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 .
Status of the Claims
In the reply of 01/29/2026, the following has occurred:
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 15 is/are amended
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are canceled
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7-18 is/are pending, with no claim(s) being withdrawn
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been overcome as per Applicant’s amended claims filed on 01/29/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 6-7 that Tanaka and Tonsich fail to teach the one or more pipes extending between the heat exchanger and the bioreactor, and terminating in the bioreactor. Instead, Tanaka vents to the atmosphere, and Tonsich’s emissions control system emits regulatory compliant air from the exhaust outlet of the ship when the ship is at berth.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the device of Tanaka, which vents to the atmosphere from an exhaust 17, to further process the exhaust using a suitable system as taught by Tonsich. With this modification, the resulting structure would substantially be as shown in the figure below, where the exhaust 17 of Tanaka extends to feed the blower of Tonsich with flue gas. The resulting line would terminate or “end” in the bottom left portion of the algae and photo bioreactor of Tonsich, based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from the description and figures of Tonsich.
PNG
media_image1.png
636
1378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a bioreactor fluidly coupled to the catalytic converter”. However, Applicant’s figs. 2-3 show the bioreactor 132 separated from the catalytic converter 130 by the heat exchanger 140. The claim is being interpreted such that a bioreactor ultimately fluidly coupled to a catalytic converter reads on the claim; this is opposed to interpreting the bioreactor to be directly attached to the catalytic converter, which is not shown in the figures.
See also claim 15 which recites, “a bioreactor fluidly coupled to the heat exchanger”.
PNG
media_image2.png
622
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-10, 11-13, and 17-18 recite either a freshwater or marine algae. These algae are being interpreted consistent with para. 41 of the Applicant’s PGPUB, which states, “Algae can be found in marine environments (i.e., salt water or saline water) and in freshwater environments (i.e., non-saline or fresh water). Algae may be green in marine and freshwater forms, although other colors of algae exist and may be beneficially used in embodiments. In the present disclosure, either saltwater or freshwater form algae may be used. Salt water and freshwater bioreactors are anticipated, and either may be used to practice the present disclosure.”
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.
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(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110165048 A1 to Tanaka in view of WO 2018031520 A1 to Tonsich.
Regarding claim 1. Tanaka teaches an oxygen generating gas water heater assembly comprising:
a gas water heater (fig. 1, storage water heater body 3) comprising:
a tank defining an interior volume (fig. 1, upper header 9, lower header 10, and inner water tubes 11, defining a collective interior volume and substantially forming a tank, per se);
a gas burner in a combustion chamber (fig. 1, burner 1), the gas burner coupled to a gaseous combustible fuel supply for generating a combustion gas (fig. 1, fuel supply device 5, where para. 132 describes, “fuel supply device 5 for supplying fuel gas to the burner 1”); and
a flue pipe fluidly coupled to the combustion chamber (fig. 1, portion of the first gas duct 15 downstream of the flame, see dotted line in the figure) to support removal of the combustion gas to a duct (the previously identified portion of the first gas duct 15 supports removal of the combustion gas to the second gas duct 17 via the exhaust gas outlet 16);
a catalytic converter fluidly coupled with the duct (fig. 1, catalyst 4 fluidly coupled with the second gas duct 17);
a heat exchanger coupled to the duct (fig. 1, feedwater preheater 20 fluidly coupled with the second gas duct 17);
a controller configured to perform an operation for the oxygen generating gas water heater assembly (fig. 1, controller 8), the operation comprising:
generating, by the gas burner, combustion gas at the gas water heater (para. 132, “The steam boiler is provided with … fuel supply device 5 for supplying fuel gas to the burner 1, combustible air supply device 6 for supplying combustible air to the burner 1 to premix fuel with the combustible air, a sensor 7 for detecting the concentration of oxygen downstream from the catalyst 4, and a controller 8 as a boiler controller for inputting signals such as those from the sensor 7 or others to control the fuel supply device 5, the combustible air supply device 6, and others.” Therefore, combustion gas is generated at the burner by control from the controller 8);
converting carbon monoxide (CO) to carbon dioxide (CO2) at the catalytic converter (para. 132, “… an oxidation catalyst (hereinafter sometimes simply referred to as "catalyst") 4 through which gas containing each of oxygen, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide at the predetermined concentration ratios after passing through the group of heat transfer tubes 2 in contact therewith, thus oxidizing carbon monoxide and also reducing nitrogen oxides …” Where oxidizing the carbon monoxide is understood to convert the carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide);
forming a CO2-enriched flue that gas flows through the heat exchanger (fig. 1, the output of the catalyst 4 can be seen to flow to the feedwater preheater 20, in the direction of the gas flow through the second gas duct 17);
reducing, by the heat exchanger, a temperature of the CO2-enriched flue gas (para. 135, “A feed-water preheater 20, as an exhaust heat recovery system, is attached to the perpendicular part 19 so as to be positioned downstream from the catalyst 4, and the sensor 7 is placed between the catalyst 4 and the feed-water preheater 20.” Where an exhaust heat recovery system reduces the temperature of the exhaust gas).
PNG
media_image3.png
591
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach the flue pipe and the duct fluidly coupled to an induced draft blower;
a bioreactor fluidly coupled to the catalytic converter, the bioreactor containing an aqueous solution comprising algae, wherein one or more pipes extend between the heat exchanger and the bioreactor, the one or more pipes terminating in the bioreactor;
the operation comprising:
inducing, by the induced draft blower, draft of combustion gas to the catalytic converter; and
urging the CO2-enriched flue gas into the bioreactor to capture and consume CO2-enriched flue gas and emit oxygen.
Tonsich teaches a bioreactor tank containing an aqueous solution comprising algae for treating flue gas from a carbon emitter (figs. 16-17, algae photo bioreactor for treating flue gas).
PNG
media_image4.png
687
1139
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
557
831
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Tanaka to implement a suitable algae photo bioreactor to process the flue gas, as taught by Tonsich. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions constantly, while producing algae and oxygen as products, as suggested by Tonsich in fig. 17, step 4, “This operation cycles every 90 minutes, mitigates the Greenhouse Gas emissions 24/7 and produces 40-75 lbs of algae and 12,000 cubic feet of oxygen per day for sale from one bioreactor. This operation mitigates NOx and CO2 emissions from flue gas exhaust.”
With this modification, the device of modified Tanaka would teach the flue pipe and the duct fluidly coupled to an induced draft blower (The first and second gas ducts 15, 17 of Tanaka would be fluidly coupled to the suitable blower of Tonsich, which would be considered as an induced draft blower to the water heater system);
a bioreactor fluidly coupled to the catalytic converter (since all of the components are connected in series) wherein one or more pipes extend between the heat exchanger and the bioreactor, the one or more pipes terminating in the bioreactor (the portion comprising the downstream end of exhaust 17 of Tanaka and the flue gas inlet, blower, and feed into the algae photo reactor of Tonsich would read on this limitation);
PNG
media_image6.png
636
1378
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the operation comprising:
inducing, by the induced draft blower, draft of combustion gas to the catalytic converter (the suitable blower of Tonsich would at least partially contribute to the movement of the combustion gas to the catalyst 4 of Tanaka); and
urging the CO2-enriched flue gas into the bioreactor to capture and consume CO2-enriched flue gas and emit oxygen (Tonsich figs. 16-17, the flue gas, which has been CO2 enriched by the catalyst 4 of Tanaka, is urged into the algae photo bioreactor to capture and consume CO2 and emit oxygen).
Regarding claim 2. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 1, wherein the catalytic converter receives the combustion gas from the flue pipe (Tanaka fig. 1, catalyst 4 receives combustion gas from the first gas duct 15 via the exhaust gas outlet 16) and converts at least some of the combustion gas to carbon dioxide (as noted in the rejection to claim 1, Tanaka para. 132, “… an oxidation catalyst (hereinafter sometimes simply referred to as "catalyst") 4 through which gas containing each of oxygen, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide at the predetermined concentration ratios after passing through the group of heat transfer tubes 2 in contact therewith, thus oxidizing carbon monoxide and also reducing nitrogen oxides …” Where oxidizing the carbon monoxide is understood to convert the carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide).
Regarding claim 7. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 1, wherein the induced draft blower pulls an ambient air through the combustion chamber, through the flue pipe, into the duct, and directs the ambient air to the catalytic converter (as noted in the rejection to claim 1, the suitable blower of Tonsich would at least partially pull air through the system of Tanaka, which includes the combustion chamber, flue pipe, duct, and catalytic converter).
Regarding claim 8. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 1, wherein the aqueous solution in the bioreactor is a non-saline solution (Tonsich fig. 16, it appears the aqueous solution of the bioreactor is non-saline as evidenced by the recirculated H2O and city water supply, at least since city water is understood to be non-saline).
Regarding claim 9. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 8, wherein the algae are a freshwater form (Tonsich fig. 16, the algae grown in the non-saline water, see rejection to claim 8, are understood to be freshwater algae).
Regarding claim 14. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 1, wherein the bioreactor is remote from the gas water heater (the suitable bioreactor of Tonsich is substantially remote from the water heater of Tanaka since the two are shown to be separated at least by an exhaust gas path including the blower of Tonsich).
Regarding claim 15. The claim is rejected for substantially the same rationale as claim 1, where the bioreactor is similarly fluidly coupled to the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 16. The device of modified Tanaka teaches method of claim 15, wherein the combustion gas is generated from combustion of a combustible gaseous fuel in the combustion chamber (Tanaka fig. 1, the fuel supply device 5 is combusted in the first gas duct 15 after the burner 1; where the fuel is a gas, para. 141).
Regarding claim 17. The method of claim 15, wherein the algae are a freshwater form (Tonsich fig. 16, it appears the aqueous solution of the bioreactor is non-saline as evidenced by the recirculated H2O and city water supply, at least since city water is understood to be non-saline. Therefore, the algae grown in the non-saline water are understood to be freshwater algae).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Tonsich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190226699 A1 to Lundgreen.
Regarding claim 5. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 1,
But fails to explicitly disclose wherein an inlet conduit travels through the heat exchanger and fluidly couples to the tank.
Lundgreen teaches an inlet conduit that travels through a heat exchanger and fluidly couples to a tank (fig. 6, supply water inlet 130 that travels through secondary heat exchanger 114 and then is fluidly coupled to the tank via conduit 136, described in para. 38).
PNG
media_image7.png
646
543
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Tanaka to have the particular arrangement of an inlet conduit traveling through the feedwater pre heater 20, as taught by Lundgreen. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably preheating the incoming water stream, among other advantages, as suggested by Lundgreen in para. 46, “energy remains in the exhaust gases to heat the supply water within the second section 144 such that pre-heated water can be delivered to the tank 116 at an elevated temperature, thus providing an energy savings. Simultaneously, the temperature of the exhaust gases is sufficiently reduced by the supply water to allow the exhaust gases to be delivered to the outdoors via PVC piping. In one aspect, the supply water reduces the temperature of the exhaust gases sufficiently (e.g. 125-149 degrees F., or less) such that condensation of the exhaust gases occurs, which results in further efficiency gains.”
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Tonsich as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to MDPI, Potential of Chlorella as a Dietary Supplement to Promote Human Health, published August 20, 2020.
Regarding claim 10. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 9,
But fails to teach the algae is green algae.
MDPI teaches Chlorella as a freshwater green algae (abstract, “Chlorella is a green unicellular alga …” where the algae is grown in freshwater, as noted in claim 9, also introduction states, “Microalgae are primarily found in aquatic ecosystems, living in both seawater and freshwater, and are photosynthetic eukaryotic organisms that contain chloroplasts and nuclei, similar to plants.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to grow Chlorella in the bioreactor of modified Tanaka. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of producing a desirable dietary supplement, as suggested by MDPI in the abstract, “Chlorella is a green unicellular alga that is commercially produced and distributed worldwide as a dietary supplement.”
Claim(s) 11-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Tonsich as applied to claims 1 and 15, respectively and as set forth above, and further in view of the attached NPL to EESI, Marine Microalgae: the Future of Sustainable Biofuel, published February 8, 2017.
Regarding claim 11. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the aqueous solution in the bioreactor is a saline solution.
EESI teaches marine microalgae (Marine Microalgae, where the algae is described as thriving in seawater, or a saline solution, “What’s more, marine microalgae do not require freshwater—an expensive and increasingly scarce resource. Instead they thrive on salt water, of which there is plenty (the ocean covers 71 percent of the Earth’s surface).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Tanaka to implement a suitably marine microalgae in the bioreactor, as taught by EESI. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing a desirable algae biofuel without using freshwater resources, among other benefits, as suggested by EESI in the portion cited above, as well as further described, “Aside from its carbon sequestration benefits, microalgae could also become a major new source of energy in the form of biofuel. The potential use of algae for biodiesel has been studied extensively, since it is a renewable, eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels.”
Regarding claim 12. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 11, wherein the algae is a marine algae (EESI, Marine Microalgae).
Regarding claim 13. The device of modified Tanaka teaches the gas water heater assembly of claim 12, wherein the algae is a marine green algae (As shown in the figures of EESI, the marine microalgae is substantially a green algae, per se, described as “phytoplankton”).
Regarding claim 18. The method of claim 15,
But fails to teach wherein the algae are a marine algae.
EESI teaches marine microalgae (Marine Microalgae, where the algae is described as thriving in seawater, or a saline solution, “What’s more, marine microalgae do not require freshwater—an expensive and increasingly scarce resource. Instead they thrive on salt water, of which there is plenty (the ocean covers 71 percent of the Earth’s surface).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Tanaka to implement a suitably marine microalgae in the bioreactor, as taught by EESI. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing a desirable algae biofuel without using freshwater resources, among other benefits, as suggested by EESI in the portion cited above, as well as further described, “Aside from its carbon sequestration benefits, microalgae could also become a major new source of energy in the form of biofuel. The potential use of algae for biodiesel has been studied extensively, since it is a renewable, eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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 G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762