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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed in this application. The applicant is reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability. 37 CFR 1.56.
The related Chinese application: CN 202210508606 and its cited prior art were considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 7, 9, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, in line 2, the phrase “surface is a spectrum-splitting coating material”, the phrase “surface comprises a spectrum-splitting coating material” is more relevant.
Regarding claim 4, in lines 3-4, the phrase “the bioreactor’s PTC surface” should be phrased “the PTC top surface of the bioreactor” to ensure that there is proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, in line 3, the phrase “the liquid storage tank, the second liquid pump and the thermal solar receiver” should be “the liquid storage tank, the second liquid pump, and the thermal solar receiver”.
Regarding claim 9, in line 3, the phrase “the bioreactor, the algae separator and the first liquid pump” should be “the bioreactor, the algae separator, and the first liquid pump”.
Regarding claim 11, in line 2, the phrase “surface is a spectrum-splitting coating material”, the phrase “surface comprises a spectrum-splitting coating material” is more relevant.
Regarding claim 12, in lines 3-4, the phrase “the bioreactor’s PTC surface” should be phrased “the PTC top surface of the bioreactor” to ensure that there is proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, in the last line of the claim, the term “an opening surface of the bioreactor is the PTC top surface” is unclear and/or indefinite. This is because the PTC top surface could be interpreted as a surface that is exposed to the external portion of the bioreactor and therefore is the “opening surface”; it could also be interpreted that there is an “opening” in the surface of the bioreactor which is also a PTC top surface; or other interpretations. Further clarification is requested to clearly define metes and bounds of the claim limitation. For the sake of compact prosecution, the current interpretation is that the PTC top surface is the surface that faces the external environment from the bioreactor.
Regarding claim 1, this is indefinite as to the limitation “parabolic trough collector-shaped structure” in line 4 because it is unclear as to if this is the same feature or a different feature as the “parabolic trough collector top surface” in lines 1-2. This causes the claim to be unclear and/or indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a second liquid pump” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because there is not a first liquid pump claimed in the parent claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the second liquid pump” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because there is not a first liquid pump claimed in the parent claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the liquid storage tank” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the second liquid pump” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because there is not “a second liquid pump” claimed in the parent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-12, these claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20110030675) (newly cited) in view of Yogev (US 5958761) (newly cited), Falber (WO 2010085853) (newly cited), and Woerlee (US 20110117631) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a combined algae production system (paragraph [0025]), comprising: a bioreactor (paragraph [0025]), a parabolic trough collector (PTC) top surface (paragraphs [0014] “parabolic” and [0025] “reflective sheet”), a thermal solar receiver (paragraph [0025] “solar collector”), a liquid inlet (paragraph [0068] “liquid can be injected or withdrawn through liquid transfer tubes … inlets and outlets”), a liquid outlet (paragraph [0068] “liquid can be injected or withdrawn through liquid transfer tubes … inlets and outlets”), a gas feed pipeline (paragraph [0068] “gas can be injected or withdrawn through gas transfer tubes”), and gas release holes (paragraph [0068] “gas can be injected or withdrawn through gas transfer tubes”), wherein
the bioreactor has a collector structure (paragraph [0025]) and an interior cavity structure (paragraph [0025] “elongated tube may further comprise a culture medium”);
the thermal solar receiver (paragraph [0021] “focal areas” focused from the tube onto the “solar collector”) is arranged at a focal point of the bioreactor (paragraph [0025]);
the gas release holes are arranged at the two ends of the opening of the bioreactor (paragraphs [0067]-[0069] “gas can be injected or withdrawn through gas transfer tubes”).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
King, Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
347
441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
King, Fig. 3
King does not disclose:
the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet are arranged at two ends of a diagonal line of an opening of the bioreactor respectively;
a CO2 feed pipeline, the CO2 feed pipeline is connected to a bottom end of the bioreactor;
an opening surface of the bioreactor is the PTC top surface.
Regarding feature 1, Yogev discloses:
the liquid inlet (Fig. 1, element 20 “inlet nozzle”; col. 3, lines 6-11) and the liquid outlet (Fig. 1, element 20 “outlet nozzle”; col. 3, lines 6-11) are arranged at two ends (annotated Fig. 1) of a diagonal line (annotated Fig. 1) of an opening of the bioreactor (Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
379
1028
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yogev, annotated Fig. 1
In the analogous art of bioreactors and systems for improved productivity of photosynthetic algae, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of King with the liquid inlet and liquid outlet of Yogev so that the inlet and outlet ports can provide access to the internal space of the photobioreactor for adding nutrients.
Regarding feature 2, Falber discloses:
a CO2 feed pipeline, the CO2 feed pipeline is connected to a bottom end of the bioreactor (Figs. 4a and 4e, elements 56 “piping” and 58 “intermittent holes” for delivery of CO2 rich gases).
In the analogous art of a method and apparatus for cultivation of algae and cyanobacteria, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the CO2 feed pipeline location of Falber in order to sparge carbon dioxide into a photobioreactor so that higher algae yield can occur.
Regarding feature 3, modified King teaches an opening surface of the bioreactor (paragraph [0025]; Fig. 1); and, the PTC top surface (King, paragraph [0014] “parabolic”).
Woerlee discloses an opening surface of the bioreactor is the PTC top surface (paragraphs [0010], [0031], and [0049]).
In the analogous art of parabolically shaped top surfaces for photobioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King’s opening surface of the bioreactor with the PTC top surface of Woerlee in order to concentrate the light into the depths of the photobioreactor (Woerlee, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, King discloses wherein the PTC (paragraphs [0014] “parabolic” and [0025] “reflective sheet”) top surface performs transmission and reflection of a spectrum of incident sunlight (paragraphs [0013] and [0015]-[0016]), transmits a first part of the spectrum (paragraphs [0013] and [0015]-[0016]) to the bioreactor (paragraph [0025]), and reflects a second part of the spectrum (paragraphs [0013] and [0015]-[0016]) to the thermal solar receiver (paragraph [0025] “solar collector”); and
the thermal solar receiver receives the second part of the spectrum reflected by the top surface and performs thermal conversion (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, King discloses wherein the PTC top surface (paragraph [0014]) is a spectrum-splitting coating material (paragraph [0099] and Fig. 20).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20110030675) (newly cited) in view of Yogev (US 5958761) (newly cited), Falber (WO 2010085853) (newly cited), and Woerlee (US 20110117631) (newly cited) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Schubert (US 20200071191) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 4, King discloses the thermal solar receiver (paragraph [0060], Fig. 1, element 18 “solar collector” … “process heat”); and a position of the thermal solar receiver matches with the focal point of the bioreactor’s PTC surface (paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0083], and [0107]).
King does not disclose wherein the thermal solar receiver has a cylindrical hollow structure.
Schubert discloses in its prior art thermal solar receivers having a cylindrical hollow structure (paragraph [0057] “collector tubes 214 having a circular cross-sectional shape”).
In the analogous art of systems for water reclamation, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the cylindrical thermal solar receiver of Schubert in order to provide a surface for heat transfer so that concentrated solar heat can transfer to an internal thermal transfer fluid for use in removing contaminants from water (Schubert, paragraph [0057]). Additionally, although Schubert discusses enhancements due to a different preferred embodiment related to the shape of the thermal solar receiver – a rectangular collector tube (Schubert, paragraph [0057]) – please note that Schubert still teaches that cylindrical tubes are still already known in the prior art. See MPEP § 2123(I) “Patents Are Relevant As Prior Art For All They Contain” and MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(1) “The Nature of the Teaching Is Highly Relevant”.
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20110030675) (newly cited) in view of Yogev (US 5958761) (newly cited), Falber (WO 2010085853) (newly cited), and Woerlee (US 20110117631) (newly cited) as applied to claim 1, further in view of O’Neal (US 20210222111) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 5, modified King teaches the combined algae production system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1).
King does not disclose:
an algae fluid loop, and
a heat transfer fluid loop;
wherein the algae fluid loop is configured to circulate algae solution into and out of the combined algae production system; and
the heat transfer fluid loop is configured to transfer heat generated by the combined algae production system to a CO2 capture device to capture CO2, and convey the CO2 to the combined algae production system.
O’Neal discloses:
an algae fluid loop (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1), and
a heat transfer fluid loop (paragraph [0025] “heat pump” and Fig. 2);
wherein the algae fluid loop (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1) is configured to circulate algae solution into (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1, arrow pointing into element 102 “Bioreactor”) and out (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1, arrow pointing into element 108 “blowdown stream”) of an algae production system (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1, element 102 “Bioreactor”); and
the heat transfer fluid loop (paragraph [0025] “heat pump”) is configured to transfer heat generated by the combined algae production system to a CO2 capture device to capture CO2 (paragraphs [0025] and [0036] “amine capture plant”).
In the analogous art of bioreactor waste heat utilization, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the heat pump system of O’Neal in order to recover heat produced with the operation of a photobioreactor for carbon capture (O’Neal, paragraphs [0015] and [0036]).
Falber discloses conveying CO2 to an algae production system (pg. 40, lines 20-33 and Fig. 4).
In the analogous art of cultivation of algae and cyanobacteria, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the conveyance of carbon dioxide to the photobioreactor as in Falber in order to infuse the growth medium with gaseous nutrients and create convection currents that scrub the photobioreactor (Falber, pg. 40, lines 20-33).
Regarding the phrase “and convey the CO2 to the combined algae production system”, the limitation “the combined algae production system” has already been rejected according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, modified King teaches the combined algae production system (see rejection to claim 1).
King does not disclose wherein the heat transfer loop comprises: a liquid storage subsystem and a CO2 capture subsystem; wherein
the liquid storage subsystem supplies the heat generated by the combined algae production system to the CO2 capture subsystem through a first pipeline.
O’Neal discloses: wherein the heat transfer loop comprises: a liquid storage subsystem (paragraphs [0026]-[0028] “heat exchangers”) and a CO2 capture subsystem (paragraphs [0025] and [0036] “amine capture plant”); wherein
the liquid storage subsystem (paragraphs [0026]-[0028] “heat exchangers”) supplies the heat generated to the CO2 capture subsystem (paragraphs [0025] and [0036] “amine capture plant”) through a first pipeline (paragraphs [0026]-[0028]).
In the analogous art of bioreactor waste utilization, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the heat transfer loop of O’Neal in order to recover heat produced with the operation of a photobioreactor for carbon capture (O’Neal, paragraphs [0015] and [0036]).
Regarding the phrase “by the combined algae production system”, this limitation has already been rejected by modified King, above.
Regarding claim 10, King discloses wherein the surface performs transmission and reflection of a spectrum of incident sunlight (paragraph [0013]), transmits a first part of the spectrum to the bioreactor (paragraph [0013]), and reflects a second part of the spectrum (paragraph [0013]) to the thermal solar receiver (paragraph [0060]; Fig. 1, element 18 “solar collector”); and
the thermal solar receiver (paragraph [0060]; Fig. 1, element 18 “solar collector”) receives the second part of the spectrum (paragraph [0013]) reflected by the surface (paragraph [0058] “reflective sheet 14”) and performs thermal conversion (paragraph [0060]).
Modified King teaches the PTC top surface (see rejection to claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, King discloses wherein the surface (paragraph [0013] “reflective sheet”) is a spectrum-splitting coating material (paragraph [0013]).
Modified King teaches the PTC top surface (see rejection to claim 1).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20110030675) (newly cited) in view of Yogev (US 5958761) (newly cited), Falber (WO 2010085853) (newly cited), Woerlee (US 20110117631) (newly cited), and O’Neal (US 20210222111) (newly cited) as applied to claim 6, further in view of Li (CN 204737963) (machine translation) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 7, King does not disclose wherein the liquid storage subsystem comprises: a liquid storage tank, a second liquid pump, and the thermal solar receiver, wherein the liquid storage tank, the second liquid pump and the thermal solar receiver are sequentially connected in a series circuit; and the liquid storage tank stores heat generated by the thermal solar receiver, and triggers flow in the heat transfer fluid loop through the second liquid pump.
O’Neal discloses: wherein the liquid storage subsystem (paragraphs [0026]-[0028] “heat exchangers”) comprises: a liquid storage loop (paragraphs [0026]-[0028] “heat exchangers” and Fig. 2), a second liquid pump (paragraph [0026] “heat pump” 110; Figs. 1-2), and a solar receiver (paragraph [0033]).
In the analogous art of bioreactor waste utilization, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the heat transfer loop of O’Neal in order to recover heat produced with the operation of a photobioreactor for carbon capture (O’Neal, paragraphs [0015] and [0036]).
Li discloses wherein the liquid storage tank (pg. 5 of 16, bottom half of page; Fig. 1, element 2 “heat preservation pool”), the second liquid pump (pg. 5 of 16, bottom half of page; Fig. 1, element 402 “cold water pump”) and the thermal solar receiver (pg. 5 of 16, bottom half of page; Fig. 1, element 5 “how water generating unit” is a “solar water heater”) are connected in a series circuit (pg. 5 of 16, bottom half of page; Fig. 1); and the liquid storage tank stores heat generated (pg. 5 of 16, bottom half of page; Fig. 1, element 2 “heat preservation pool”) by the thermal solar receiver (pg. 5 of 16, bottom half of page; Fig. 1, element 5 “how water generating unit” is a “solar water heater”).
Regarding the phrase “sequentially connected in a series circuit”, the sequence in which the liquid storage tank, the second liquid pump, and the thermal solar receiver (tank-pump-receiver, looped repeatedly) are connected is an obvious rearrangement of parts of modified King. Placing the second liquid pump between the liquid storage tank and the thermal solar receiver rather than at the beginning of the series circuit (pump-receiver-tank, looped repeatedly) is a rearrangement of parts, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
In the analogous art of temperature control systems for algae culture, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the liquid storage tank, second liquid pump, and thermal solar receiver of Li in order to regulate the temperature control of a photobioreactor for algae culture (Li, abstract).
Regarding the phrase “[the liquid storage tank] triggers flow in the heat transfer fluid loop through the second liquid pump” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified King would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the structures (tank-pump-receiver) present in modified King.
Regarding claim 8, King does not disclose wherein the CO2 capture subsystem comprises: the CO2 capture device and a liquid storage tank;
the CO2 capture device is connected to the liquid storage tank through a second pipeline;
the CO2 capture device receives heat and atmospheric air stored in the liquid storage tank, and achieves CO2 capture by consuming the heat.
O’Neal discloses wherein the CO2 capture subsystem (paragraphs [0025] and [0036] “amine capture plant”) comprises: the CO2 capture device (paragraphs [0025] and [0036] “amine capture plant”);
the CO2 capture device (paragraphs [0025] and [0036] “amine capture plant”; Fig. 2, element 222 “Downstream Applications”) is connected through a second pipeline (Fig. 2, arrow pointing downwards “Steam”);
the CO2 capture device (paragraphs [0025] and [0036] “amine capture plant”; Fig. 2, element 222 “Downstream Applications”) receives heat (paragraphs [0034]-[0035]) and atmospheric air (paragraph [0034]), and achieves CO2 capture by consuming the heat (paragraph [0036]).
Li discloses a liquid storage tank (pg. 5 of 16, bottom half of page; Fig. 1, element 2 “heat preservation pool”). Therefore, the following limitations are obvious: “and a liquid storage tank” and “is connected to the liquid storage tank” and “stored in the liquid storage tank”.
In the analogous art of temperature control systems for algae culture, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the liquid storage tank of Li in order to regulate the temperature control of a photobioreactor for algae culture (Li, abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20110030675) (newly cited) in view of Yogev (US 5958761) (newly cited), Falber (WO 2010085853) (newly cited), and Woerlee (US 20110117631) (newly cited), and as applied to claim 5, further in view of O’Neal (US 20210222111) (newly cited) and Primavera (WO 2021224811) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 9, King does not disclose wherein the algae fluid loop comprises: the bioreactor, an algae separator, and a first liquid pump, wherein the bioreactor, the algae separator and the first liquid pump are sequentially connected in a series circuit; the algae separator separates algae and water produced by the bioreactor, and triggers flow in the algae fluid loop through the second liquid pump to transfer remaining water back to the bioreactor.
O’Neal discloses wherein
the algae fluid loop (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1) comprises: the bioreactor (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1, element 102 “Bioreactor”), an algae separator (paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1, element 104 “Algae Separator(s)”), and a first liquid pump (paragraph [0021] “discharged from the bioreactor 102 and pumped to one or more algae-water separators 104 to be dewatered”), wherein the bioreactor, the algae separator and the first liquid pump are sequentially connected in a series circuit (paragraph [0021]);
the algae separator separates algae and water produced by the bioreactor (paragraph [0021]), and triggers flow in the algae fluid loop to transfer remaining water (paragraph [0023]).
If it is deemed that the bioreactor, the algae separator and the first liquid pump are not sequentially connected in a series circuit, the sequence of these structures is an obvious rearrangement of parts of modified King, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
In the analogous art of bioreactor waste heat utilization, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the heat pump system of O’Neal in order to recover heat produced with the operation of a photobioreactor for carbon capture (O’Neal, paragraphs [0015] and [0036]).
Regarding the limitation “through the second liquid pump”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with an additional liquid pump in order to continue pumping the water from the algae separator to another location.
Primavera discloses the limitation “back to the bioreactor” (pg. 5, lines 15-20).
In the analogous art of plants and processes for the production of photosynthetic microorganisms, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the recirculation loop of Primavera in order to reduce the amount of water needed to be newly inputted into the photobioreactor system, thereby reducing costs.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20110030675) (newly cited) in view of Yogev (US 5958761) (newly cited), Falber (WO 2010085853) (newly cited), Woerlee (US 20110117631) (newly cited), and O’Neal (US 20210222111) (newly cited) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Schubert (US 20200071191) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 12, King discloses the thermal solar receiver (paragraph [0060], Fig. 1, element 18 “solar collector” … “process heat”); and a position of the thermal solar receiver matches with the focal point of the bioreactor’s PTC surface (paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0083], and [0107]).
King does not disclose wherein the thermal solar receiver has a cylindrical hollow structure.
Schubert discloses in its prior art thermal solar receivers having a cylindrical hollow structure (paragraph [0057] “collector tubes 214 having a circular cross-sectional shape”).
In the analogous art of systems for water reclamation, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified King with the cylindrical thermal solar receiver of Schubert in order to provide a surface for heat transfer so that concentrated solar heat can transfer to an internal thermal transfer fluid for use in removing contaminants from water (Schubert, paragraph [0057]). Additionally, although Schubert discusses enhancements due to a different preferred embodiment related to the shape of the thermal solar receiver – a rectangular collector tube (Schubert, paragraph [0057]) – please note that Schubert still teaches that cylindrical tubes are still already known in the prior art. See MPEP § 2123(I) “Patents Are Relevant As Prior Art For All They Contain” and MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(1) “The Nature of the Teaching Is Highly Relevant”.
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Anthony (US 4324068) (newly cited) – This invention is for the production of algae.
Hanks (US 20210047604) (newly cited) – This invention is for the solar steam explosion of algae.
O’Neal (US 20210219506) (newly cited) – This invention is a solar steam system for optimized algal biomass processing.
Funken (DE 19746343) (machine translation) (newly cited) – This invention is a photobioreactor with a mirror layer.
Sato (WO 02099032) (machine translation) (newly cited) – This invention is a photobioreactor with two concave or convex parabolic surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807, and whose fax number is 571-273-8464. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799