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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the species of wild cultivation in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Upon further consideration and search, the Examiner has rejoined the species of ‘open ponds’ with the elected species of ‘wild cultivation’ for the genus of farming algae.
Claim Status
The response of 06/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this US patent application and were examined on their merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed in this application on 03/13/2023, 05/12/2023, 12/14/2023, 07/10/2024, and 03/17/2025 have been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the initialism ‘ARB’ without first giving the term for which ‘ARB’ is an abbreviation.
Claim 15 has no ending punctuation, and claim 20 ends with a semicolon. All claims must end with a period.
The instant claims contain a large number of grammatical errors, such that the Examiner is unable to list all of them within the time allotted for examination. The Examiner recommends careful review of the claim language and amendment as needed to bring the claims into compliance with English grammatical rules.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2-6 appear to recite inherent properties of the method of claim 1. Any product would apply to at least one industry sector as recited in instant claim 2. Carbon footprint statuses are inherently established by ISO standards and/or legislation as recited in instant claim 3. Net negative carbon values can always, inherently be used as stream revenue as recited in instant claim 4, which does not recite a step of using said net negative carbon value as stream revenue. The use of energy saving methods will inherently affect the overall carbon footprint of a process, as recited in instant claim 5. The method of claim 1 would inherently result in the removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the permanent disposal of the residual algal biomass, and the production of atmospheric carbon dioxide as recited in instant claim 6. As such, any prior art that reads on claim 1 will be interpreted to read on claims 2-6 as well.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “chemical physical process” in step b. Claim 16 also recites “chemical physical process,” as well as “chemical physical chemical process.” The meanings of these terms are unclear, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “sea ways, roadways, rails ways, air ways” in step e. Because the conjunction has been omitted from this limitation, it is unclear whether Applicant intended “sea ways, roadways, railways, and air ways” or “sea ways, roadways, railways, or air ways.” As these limitations would have significantly different meanings, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites determining statuses based on future standards or future legislation. As the contents of such standards and/or legislation cannot be determined because the future has not yet occurred, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 3, rendering it indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “microalgae, macroalgae, and blue green algae: cyanobacteria; freshwater algae species, in a separated or simultaneous cultivation system (multispecies cultivation).” This limitation is grammatically incorrect to such an extent that the Examiner cannot determine its intended meaning.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “any steps process mentioned claimed 1 and 12-14 included.” This limitation is grammatically incorrect to such an extent that the Examiner cannot determine its intended meaning.
Because claims 2-20 depend from the indefinite claim 1 but provide no further clarification of the indefinite language therein, these claims are also indefinite. As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the terms “chemical physical process” and “chemical physical chemical process” as “any chemical and/or physical process.” The Examiner has interpreted “sea ways, roadways, rails ways, air ways” in claim 1 as “sea ways, roadways, railways, or air ways.” The Examiner has interpreted claim 2 without the limitation beginning with “such as.” The Examiner has interpreted claim 3 without any reference to future standards and/or legislation. The Examiner has interpreted claim 7 as reciting “wherein, in step a., the algae include microalgae, macroalgae, cyanobacteria, and/or freshwater algae species in a separated or simultaneous cultivation system.” The Examiner has interpreted claim 19 as being equivalent to claims 12, 13, or 14. Please note that, should Applicant amend claim 19 to be equivalent to one of these claims, such a claim would be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit the claim from which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UK patent application GB 2492239 filed by Tronstad, published 12/26/2012 (cited on the IDS filed 03/13/2023), in view of Strand et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 1000-1007 (2009; cited on the IDS filed 03/13/2023).
Tronstad teaches an integrated algae cultivation oxyfuel combustion power plant (see entire document, including page 2, lines 7-9) that is a method for CO2 sequestration (page 3, lines 6-8). The algae are cultivated in seawater (page 3, lines 20-22; page 10, line 30; cf. claims 7 and 11-13; cf. step a. of claim 1; the Examiner notes that all algae are either microalgae, macroalgae, cyanobacteria, or freshwater algal species; the Examiner further notes that claim 12 does not limit how the algae must be “genetically modified” and that all algae are “genetically modified” compared to the organisms from which they evolved; the Examiner further notes that claim 13 does not require any particular selection for the strains and that any given portion of algae contains particular strains, and so it may be considered “strain selective”). The algae plant can be located near the shore or offshore (page 10, lines 21-23; cf. claims 8, 14, and 19; see above under Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 for the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 19). After cultivation, the algae mass is separated from the slurry using a centrifuge, a fine filter, or a membrane separator (page 10, line 38, to page 11, line 1; cf. claim 20; cf. step c. of claim 1). The algae slurry concentrate is dewatered and processed into algae oil and biomass, which is further processed to ethanol (page 11, lines 21-27; cf. claims 2 and 15-17; cf. step b. of claim 1). The algae mass is fractionated, and some of the algae byproducts are fed to fish (page 11, lines 31-33; cf. claim 18; the Examiner notes that feeding a product to farmed fish intrinsically provides data on whether said product is safe for fish to eat). The fish manure, which contains approximately 40% organic carbon, is collected (page 13, lines 19-32), and the manure is mechanically dried and further processed as necessary for combustion or fertilizer production (page 14, lines 16-23; cf. step d. of claim 1). The carbon emissions of the overall process are determined (page 16; cf. step f. of claim 1; cf. claims 2-6; see above under Claim Interpretation for the Examiner’s interpretations of claims 2-6).
However, Tronstad does not teach the disposal of the dried manure in the deep ocean instead of through combustion or fertilizer production.
Strand teaches that the most direct and straightforward method for using crop residues to decrease atmospheric CO2 levels is to place the biomass carbon on deep ocean sediments. The biomass is collected, transported by truck and barge to deep ocean sites, ballasted as needed with stone, and sunk to rest on ocean sediments at depths greater than 1000-1500 m (see entire document, including page 1002, left column, paragraph 5; cf. step e. of claim 1). Crop residues contain about 40% carbon (page 1000, right column, paragraph 6).
While Tronstad does not teach the disposal of the dried manure in the deep ocean instead of through combustion or fertilizer production, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so because Tronstad teaches a method for CO2 sequestration that produces residues from the cultivation of animals containing ~40% carbon and because Strand teaches that the most direct and straightforward method for using residues from the cultivation of plants containing ~40% carbon to decrease atmospheric CO2 levels is to place the biomass carbon on deep ocean sediments. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that depositing the dried manure of Tronstad on deep ocean sediments in the manner taught by Strand would successfully result in the increased sequestration of CO2 in the method of Tronstad.
Therefore, claims are rendered obvious by Tronstad in view of Strand and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UK patent application GB 2492239 filed by Tronstad, published 12/26/2012 (cited on the IDS filed 03/13/2023), in view of Strand et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 1000-1007 (2009; cited on the IDS filed 03/13/2023), and Costa et al., “An Open Pond System for Microalgal Cultivation,” Biofuels from Algae, chapter 1, pages 1-22, Elsevier (2014).
As discussed above, claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rendered obvious by Tronstad in view of Strand. However, these references do not teach open pond cultivation of the algae as recited in instant claims 9-10.
Costa teaches that open pond cultivations are the most industrially applied because of their low cost of investment and operational capital, low construction cost, low power demand, appropriate scale-up, and easy cleaning process (see entire document, including page 1, paragraph 3, and page 20, paragraph 2; cf. claims 9-10).
While Tronstad and Strand do not teach open pond cultivation of the algae in the method of cultivating algae, making products from the algae, and depositing the residues on deep ocean sediments rendered obvious by their teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so because Costa teaches that open pond cultivations are the most industrially applied because of their low cost of investment and operational capital, low construction cost, low power demand, appropriate scale-up, and easy cleaning process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that using the open pond cultivation method of Costa in the process rendered obvious by Tronstad and Strand would successfully result in lower construction cost, lower power demand, better scale-up opportunities, and easier cleaning.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by Tronstad in view of Strand and Costa and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation…103 likely bars its patentability…if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions……the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 U.S. 2007) (emphasis added).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin M. Bowers, whose telephone number is (571)272-2897. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday, 6:30-4:00.
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, Sharmila Landau, can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/Erin M. Bowers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653 09/11/2026
Prosecution Insights