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 .
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 2 and 7 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.
Claims 2 and 7 each recite a method where a crystallization step or tank are configured to form a “struvite calculus”. However, struvite calculus is not a term of art regarding aerobic decomposition of fermentation byproducts. Additionally, it is unclear whether the magnesium addition alone can form the struvite component, or whether other components such as ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorate-phosphorus, etc. are necessarily present for the formation and crystallization of struvite. These claims do not provide clarity with respect to starting components enabling the formation of struvite and are thus indefinite.
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(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaki et al., US 5160621 (Nagasaki) in view of Pirt, US 5540839 (Pirt).
Regarding claim 1, Nagasaki discloses a method of treating high-concentration fermentation byproducts (abstract, fig. 1) comprising:
Introducing fermentation byproducts (REF 1, C1/L7-12, C4/L56-63) and a thermophilic aerobic microorganism (C4/L45-55) into a decomposition tank (REF 3, see “first tank”, C2/L27-35); and
Separating sludge and a remainder produced by reaction between the thermophilic aerobic microorganism and the fermentation byproducts (via REF 6, see “flocculation tank”, C2/L27-35).
While Nagasaki discloses a preferred temperature range of 15-43°C within the tank system (C3/L63-66), Nagasaki does not disclose the decomposition tank provided with a heating device. However, Pirt discloses an organic matter thermophilic digestion method (abstract, fig. 3) wherein an aerobic digester (REF 12, see “thermophilic stage 12”, C4/L5-10) is provided with a heating device (REF 31, see “heat exchanger 31”, C5/L8-13).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill ni the art to modify the method of Nagasaki to include a heating device as described in Pirt since it has been shown that such systems are commonplace to maintain thermophilic temperatures within aerobic digester systems.
Regarding claim 3, Pirt further discloses preheating the organic matter prior to digestion (via REF 30, fig. 3, C5/L8-13).
Claim(s) 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaki in view of Pirt as relied upon in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 set forth above, and in further view of Nagasaki, US 5861100 (Nagasaki’100).
Regarding claim 2, while Nagasaki (in view of Pirt) discloses a separation step involving flocculation and sedimentation of solids (via REF 6, fig. 1, C2/L27-36), Nagasaki (in view of Pirt) does not disclose a crystallization step by adding magnesium and a pH adjuster to the separated components. However, Nagasaki’100 discloses multi-tank reactor systems (figs. 1-2) and methods where separated components are treated with a pH adjuster (see “NaOH”, figs. 1-2) and magnesium aluminate (C2/L52-55) to precipitate
Regarding claim 4, Nagasaki (in view of Pirt) discloses the method being performed by an apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
An outer chamber (REF 3) having a space therein and provided with a heating device (as disclosed in Pirt);
An inner pipe (see “partitions”, fig. 1, C2/L52-56) provided in the outer chamber and having a plurality of holes (see “slit”, C2/L52-56); and
A diffusion device (REF 2, see “air”, C2/L27-36 and “aeration means”, C3/L25-29) disposed at a lower side of the outer chamber and proximate the heating device (Pirt, REF 31, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Nagasaki (in view of Pirt) does not disclose the diffusion device located under the heating device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to locate the diffusion and heating devices as recited in the claim since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144, Section VI, Part C).
Regarding claim 4, Nagasaki (in view of Pirt) does not disclose the apparatus further comprising a stirrer including a vertical shaft disposed in an inner hollow of the inner pipe and a stirring blade protruding horizontally from said vertical shaft. However, Nagasaki’100 discloses reactor systems (abstract, fig. 1) comprising stirrers having a vertical shaft and horizontal blade within an exterior chamber (figs. 1-2, see “stirring rod provided with 2 stirring blades”, C4/L12).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at to modify the method of Nagaski (in view of Pirt) to provide an apparatus comprising a stirrer as described in Nagasaki’100 in order to ensure maximum reactivity can be obtained by constant circulation of system components within the reactor.
Regarding claim 6, Nagasaki (in view of Pirt, Nagasaki’100) discloses a method wherein the device further comprises a separation device (REF 6, fig. 1, see “flocculation tank”, C2/L28-36) configured to separate sludge (see “The Excess Sludge”, fig. 1) and a remainder produced by decomposition of the fermentation byproducts via thermophilic aerobic microorganisms (see “The Supernatant”, fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaki in view of Pirt and Nagasaki’100 as relied upon in the rejection of claims 4 and 6 set forth above, and in further view of Yu et al., US 2008/0251438 (Yu).
Regarding claim 5, Nagasaki (in view of Pirt and Nagasaki’100) does not disclose the heating device comprising a plurality of conductors spaced apart from each other at an interval, a pipe body penetrating the plurality of conductors, and a heating member to penetrate the plurality of conductors. However, Yu discloses a heating device (REF 8, fig. 6) comprising a plurality of conductors (REF 38, see “thin plates”, ¶ 0054) spaced apart from each other at a regular interval, a pipe body penetrating the plurality of conductors (via REF 35) and a heating member (REF 37, see “heater”, ¶ 0032, 0054) installed to penetrate the plurality of conductors.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Nagasaki (in view of Pirt and Nagasaki’100) to utilize the heating device as described in Yu since it has been shown that such devices are effective for the efficient heating and heat transfer of fluid components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights