DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 5/31/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims were examined in the PCT written opinion without indication of a lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the restriction requirement, the claims lacked unity of invention for the reasons provided. The restriction was made based on the application of PCT standards and not U.S. standards.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/31/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. 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 phrase “wherein oxide based powders inter alia oxides of silicon, titanium, zinc, or aluminum” in line 4 is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear. It is not clear which oxide based powders are included or excluded by the claim language and therefore the scope of the claim cannot be adequately determined.
Also, regarding claim 1, line 9, the phrase 1-90% w/v in water, more preferably >40% w/v in water” is indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation 1-90%, and the claim also recites >40% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the biomedical waste" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, it appears that this claim is intended to be a Markush claim listing alternatives but as currently written it states that the solidifying agent A is all of the components listed in the claim. It is not clear how agent A can be all of the components at the same time and therefore, indefinite. If this is intended to be a Markush grouping, then it is suggested to use language such as “wherein the solid powders of the solidifying agent A are selected from the group consisting of…”
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “where the said basifying agent B is selected from hydroxides of alkali or alkaline earth metals selected from the group comprising of sodium or potassium hydroxide, basic salts of metals and organic cations” is indefinite as the language is not proper Markush format. It is not clear due to the use of “or” and “and” in the grouping. For example, the Markush language should read “selected from the group consisting of a, b, and c”.
Claims 4-8 are rejected for the reasons set forth above with regards to claim 1 by virtue of claim dependency.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 6 are already present in claim 1 from which clam 6 ultimately depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-8 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: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the process as recited in claim 1.
Specifically, the prior art does not teach, as best understood in the present claims, the steps of wherein oxide based powders inter alia oxides of silicon, titanium, zinc or aluminum are added as solid powders from solidifying agent A, to an aqueous solution basified to an alkaline pH in the range of 9 to 14 using the basifying agent B containing the biomedical waste to be disinfected, wherein solid powders of the solidifying agent A is added at a minimum of 1% (w/v) and a maximum of 500% (w/v) of the total aqueous volume and the concentration of the basifying agent B is 1-90% w/v in water, more preferably >40% w/v in water.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is JP 2002210307 A whom teaches (see paragraphs [0008], [0015-0016]; Examples 1-3; claims 1-3) gamma-polyglutamate as a flocculant for use in sewage treatment or wastewater treatment, the composition comprises a cross-linked product of gamma-polyglutamate (0.1 to 10 mg / L) and one or more metal ions selected from aluminum, calcium, iron, and magnesium. However, JP 2002210307 A does not teach or suggest the disinfection and solidification process steps as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike 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).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights