in view of Nunn (US 20080286383 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Burns teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein B, the base is selected from group consisting of hydroxides of alkali or alkaline earth metals selected from the group consisting of sodium or potassium hydroxide, basic salts of metals and organic cations, leading to a final pH in the range 9-14 when added to solution A, in the range 0.1-5 g/mL of A. However, Nunn teaches wherein B, the base is selected from group consisting of hydroxides of alkali or alkaline earth metals selected from the group consisting of sodium or potassium hydroxide, basic salts of metals and organic cations (caustic solution may comprise hydroxides of any one or more of sodium and potassium, paragraph [0076]), leading to a final pH in the range 9-14 when added to solution A, in the range 0.1-5 g/mL of A (ratio of ingredients can be about 160g NaOH to 320g rice hull ash to 3 liters of water to result in aqueous biogenic silica at pH of about 13.5, paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
Burns and Nunn are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in field of waste solidification compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disinfection solidification composition taught by Burns with the base agent resulting in a pH in the range of 9-14 as taught by Nunn because Nunn teaches that a higher pH generally makes the solution more effective (paragraph [0114]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns in view of Liu (CN 107055727 A).
Regarding claim 7, Burns teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the amount of C added is 0.1-3mL per mL of the total aqueous mixture obtained in step (b) (add 7.0 mL of the acidic polymer to 10.0 mL of the alkaline sodium silicate formulation containing 5.0 mL of sodium percarbonate, paragraph [0147], and pH of acidic polymer controlled by acid including acetic acid, paragraph [0096]), but does not teach wherein C is glacial acetic acid. However, Liu teaches the use of glacial acetic acid in a flocculating composition (preferably the flocculant is prepared with glacial acetic acid, paragraph [0016]).
Burns and Liu are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of waste solidification compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disinfection solidification composition taught by Burns with the use of glacial acetic acid taught by Liu because Liu teaches that such a flocculant can advantageously disrupt the stability of waste liquid and effectively remove a large amount of surfactants from waste liquid (paragraph [0017]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art is Burns as identified above. However, Burns fails to teach wherein the solidifying agent is selected from the options outlined in claim 4. Additionally, the supplemental references identified as Nunn and Liu above fail to teach or provide a suggestion that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the to modify Burns to include the solidifying agents required by claim 4. The prior art as a whole fails to teach claimed invention of claim 4 within the claim environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (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 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
