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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Preliminary Remarks
The amendment filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, claims 6-8, 10-16, and 18-19 were canceled, and no claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-5, 9, 17, and 20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-5, 9, 17, and 20 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. In particular, the following claim limitation is unclear: “an inlet of the peristaltic pump is connected to the liquid outlet of the liquid outlet device and an outlet of the peristaltic pump is connected to one of the two connectors connected to the peristaltic pump” is unclear. It is unclear whether applicant is attempting to claim that the pump is connected to one of the ports/inlets/connectors of the liquid inlet device, if so, applicant is encouraged to amend the claim language to adequately recite the latter.
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 1-5, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN102654436A-Du et al. (hereinafter Du, all citations are made to the Machine English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses a screening and acclimation device for functional microorganisms of soil (pg. 1, paragraph 3, lines 1-2; and pg. 1, paragraph 5, lines 1-10),
Du discloses comprising a fluidized bed body (fluidized bed enrichment device/container 32, pg. 3, paragraph 3, line 1, Fig. 1), an air pump (pg. 4, paragraph 1, line 2, Fig. 1) and a peristaltic pump (peristaltic pump 21, pg. 4, paragraph 1, line 2, Fig. 1). Further, the fluidized bed body of Du is capable of containing a slurry-state fluid formed by the soil and a liquid nutrient solution.
Du discloses an upper part (an upper portion of fluidized bed enrichment device having an inlet of first pipe 2 and outlet of first pipe 2 and second pipe 4, pg. 3, paragraph 5, lines 1-2, Fig. 1) and a lower part (a lower part of fluidized bed enrichment device having an inlet of first pipe 2 and outlet of first pipe 2 and second pipe 4, pg. 3, paragraph 5, lines 1-2, Fig. 1) of the fluidized bed body (container 32) are respectively provided with a liquid outlet device (outlet port of first pipe 2 and outlet port of second pipe 4, paragraph 6, lines 1-4, Fig. 1) and a liquid inlet device (inlet of first pipe 2 and 4, paragraph 6, lines 1-4, Fig. 2) and a porous sieve plate (sieve plate 41, pg. 4, line 1, Fig. 2, and sieve plate 22, pg. 3, paragraph 8, line 5, Fig. 1) is provided between the liquid outlet device and the fluidized bed body as well as between the liquid inlet device and the fluidized bed body (sieves 22 and 21 are oriented between the liquid inlet device of first pipe and second pipe 4, Fig. 2; and the body of the device of Fig. 2); Further, the fluidized bed body of Du is capable of containing a slurry-state fluid formed by the soil and a liquid nutrient solution;
Du discloses the liquid outlet device is provided with a liquid outlet and an exhaust port/sampling port (inlet port of second port 4, pg. 3, paragraph 6, line 2);
Du discloses the liquid inlet device (an inlet port and an outlet of first pipe 2, pg. 3, paragraph 8, lines 1-4) is provided with two connectors which are respectively connected to the air pump (pump 21, pg. 4, paragraph 1, line 2, can also be a pressure pump, and the peristaltic pump, and an inlet (inlet of first pipe 2, shown in Fig. 1) of the peristaltic pump (pump 21, Fig. 1) is connected to the liquid outlet (outlet of first pipe 2, shown in Fig. 1).
Additionally, the air pump of Du is capable of providing oxygen for the slurry-state fluid contained within the fluidized bed body through one of the two connectors connected to the air pump.
Also, the peristaltic pump (peristaltic pump 21, also discussed above), is capable of enabling solid particles of the soil in the slurry-state fluid contained within the fluidized bed body and provided with oxygen by the air pump to circulate in a fluidized state along a circulation loop formed by the peristaltic pump, one of the two connectors connected to the peristaltic pump, the fluidized bed body and the liquid outlet.
Regarding claim 2, Du discloses wherein the fluidized bed is cylindrical (pg. 2, paragraph 1, lines 1-3, container 32, Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Du discloses wherein the fluidized bed is made of transparent organic glass (pg. 2, paragraph 1, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Du discloses wherein the fluidized bed is made of transparent organic glass (pg. 2, paragraph 1, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Du discloses wherein the liquid outlet device and the liquid inlet device are both cylindrical (Figs. 1 and 2 show outlet and inlet of first pipe 2 is cylindrical and outlet and inlet of second pipe 4 is cylindrical).
Regarding claim 9, Du discloses wherein the porous sieve plate is provided with a plurality of round holes, and the round hole has an aperture of 3-5mm (pg. 2, paragraph 4, lines 1-5, where Du discloses those skilled in the art should know that the pore size of the microporous sieve plate is appropriately adjusted according to the particle size of the enriched material). Further, Du discloses via Fig. 2 the sieves 22 and 41 a plurality of round holes.
Regarding claim 17, Du discloses wherein sealing gaskets (sealing cover, pg. 1, paragraph 5, lines 3-5) are provided between the liquid outlet device and the porous sieve plate, between the porous sieve plate and the fluidized bed body, and between the porous sieve plate and the liquid inlet device (pg. 1, paragraph 5, lines 1-8; pg. 2, paragraph 8, lines 1-4; and pg. 3, paragraph 6, lines 1-4).
Therefore, the reference of Du meet the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 17.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102654436A-Du et al. (hereinafter Du, all citations are made to the Machine English translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,362,157 B1-Blochwitz et al. (hereinafter Blochwitz).
Regarding claim 20, Du teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Du teaches a porous sieve disposed between the fluidized bed and the liquid inlet device, also discussed above. However, Du does not explicitly teach guase.
For claim 20, Blochwitz teaches an invention relating to a process for the preparation of Washing- and cleaning-active surfactant-containing granules and a fluidized bed granulation dryer (col. 5, lines 1-10) and Blochwitz teaches gauze of the fluidized bed device (col. 5, line 38), which reads on the instant claim limitation of gause.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Du to include gauze as part of the fluidized bed device as taught by Blochwitz. Further, Blochwitz teaches the gauze prevent relatively heavy granules prepared according to the invention from falling through the openings (col. 5, lines 36-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above in the rejection, applicant is encouraged to clarify the claim language by amending the claim to overcome the indefinite claim limitations cited in independent claim 1. Regarding the middle of page 4 of applicant’s remarks, applicant discusses the previously cited claim objections (these objections were withdrawn, applicant has amended the claims to overcome the cited objections in the previously mailed Action.
Regarding the bottom of page 4 of applicant’s remarks, applicant cited the relied upon art in the previously mailed Action for the 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 rejections. On page 5 of applicant’s remarks, applicant recites amended claim 1 of the instant application. Further, applicants cites the support for the amended claim 1 of the instant application. Further, at the bottom of page 5 of applicant’s remarks, applicant cites amended claim 1 and the top and middle and bottom of page 6 also recites claim 1 of the instant application. Applicant’s arguments begins on the bottom of page 6 of applicant’s remarks.
Applicant asserts the following “it can be seen that the power pump in Du is configured to provide driving power for samples contained within the material liquid tank 1, rather than provide oxygen for solution contained within the enrichment container as recited by amended claim 1.” Further, applicant asserts “even though Du discloses that "in a case that the power pump is a pressure pump, the power pump is connected to the material liquid tank (paragraph [0030] of Du), "the pressure pump in Du is still just a driving pump to control the optimal flow rate range of the solution from 1mL/min to 1000mL/min (paragraph [0030] of Du)” and applicant asserts “Therefore, Du does not disclose ‘the air pump is configured to provide oxygen for the slurry-state fluid contained within the fluidized bed body through one of the two connectors connected to the air pump’ of amended claim 1 of the present invention.” In response, the pump of Du is capable of providing oxygen for the slurry-state fluid contained within the fluidized bed body through one of the two connectors connected to the air pump. Further, applicant’s assertion regarding the pump being configured to provide oxygen for a slurry-state fluid appears to be drawn to the material operated on by the apparatus.
Regarding the middle and bottom of page 7 of applicant’s remarks, applicant asserts “the fluidized bed enrichment device in Du is used to enrich the trace substance, the gas (such as oxygen) provided into the enrichment container may blow the trace substance being enriched and/or blow away the enriched trace substance, resulting in reducing the enrichment effect, thus persons skilled in the art have no motivation to add an air pump defined in the present invention into Du.” In response, applicant’s latter argument is not found persuasive since fluidized bed of Du is capable of contain a slurry-state fluid formed by the soil and a liquid nutrient solution (as recited in amended claim 1 of the instant application). Furthermore, applicant’s assertion regarding fluidized bed being configured to contain a slurry-state fluid formed by the soil and a liquid nutrient solution also seems to be drawn to the material operated on by the apparatus.
Regarding page 8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant discussed Fig. 1 of Du and asserts “it can be seen that the solution in the waste liquid storage stank 5 cannot return into the material liquid tank 1 as there is not a circulation loop in Du. In response, the latter is not found to be a persuasive argument since as stated above in this section, the applicant’s amended claim 1 limitation has claimed a peristaltic pump (where the disclosure of Du does have, noted above in the rejection) and applicant has claimed the peristaltic pump (amended claim 1) is configured to enable solid particles of soil in the slurry-state. As discussed above in this section, the peristaltic pump of Du is capable of enable solid particles of soil in the slurry-state fluid contained within the fluidized bed body and provided with oxygen by the air pump to circulate in a fluidized state along a circulation loop formed by the peristaltic pump, one of the two connectors connected to the peristaltic pump, the fluidized bed body and the liquid outlet. The claimed peristaltic pump is drawn to the material operated on by the apparatus.
Regarding the top and middle of page 9 applicant’s remarks, applicant provides a depiction of Fig. 1 of the claimed invention and asserts “in summary, Du does not disclose or teach specific configuration of "air pump" and "peristaltic pump" in amended claim 1 of the present invention.” In response, as discussed above in this section, the pump and fluidized bed of Du are capable of contain a slurry-state fluid formed by the soil and a liquid nutrient solution and the air pump is configured to provide oxygen for the slurry-state fluid contained within the fluidized bed body through one of the two connectors connected to the air pump; and the peristaltic pump is configured to enable solid particles of the soil in the slurry-state fluid contained within the fluidized bed body and provided with oxygen by the air pump to circulate in a fluidized state, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
/L.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799