DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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 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.
Withdrawal Objections and Rejections
Applicant's response, filed 12/11/2025, has been fully considered.
In view of the amendment and remarks from 12/11/2025, the objection to the specification and the rejection of the following claims are withdrawn:
claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101;
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The following rejections and/or objections are either maintained or newly applied for claims 1-13 and 17-18. They constitute the complete set applied to the instant application. Herein, "the previous Office action" refers to the Non-Final Rejection of 06/23/2025.
Status of the Claims
Claims 14-16 an 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-13 and 17-18 are pending.
Claims 1 and 18 are independent.
Claim 1 is objected to.
Claims 1-13 and 17-18 are rejected.
Priority
This US application 17/563,103 (12/28/2021) does not claim priority to any domestic or foreign applications as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 01/27/2022. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged; and the effective filing date of claims 1-13 and 17-18 is 12/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed herein.
Claim objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality related to grammar/punctuation: the recited "microalgae; and displaying …" should read "microalgae; displaying …". In contrast, the issue above does not repeat for "display; and deciding …" because the element recited is indeed the last one on the list of elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
Recited instances of "predictive analytics" (claim 17)
The above recitations include means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here "analytics") and function and/or result (here "predictive" analysis).
The above recitations are not sufficiently well-known and not accompanied by sufficient structure in the claims to prevent invoking. Therefore, each is interpreted as invoking.
Having invoked, the above recitation has been analyzed as clearly linking to the specification at (pg. 10 line 20).
However, that linked disclosure is insufficient to satisfy 112(f), and corresponding 112(a) and 112(b) rejections apply below.
Recited instances of "visual analytics" (claim 17)
The above recitations include means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here "analytics") and function and/or result (here "visual" analysis).
The above recitations are not sufficiently well-known and not accompanied by sufficient structure in the claims to prevent invoking. Therefore, each is interpreted as invoking.
Having invoked, the above recitation has been analyzed as clearly linking to the specification at (pg. 10 line 20).
However, that linked disclosure is insufficient to satisfy 112(f), and corresponding 112(a) and 112(b) rejections apply below.
Regarding recitations above interpreted as invoking 112(f)
If applicant does not intend to have interpreted under 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend to avoid them being interpreted under 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
112(a) written description rejections based on 112(f) as discussed in interpretations above
Claim 17 rejected under 112/a as failing to comply with the written description requirement at least due to the 112(f) issues identified in the above interpretations section. The claims read on subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as satisfy 112(f). Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted.
The following recitations cause the indicated claims to be rejected under 112(a):
"predictive analytics" (claim 17)
"visual analytics" (claim 17)
MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains.
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by amending so as not to invoke 112(f) and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations in order to satisfy 112(f). MPEP 2163 generally pertains.
The recited "predictive analytics" and "visual analytics" (claim 17) are interpreted as computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. The instant specification at pg. 10 line 20 indicated that the recited evaluation step is performed by a computing device; however the described "a manner known per se" does not clarify the algorithm responsible for the function because a bare statement that known methods can be used is insufficient structure in the context of a mean-plus-function limitation. MPEP 2181.II.A states "However, "[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation.".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the invention. Dependent claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted below. The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112(b) as indefinite:
The following recitations require but lack antecedent basis, rendering their claims indefinite:
a. claims 1 and 18, "the simulation" and "the fermentation process"
b. claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 13, and 18, "the group consisting of"
There are no previous recitation for said terms in the claims. To overcome this rejection, said term could be amended to: "a simulation", "a fermentation process" and "a group consisting of" – in instances where these are being recited for the first time in the claims.
112(b) rejections related to 112(f):
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention at least due to the 112(f) issues identified in the above interpretations section. The claims read on subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as satisfy 112(f).
The following recitations cause the indicated claims to be rejected under 112(b):
"predictive analytics" (claim 17)
"visual analytics" (claim 17)
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by amending so as not to invoke 112(f) and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations in order to satisfy 112(f). For more information, see MPEP 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more Judicial Exceptions (JEs) without significantly more. Regarding JEs, "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas..., natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 §I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
101 background
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Analysis of instant claims
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Claims 1-13 and 17 are directed to a 101 process, here a "method," with process steps such as "receiving" etc.
Claim 18 is directed to a 101 machine or manufacture, here a "system," comprising at least one non-transitory element such as " a network."
[Step 1: claims 1-13 and 17-18: Yes]
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Background
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
• mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships
and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or
• mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Analysis of instant claims
Mathematical concepts recited in instant claims 1, 13, and 18, include the terms:
• "simulate/simulation" (claims 1 and 18);
• "algorithm/utilizing an algorithm" (claims 1, 13, and 18); and
• "parameter/value" (claims 1 and 18).
Said terms are being identified as mathematical concepts. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. In this instant disclosure, pg. 10 line 22 to pg. 21 line 10 describes the application of a system of mathematical equations. Thus, the recited terms corresponds to verbal equivalents of mathematical concepts because they constitute actions executed by a group of mathematical steps in a form of a mathematical algorithm; thus mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). A mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) pertains
Mental processes, defined as concepts or steps practically performed in the human mind such as steps of observations, evaluations, judgments, analysis, opinions or organizing information include "deciding the fermentation conditions" (claims 1 and 18).
Under the BRI, the recited limitations are mental processes because a human mind is sufficiently capable of making decisions based on data results.
Dependent claims 2, 4, and 6-13 recite further details about the simulation parameters; not reciting any additional non-abstract elements; all reciting further aspects of the information being analyzed, the manner in which that analysis is performed. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas. The instant claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong One: claims 1-13 and 17-18: Yes ]
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Background
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Analysis of instant claims
Instant claims 1 and 18 recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
• "receiving/receive an input/modification" (claims 1 and 18) and
• "displaying a result/display" (claims 1 and 18).
Dependent claims 3 and recite further details about the "receiving" step; dependent claim 17 recites further details about the "displaying" step.
The recited limitations in claim 1 and 18 are interpreted to require the use of a computer. The use of a computer is broadly interpreted and not actually described in the claims or specification. Hence, the claims explicitly recite steps executed by computers and therefore can be described as computer functions or instructions to implement on a generic computer.
As such, the recited claims read on data gathering activities or the type of data being gathered; not amounting to a practical application. There are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed computer, processor, or computer readable medium require anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims (i.e. the application of the algorithm to receive input and display results). Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
The type of data doesn’t change that it is mere data gathering or conventional computer receiving means. Dependent claims limitation is mere data gathering activity because the simulations are utilized to gather information that is used as input for the subsequent mathematical calculations.
Claims directed to "receiving" and "displaying" read on receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321 - MPEP 2106.05(a) pertains; which constitutes just necessary data gathering and outputting and therefore correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity.
As recited in the claims, there is not real life application of the results claimed in a form of a practical step that realizes the judicial exception (i.e. "applying" the results in an actual microalgae fermentation procedure).
Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore the claims do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; 2106.05(f); and 2106.05(g)).
In Step 2A, Prong One above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In this Step 2A, Prong Two immediately above claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more additional elements. Additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B below.
Here in Step 2A, Prong Two, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, Prong Two considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement (e.g. specification: pg. 15 lines 17-19).
[Step 2A Prong Two: claims 1-13 and 17-18: No]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during examination that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
Claims 1 and 18 recite a computer or computer functions, interpreted as instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, where the computer does not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions; which can be performed without the use of a computer (MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the courts have found that receiving and outputting/displaying data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versa ta Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il)(i)).
When the claims are considered as a whole, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; they do not confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology; they do not solve a problem rooted in or arising from the use of a particular technology; they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(h).
[Step 2B: claims 1-13 and 17-18: No]
Conclusion: Instant claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter
For these reasons, the claims in this instant application, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so instant claims 1-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to applicant's remarks in regard to Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 101
The Remarks of 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term "Step 2B Prong 2"(pg. 11 para. 2) is being interpreted as "Step 2A Prong 2", as the 101 analysis does not comprise a Step 2B Prong 2.
The applicant asserts in pg. 11 para. 2 (emphasis added), which represents the only Applicant remarks specific to 101 and the instant claims:
… to integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea, the algorithm of the amended Claim 1) into a practical application because the parameter and the varied result can be used to decide the fermentation conditions according to the result and the varied result, thereby improving microalgae production.
It appears that these remarks address Step 2A, Prong Two – 1st consideration regarding improvement over the previous state of a technology field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). It is not yet clear what is the particularly asserted improvement, "applying decisions" for "improving microalgae production". As examples, it would help to narrow "better" to particular aspects. It is not clear what is real life application of the results claimed in a form of a practical step that realizes the judicial exception (i.e. "applying" the results in an actual microalgae fermentation procedure). It is not what are the real-world effects of any asserted improvements, in order to create a nexus between the identified judicial exceptions and any practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
A. Claims 1-11, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dormido (“An Interactive Tool for Outdoor Computer Controlled Cultivation of Microalgae in a Tubular Photobioreactor System” Sensors 14(3):4466-4483 (2014)) in view of Klassen (“A novel one-stage cultivation/fermentation strategy for improved biogas production with microalgal biomass” Journal of Biotechnology 215:44–51 (2015)) in view of Yew (“Chlorella vulgaris FSP-E cultivation in waste molasses: Photo-to-property estimation by artificial intelligence” Chemical Engineering Journal 402:126230 (2020)) in view of Ogbonna (“An integrated solar and artificial light system for internal illumination of photobioreactors” Journal of Biotechnology 70:289–297 (1999)) in view of Singh (“Exploring the effects of different combinations of predictor variables for the treatment of wastewater by microalgae and biomass production” Biochemical Engineering Journal 174:108129 (2021)) in view of Ge (“Microalgae Recovery from Water for Biofuel Production Using CO2‑Switchable Crystalline Nanocellulose” Environ. Sci. Technol. 50:7896−7903 (2016)) in view of Hossain ("Progress in physicochemical parameters of microalgae cultivation for biofuel production." Critical reviews in biotechnology 39(6):835-859 (2019)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Dormido teaches an interactive tool used for computer controlled cultivation of microalgae method via a photobioreactor (pg. 4466 para. 1). Bullet points indicate the teachings of the instant features over the prior art. Instantly claimed elements which are considered to be equivalent to the prior art teachings are described in bold for all claims.
Claim 1 recites:
receiving an input from a user, wherein the input comprises an identification of a microalgae, an identification of a culture media, an identification of an enclosure, and an identification of fermentation conditions for the microalgae when the microalgae is located in the culture media and when the microalgae and the culture media are located in the enclosure; utilizing an algorithm of the engine to simulate fermentation of the microalgae
• Dormido teaches a simulator programmed (i.e. algorithm) for the creation of interactive dynamic simulations by users (pg. 4475 para. 3) and cultivation of microalgae method via a photobioreactor (i.e. enclosure) (pg. 4466 para. 1); wherein culture controlled parameters to be identified include culture parameters (pg. 4470 para. 1); wherein identification of microalgae and enclosure is considered for the scheme of the microalgae culture (pg. 4470 Fig. 2); wherein measures required for operation includes the ambient temperature, the temperature at the inlet and outlet of the exchanger, the medium temperature water, the turbidity, the molar flow of CO2, the solar radiation, the air flow, the flow rate of cooling water, the medium flow, the flow of CO2, and the frequency of the CO2 injection pump (i.e. identification of fermentation conditions) (pg. 4472 para. 5).
• Dormido does not explicitly teach “simulating microalgae fermentation”. However, Klassen teaches a method for cultivation strategy as a pretreatment for microalgal biomass generation for the subsequent anaerobic fermentation process (pg. 44 para. 1); wherein algae biomass was subjected to the anaerobic fermentation process (pg. 46 col. 1 para. 6).
displaying a result of the simulation to the user via a display; receiving, from the user, a modification of a parameter associated with one of the fermentation conditions to vary the result; utilizing the algorithm to simulate fermentation of the microalgae; and displaying a varied result of the simulation to the user via the display; deciding the fermentation conditions according to the result and the varied result
• Dormido teaches that users can manipulate essential variables for microalgae growth to design an optimal photobioreactor (pg. 4466 para. 1), play/pause/reset the simulation (pg. 4470 para. 3) and view the results displayed in the screen via a graphical user interface (pg.4476 Fig. 4); wherein a parameter can be interactively changed when the user wants to change the precision of the results (i.e. deciding to make changes to the conditions based on varied results) (pg. 4473 para. 3).
wherein the parameter is selected from the group consisting of: a pH level of the microalgae, a wavelength of irradiance of light onto the microalgae during the fermentation process, a type of light used during the fermentation process, a feedstock for the microalgae, a carbon source of the culture media in which the microalgae is located, a growth temperature for the microalgae, a flow rate of air into the enclosure during the fermentation process, a flow rate of air/02 mixtures into the enclosure during the fermentation process, a length of the fermentation process of the microalgae, a flow rate of noble gases into the enclosure during the fermentation process, and an incubation time period for the microalgae under a mixotrophic growth condition
• Dormido teaches a control system for microalgae cultivation three pH sensors (i.e. pH level of the microalgae), three temperature sensors situated in the external loop (i.e. growth temperature) and the two dissolved oxygen sensors (i.e. flow rate of air/02 mixtures into the enclosure during the fermentation process); where a time-based mode controller is shown for a simulation of 24 hrs. (i.e. a length of the fermentation process of the microalgae) (pg. 4479 Fig. 8).
• Dormido does not teach: a wavelength of irradiance of light onto the microalgae during the fermentation process, a type of light used during the fermentation process, a feedstock for the microalgae, a carbon source of a culture media in which the microalgae is located, a flow rate of air into the enclosure during the fermentation process, a flow rate of noble gases into the enclosure during the fermentation process, and an incubation time period for the microalgae under a mixotrophic growth condition.
• However, Yew teaches an AI algorithm to estimate multivariate properties of waste molasses-cultivated microalgae (i.e. molasses being the carbon source of a culture media in which the microalgae is located) (pg. 2 col. 2 para. 2); wherein the availability of carbon source is derived from the nutrients such as monosaccharides, disaccharides and organic compounds to sustain the cell growth (i.e. feedstock for the algae) (pg. 2 col. 1 para. 2).
• Ogbonna teaches the wavelength distribution of the direct solar light and the transmitted light on the surface of the light radiators (i.e. a wavelength of irradiance of light onto the microalgae during the fermentation process and a type of light used during the fermentation process) (pg. 293 Fig. 4).
• Singh teaches a mixotrophic cultivation type with a cultivation period of 2-45 days (i.e. incubation time period for the microalgae under a mixotrophic growth condition) (pg. 2 Table 1); where the air flow rate is disclosed (i.e. a flow rate of air into the enclosure during the fermentation process) (pg. 4 Table 2).
• Ge teaches microalgal harvesting being modified by changing the flow rate of inert gas introduction (i.e. flow rate of noble gases) (pg. 7897 col. 1 para. 3).
the varied result is selected from the group consisting of: a varied color of the microalgae, a varied aroma of the microalgae, a varied texture of the microalgae, a varied viscosity of the microalgae, and a varied nutritional value of the microalgae.
• Dormido does not teach the recited limitation. However, Hossain teaches the progress in physicochemical parameters of microalgae cultivation (pg. 835 Title); wherein culture period results included a varied color of the microalgae with the microalgae color
turning into yellowish/brownish color from green (pg. 847 col. 1 para. 1).
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the microalgae comprise a photoreceptor sensitive to a region of a visible spectrum.
• Dormido does not teach the recitation above. However, Yew teaches a method for the exploitation of the deep colouration properties of molasses-cultivated Chlorella vulgaris microalgae via photo-to-property estimation (pg. 1 para. 1); wherein the spectral information is equivalent to the image color under visible light regime (i.e. region of a visible spectrum) (pg. 4 col. 1 para. 2).
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the enclosure comprises one or more holes, wherein the enclosure comprises a bioreactor or a photobioreactor, and wherein the bioreactor comprises a fermentation tank.
• Dormido does not teach the recitation above. However, Ogbonna teaches the design of an internally illuminated stirred tank photobioreactor (pg. 289 para. 1) for algal cultivation in bioreactors with the solar light collection (pg. 296 col. 1 para. 2); wherein one or more holes can be observed in said tank (291 Fig. 1).
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the engine is selected from the group consisting of: an application, a software program, a service, and a software platform configured to be executable on the computing device
• Dormido teaches an interactive tool used for computer controlled cultivation of microalgae method via a photobioreactor (pg. 4466 para. 1); wherein a complete system including data capture system and the control software which actually control and monitor all the facility activity (pg. 4472 para. 1); wherein the components of the described interface provide the basic functionality required to operate the application (pg. 4477 para. 3); wherein the simulator has been programmed with EJS, a freeware open-source tool developed in Java (i.e. software platform configured to be executable on the computing device) (pg. 4475 para. 4).
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the enclosure further comprises one or more light sources implanted into each of the one or more holes, and wherein each of the one or more light sources produces an irradiance of light in the region of the visible spectrum in a sufficient intensity to transduce the photoreceptor of the microalgae.
• Dormido does not teach the recitation above. However, Ogbonna teaches a method for solar light collection and transmission into the photobioreactor (pg. 291 col. 2 para. 1); wherein the wavelength spectrum of the light collected in within the visible range (pg. 293 Fig.4); wherein microalgae growth using only solar light transmitted through the optical fibers was observed (i.e. each light source produces an irradiance of light in the region of the visible spectrum in a sufficient intensity to transduce the photoreceptor of the microalgae – transduction being interpreted as the activation of downstream signaling that leads to a molecular event such as growth of the microalgae) (pg. 294 Fig. 6).
Claim 6 recites:
wherein each of the one or more light sources includes an artificial light source.
• Dormido does not teach the recitation above. However, Yew teaches equipped with external LED parallel lighting source at room temperature (i.e. LED is an artificial light source) (pg. 3 col. 1 para. 1).
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the artificial light source is a light-emitting diode (LED).
• The described recitation above in taught in claim 6.
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the culture media comprises a carbon source.
• Dormido does not teach the recitation above. However, Yew teaches that glucose from the molasses medium will encourage the formation of macromolecules such as polysaccharides and further assist in protein synthesis within the cell (pg. 7 col. 1 para. 3)
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the carbon source is selected from the group consisting of: glucose, fructose, sucrose, galactose, xylose, mannose, rhamnose,N-acetylglucosanine, glycerol, floridoside, glucuronic acid, corn starch, depolymerized cellulosic material, sugar cane, sugar beet, lactose, milk whey, and molasses.
• Dormido teaches the recitation above as applied for claim 8.
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the microalgae is of a mixotrophic strain.
• Dormido does not teach the limitation above. However, Klassen teaches the biogas and methane production of microalgal substrates by mixotrophic strains (pg. 50 Table 1).
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the microalgae is adapted for autotrophic growth and heterotrophic growth during a time period.
• Dormido does not teach the limitation above. However, Ogbonna teaches the cyclic autotrophic/heterotrophic cultivation (whereby controlled amount of organic carbon source is added during the night period) to prevent night biomass (pg. 290 col. 1 para. 2).
Claim 13 recites:
wherein the algorithm is selected from the group consisting of: an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm and a machine learning algorithm.
• Dormido does not teach the recitation above. However, Yew teaches an artificial neural network model to estimate growth of polyculture microalgae by using key variables of solar irradiance and temperature (pg. 2 col. 2 para. 2) and estimation for microalgae growth by using self-learning algorithm namely k-Nearest Neighbour (i.e. machine learning) (pg. 2 col. 2 para. 1).
Claim 17 recites:
wherein the result is displayed via a graph, predictive analytics, and/or visual analytics.
• Dormido teaches the use of the developed interactive tool to analyze the performance of a specific design (pg. 4480 para. 1); wherein it allows users to load or save a simulation and to select a predefined experiment to be performed (pg. 4473 para. 3) ; while modifying their mental models, by comparing the outputs of the model with their expectations (i.e. predictive analytics) (pg. 4468 para. 2).
Claim 18 recites:
a network; a computing device comprising: a memory coupled to a processor; a graphical user interface (GUI); a display; and the processor executing an engine, the engine being configured to: receive, via the GUI, an input from a user, wherein the input comprises an identification of a microalgae, an identification of a culture media, an identification of an enclosure, and an identification of fermentation conditions for the microalgae when the microalgae is located in the culture media and when the microalgae and the culture media are located in the enclosure; utilize an algorithm of the engine to simulate fermentation of the microalgae; display a result of the simulation to the user via the display; receive, via the GUI and from the user, a modification of a parameter associated with one of the fermentation conditions to vary the result; utilize the algorithm to simulate fermentation of the microalgae; and display a varied result of the simulation to the user via the display; … and a server housing a database, the server being configured to: store the input, the parameter, the result, and the varied result in the database
• Dormido teaches wherein a complete system including data capture system (i.e. system) and the control software (i.e. software) which actually control and monitor all the facility activity (i.e. network) (pg. 4472 para. 1); wherein the user can modify on-the-fly the value of this parameter using the corresponding editing field in the tool (i.e. receiving, from the user, a modification of a parameter associated with one of the fermentation conditions to vary the result) (pg. 4474 para. 1); wherein the number of differential elements in the virtual laboratory is a parameter that can be interactively changed when the user wants to change the precision of the results (pg. 4473 para. 3).
decide the fermentation conditions according to the result and the varied result; and …wherein the parameter is selected from the group consisting of: a pH level of the microalgae, a wavelength of irradiance of light onto the microalgae during the fermentation process, a type of light used during the fermentation process, a feedstock for the microalgae, a carbon source of a culture media in which the microalgae is located, a growth temperature for the microalgae, a flow rate of air into the enclosure during the fermentation process, a flow rate of air/02 mixtures into the enclosure during the fermentation process, a length of the fermentation process of the microalgae, a flow rate of noble gases into the enclosure during the fermentation process, and an incubation time period for the microalgae under a mixotrophic growth condition; wherein the varied result is selected from the group consisting of: a varied color of the microalgae, a varied aroma of the microalgae, a varied texture of the microalgae, a varied viscosity of the microalgae, and a varied nutritional value of the microalgae.
• Dormido and Klassen teach the recitation above as applied for claim 1.
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1-11, 13, and 17-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Dormido in view of Klassen, Yew, Ogbonna, Singh, Ge, and Hossain because all references disclose methods for the investigation of microalgae growth/properties. The motivation would have been to:
• investigate the biodegradability and the fermentative biogas production potential of microalgae (pg. 50 col. 1 para. 1 Klassen);
• generate highly biodegradable microalgal substrates for anaerobic fermentation (pg. 50 col. 1 para. 5 Yew);
• to screen for specialty products from photosynthetic cells (pg. 296 col. 2 para. 2 Ogbonna);
• analyze microalgae growth when influenced by various parameters and environmental conditions (pg. 1 col. 2 para. 1 Singh);
• analyze the effect of inert gas and flow rates on microalgal harvesting (pg. 7901 col. 1 para. 3 Ge); and
• to obtain a comprehensive microalgae cultivation analysis (pg. 852 col. 1 para. 2 Hossain).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the allelic imbalance analysis method of Dormido to the methods by Klassen, Yew, Ogbonna, Singh, Ge, and Hossain because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for the investigation of microalgae growth/properties.
B. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dormido, Klassen, Yew, Ogbonna, Singh, Ge, and Hossain as applied to claims 1 and 10 above further in view of Sanchez (“A combined modelling and experimental characterisation of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii under monochromatic LED illumination” – Thesis dissertation - University College London (2021)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Claim 12 recites:
wherein the microalgae is a strain selected from the group consisting of: a Botryococcus sudeticus strain, a Botryococcus strain, a Neochloris oleabundans strain, a Neochloris strain, a Chlorella sorokiniana strain, a Chlamydomonas reinhardtii strain, and a Chlamydomonas strain.
• Neither Dormido or Klassen teach the recited limitation above. However, Sanchez teaches the effects of illumination strategy on the model microalgae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (pg. 3 para. 3).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 12, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Dormido, Klassen, Yew, Ogbonna, Singh, Ge, and Hossain in view of Sanchez because all references disclose methods for the investigation of microalgae growth/properties. The motivation would have been to accelerate product development by uncovering previously unattainable insights (pg. 4 para. 3 Sanchez).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the allelic imbalance analysis method of Dormido, Klassen, Yew, Ogbonna, Singh, Ge, and Hossain to the methods by Sanchez because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for the investigation of microalgae growth/properties.
Response to applicant's remarks in regard to Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 103
The Remarks of 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
The applicant asserts in pg. 13 para. 2 to (emphasis added):
Although Dl has disclosed an interactive tool for outdoor computer controlled cultivation of microalgae, Dl does not teach or suggest that a modification associated with one of the fermentation conditions should be provided by the user to vary the result, and the (original) result and the varied result should be used to decide the fermentation conditions.
In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious by showing that the combination of elements was ‘obvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings by Dormido involving the manipulation of essential variables for microalgae growth to design an optimal photobioreactor (pg. 4466 para. 1) to the fermentation strategy by Klassen involving a method for cultivation strategy as a pretreatment for microalgal biomass generation for the subsequent anaerobic fermentation process (pg. 44 para. 1). The motivation would be to investigate the biodegradability and the fermentative biogas production potential of microalgae (pg. 50 col. 1 para. 1 Klassen).
"One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references" (MPEP 2145 § IV) because it analyzes the teachings of the references separately and independently, whereas the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. While none of the references teach all claim limitations, and the examiner does not dispute Appellant's identification of material missing from each one, all the claim limitations are taught by the combination of references, as explained previously
The applicant asserts in pg. 13 para. 2 to (emphasis added):
In addition, Dl does not teach or suggest that the varied result should be selected from the group consisting of: a varied color of the microalgae, a varied aroma of the microalgae, a varied texture of the microalgae, a varied viscosity of the microalgae, and a varied nutritional value of the microalgae The other cited references D 2-8 are also silent on the modification associated with one of the fermentation conditions, the types of the varied result, and the decision made according to the ( original) result and the varied result. Several cultivation conditions are mentioned in D 1-7, but they are not used to obtain the varied result and not related to the varied color, aroma, texture, viscosity or nutritional value of the cultivated microalgae. In addition, D8 relates to foods comprising microalgae to affect the nutritional and sensorial attributes of the end products (foods), which is not related to the cultivation conditions of microalgae or varied result. Even if those skilled in the art refer to any of the cited references D 1-8, they cannot readily achieve the method of the amended Claim 1 and the system of the amended Claim 18 of the present invention. Therefore, the amended Claims l and 18 of the present invention have an inventive step over D 1-8.
In this instance, the argument that Lafarga does not teach "the varied result is selected from the group consisting of: a varied color of the microalgae, a varied aroma of the microalgae, a varied texture of the microalgae, a varied viscosity of the microalgae, and a varied nutritional value of the microalgae" is persuasive. New art has been applied to said recitation – Hossain.
The prima facie case of obviousness has been established. MPEP 2141.III for "RATIONALES TO SUPPORT REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103"; wherein "(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention". The motivation would be to obtain a comprehensive microalgae cultivation analysis (pg. 852 col. 1 para. 2 Hossain) Furthermore, in this instant application, the amendments support existing claim rejections, in which the recited limitations are all addressed, see Claim Rejections above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCINI A FONSECA LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM ET.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/F.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686