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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (CONC2021/0014996 – filed 11/05/2021) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/15/2024 has been certified and made of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: vertical pipe (5b). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. For examination purposes
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the height of the biogas outlet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the specification fails to particularly point out the height of the biogas outlet, specifically regarding specific dimensional ranges or the size that comprises a height of the biogas outlet. For examination purposes, if a vertical pipe is present on the upper portion of the tank, this will be seen as meeting the claim limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 5811259 A) (referenced in 892) in view of Ma (US 20210070645 A1) (referenced in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches an organic matter biodigester (biochemical reactor utilizing an immobilized carrier which is useful in applications such as denitrification of waste water – abstract) comprising:
a tank (See annotated FIG. 1 – tank, element 100) having:
an organic matter inlet (FIG. 1, tank inlet, element 106), a first connection arranged in an upper portion of the tank (FIG. 1 below, first circulation port, element 126) and a second connection arranged in a lower portion of the tank (FIG. 1, second circulation port, element 118);
a lower surface (FIG. 1), wherein the lower surface is structurally capable of being configured to rest on a support surface;
wherein the lower portion of the tank is at a shorter distance from the support surface compared to the upper portion of the tank (See annotated FIG. 1 below (upper portion));
PNG
media_image1.png
671
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a manual pump (See annotated FIG. 4 below) with a pump inlet connected to the second connection (FIG. 4), and a pump outlet connected in the first connection of the tank (FIG. 4);
wherein the pump is configured to recirculate organic matter within the tank from the second connection to the first connection (FIG. 4); and
a porous layer arranged inside the tank (FIG. 1 – top divider, element 114).
PNG
media_image2.png
449
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hall fails to teach:
A biogas outlet
Ma teaches a system including an anaerobic digestion tank, which receives biological waste from a sewer line and allows the received biological waste to be digested to produce a combustible gas (abstract). Specifically, Ma teaches a gas outlet through fluid conduit (element 280b), which removes the combustible gas produced within the anaerobic digestion tank (element 204) (para. [0087]). Ma teaches that this gas can be then stored (via gas storage tank – element 212) for power generation (producing electrical power or heat) (para. [0009]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Ma’s teaching of a biogas outlet in Hall’s biodigester because the produced by the anerobic reaction can stored and used for power generation (producing electrical power/heat). This method of improving Hall’s biodigester was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ma. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ma and Hall to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hall teaches the biodigester of claim 1, and Hall further teaches that the porous layer covers no more than 60% of the interior of the tank (See annotated FIG. 1 above – Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hall teaches the biodigester of claim 1. Ma further teaches gas storage tank (element 212), which is used to store combustible gas for power generation (producing electrical power or heat) (para. [0009]). The gas storage tank (element 212) and reservoir found in the claim limitation are structurally the same, as they both allow storing biogas produced within the anerobic tanks. Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (already referenced), Ma (already referenced) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelly et al. (EP 2558421 B1) (referenced in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hall teaches the biodigester of claim 1, but fails to disclose a plurality of conduits with a diameter between 3 cm and 10 cm and a length of between 3 cm and 10 cm. Kelly et al. teaches an anerobic bioreactor (element 11) which contains ordered plastic media (element 111 – structurally the porous layer) with vertical channels (para. [0064]). Kelly et al. specifically teaches that the vertical channels permit easy escape of the biogas bubbles produced by the microbial metabolism (para. [0065]). Structurally, the vertical channels act as a plurality of conduits.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kelly et al.’s teaching of vertical conduits in modified Hall’s biodigester because the vertical channels permit easy escape of the biogas bubbles produced by the microbial metabolism. This method of improving Hall’s biodigester was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kelly et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kelly et al. and modified Hall to obtain the invention specified in claim 2.
Furthermore, regarding the limitation “with a diameter between 3 cm and 10 cm and a length of between 3 cm and 10 cm”, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform routine optimization (MPEP § 2144.05.II) to determine the claimed ranges. As disclosed by Kelly et al., “in order to optimize the rate of destruction of organic waste components and production of biogas, the channel sizes of the plastic media matrix or packed bed were optimized to (i) maximize contact between the liquid in the lumen and the attached biomass matrix, (ii) minimize restriction of liquid flow, (iii) minimize the risk of blocking the channels due to the accumulation of solids and precipitates, (iv) provide enough structural support so that the media stack does not collapse under its own weight with the accumulation of biosolids” (para. [0064]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform routine optimization to optimize the rate of destruction of organic waste components and production of biogas.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hall teaches the biodigester of claim 1, but fails to disclose vertical pipe arranged from the upper portion of the tank. Kelly et al. teaches an anerobic bioreactor (element 11) which contains gas pipe (FIG. 1, element 40b), which enables liberated gas accumulating at the head spaces (upper portion of tank) to exit the bioreactor (para. [0065]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kelly et al.’s teaching of a vertical piping in modified Hall’s biodigester because the piping enables accumulated liberated gas in the upper portion of the tank to exit the reactor. This method of improving Hall’s biodigester was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kelly et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kelly et al. and modified Hall to obtain the invention specified in claim 4.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (already referenced), Ma (already referenced) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernard et al. (WO2009101297A2 with provided Machine Translation) (referenced in 892).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hall teaches the biodigester of claim 1, but fails to disclose a flowmeter connected to the biogas outlet and a sodium hydroxide solution. Bernard et al. teaches a bioreactor for the production of biogas, specifically equipped with gas flow meter (element 548, para. [0093 of MT]) as the biogas produced by the bioreactor is controlled by a CH4/CO2 544 analyzer, an H2 546 sensor and a gas flow meter 548 (para. [0093] of MT). Bernard et al. further teaches “ the addition of a carbon source (such as acetate) in the fermenter is accompanied by the addition of a "neutralizing" chemical substance. This substance is therefore an alkali agent, like sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The Na₂NER₅₃⁻ ions are not consumed by the bioreactor medium, leading to an increase in alkalinity (Z) in the liquid phase, and consequently an increase in pH. Ultimately, a higher percentage of methane is achieved in the biogas due to greater dissolution of carbon dioxide in the liquid phase.” (para. [0078] of MT).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Bernard et al.’s teaching of a gas flow meter and a sodium hydroxide solution in modified Hall’s biodigester because the sodium hydroxide solution would enable a higher percentage of methane is achieved in the biogas, while the flow meter enables the biogas produced by the bioreactor to be controlled. This method of improving Hall’s biodigester was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Bernard et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bernard et al. and modified Hall to obtain the invention specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hall teaches the biodigester of claim 5. Modified Hall (Ma) further teaches a control system (element 250) through using a user interface provided by the electronic control system 250, such as a control panel or a computerized user interface. In response, the electronic control system 250 can record the received values, and operate in accordance with those values (para. [0100] of Ma reference). The combination of references of claim 5 would encompass a structure of a flow meter connected to a control unit to display received values.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hall teaches the biodigester of claim 6. Modified Hall (Ma) further teaches that anaerobic digestion tank can include a first pressure sensor configured to determine a first pressure within the anaerobic digestion tank (para. [0018] of Ma reference). Ma further teaches “sensors 206 can include one or more temperature sensors to monitor the temperature within the anaerobic digestion tank 204. The sensors 206 transmit the temperature measurements to the electronic control system 250” (para. [0104] of Ma reference). The combination of references of claim 6 would encompass a structure of a pressure and temperature sensor connected to the control unit arranged inside the tank.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (already referenced), Ma (already referenced) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gray et al. (US 20080035561 A1) (referenced in 892).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hall teaches the biodigester of claim 1, but fails to disclose a positive displacement pump. Gray et al. teaches process of treating organic waste such as food wastes for anaerobic digestion including preparing a waste-slurry from organic waste (abstract). Gray et al. further teaches that the process “may also have a slurry pumping means which is a positive displacement hose-pump 25 capable of abrasive slurries for transferring the waste-slurry to a paddle pulper/finisher 7” (para. [0016]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Gray et al.’s teaching of a positive displacement pump in modified Hall’s biodigester because a positive displacement pump is capable of pumping abrasive slurries that are present in organic waste. This method of improving Hall’s biodigester was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Gray et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gray et al. and modified Hall to obtain the invention specified in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 PM.
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.
/J.F.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights