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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Claims 19 and 20, in the reply filed on 7/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/11/2025.
Priority
The application data sheet filed 6/6/2022 and paragraph [0001] of the instant specification claim benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/236,351; however, it appears that the correct application No. is 63/236,315. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statements have been made of record.
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.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neese et al. (DE 102018116852 and corresponding English language machine translation) in view of Edelson (US 2011/0129906).
The reference of Neese et al. discloses:
A method of treating polluted air and generating oxygen (page 2, ¶ 8-10, and page 5, ¶ 6, of the machine translation) comprising:
providing a plurality of microalgae in a liquid solution (page 3, ¶ 3-7, of the machine translation);
injecting polluted air (air with CO2) into the liquid solution (page 4, ¶7-9, of the machine translation);
illuminating the liquid solution (page 3, last two paragraphs, to page 4, ¶1-5, of the machine translation);
allowing the plurality of microalgae to consume pollutants and generate oxygen (page 2, ¶ 8-10, and page 5, ¶ 6, of the machine translation); and
releasing the generated oxygen to the atmosphere (page 2, ¶ 8-10, and page 5, ¶ 6, of the machine translation).
While the reference of Neese et al. does not disclose a specific embodiment drawn to the use of diatoms as the microalgae employed, the reference clearly discloses that diatoms can be used in the process (page 3, ¶ 3-7, of the machine translation). As a result, it would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to employ diatoms within the air purification system for the known and expected result of providing an art recognized microalgae capable of consuming pollutants from an air stream and generating oxygen.
Finally, while the reference of Neese et al. discloses supplying air to the bioreactor such that the microalgae and liquid can be circulated (page 4, ¶7-9, of the machine translation), the reference is silent with respect to a separate step of aerating the liquid solution.
The reference of Edelson discloses that it is known in the art of photobioreactors to provide two systems for dispensing gas/air into a bioreactor wherein one is for providing bubbles for low-stress mixing and a second for providing bubbles for nutrient exchange (¶[0018]).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of the reference of Neese et al. with a separate aeration system for aerating the liquid solution wherein optimal mixing and supply of nutrients and/or polluted air can be optimized within the air treatment system as evidences by the reference of Edelson.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neese et al. (DE 102018116852 and corresponding English language machine translation) in view of Edelson (US 2011/0129906) taken further in view of Chiang et al. (US 2016/0113224).
The combination of the references of Neese et al. and Edelson has been discussed above with respect to claim 19.
Claim 20 differs by further including a step of removing diatom carcasses from the liquid solution.
The reference of Chiang et al. discloses that when culturing microalgae in a photobioreactor, it is known in the art to harvest the algae from the bottom of the photobioreactor (¶[0008] and [0037]).
In view of this teaching and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a microalgae (diatom) collection step in the air purification process of the modified primary reference for the known and expected result of harvesting the microalgae produced during the process for use as other products known in the art (¶[0002] of Neese et al.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference of Ahn (DE 19912952) is cited as prior art that pertains to a photobioreactor device and method of use for conversion of CO2 into biomass and oxygen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB