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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/9/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, claims 18-20 being withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have addressed every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/9/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, p 7, para. 2, filed 10/9/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 using Pickett have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the argument that the remaining author of Pickett who is not listed as an inventor on the present application, did not contribute to the conception of the claimed invention. Therefore, the rejections in view of Picket have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues “TRW's statement that "Zero gravity should not affect the performance of fluidic elements" suggests that gravity-dependent operation was not contemplated.” (See Remarks p 4 para. 2)
In response, TRW's statement that "Zero gravity should not affect the performance of fluidic elements" indicates the valve operates without impediment in the absence of gravity. This does not relate to whether gravity-dependent valve response was contemplated.
Indeed, TRW shows that different gravity conditions result in adapted outcomes:
“Acceleration requirements for spacecraft vehicles also impose severe g-loads along any axis, so that compensation is necessary to accurately maintain the regulator set point” p 11 last para.
Examiner requests further clarification on the contemplation of gravity-dependent operation of the valve of a gravity-independent anaerobic membrane reactor.
Note:
Regarding the gravity sensor of Claim 7, Examiner interprets gravity sensor as incorporating sensors that measure the force of gravity. Examiner suggests if there is support in the original disclosure, Applicant may clarify if gravity sensor has a special definition or is intended to encompass a narrower scope, such as a sensor akin to a gyroscope, inclinometer, accelerometer, or sensor to determine orientation.
Applicant's further arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the amendments of claim 1 to include a first membrane solid/liquid filtration unit and a second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit required further search and consideration. For the purpose of prosecution, claims including the original language reciting a first membrane filtration unit and a second membrane filtration unit were interpreted as conforming to the amended claim 1 first membrane solid/liquid filtration unit and second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit, noted in the prior art rejections of each relevant claim.
Note: Applicant points to amendment support in instant specification [0017], [0023], and [0034]. The paragraphs of the specification on file are not numbered using that convention. However, Examiner notes a relationship between amended matter and at least specification p 7 ln 13-18.
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 1-17 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 “the first membrane filtration unit”
There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claims 2-17 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 2 recites “the first membrane filtration unit”
Claim 1 recites “ a first membrane solid/liquid filtration unit…the first membrane solid/liquid filtration unit”
Examiner interprets solid/liquid filtration unit as a unit that filters solids from liquid.
If “the first membrane solid/liquid filtration unit” of claim 2 is intended to be “the first membrane solid/liquid filtration unit” of claim 1, it is unclear how claim 2 “first membrane (solid/liquid) filtration unit includes a membrane configured to separate solids from liquid” further limits claim 1.
Claims 3, 9, 13 and 14 recite “the second membrane filtration unit”
There is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1 recites “ a second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit…the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit”
Examiner interprets gas/liquid filtration unit as a unit that filters gases from liquid.
If “the second membrane filtration unit” of claim 3 is intended to be “the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit” of claim 1, it is unclear how claim 3 “the second membrane (gas/liquid ) filtration unit includes a membrane configured to separate gases from liquid” further limits claim 1.
Claim(s) 4, 10-12, and 15-17 depend(s) on claims 3, 9 , 13, and 14, and are also rejected.
Claim 5 recites “The water purification system of claim 1, further comprising an automated valve associated with the gravity-independent anaerobic bioreactor through which biogas produced in the bioreactor can be vented, wherein the valve is configured to automatically open or close in response to gravity conditions”
It is unclear how the anaerobic bioreactor that is gravity-independent also responds to gravity conditions to vent biogas.
Examiner interprets “associated with” as “related to or in relationship with”
Claim(s) 6-8 depend(s) on claim 5 and are also rejected.
Claim 7 recites “opens or closes depending upon gravity conditions”
Claim 7 is dependent on now amended claims 1 and 5
Amended claim 1 recites “a gravity-independent anaerobic membrane bioreactor capable of operating in the presence and absence of gravity”,
suggesting the system still works in any gravity condition;
Amended claim 5 recites “configured to automatically open and close in response to gravity conditions”
suggesting system is designed to change responses in changed gravity conditions;
and claim 7, depending on both claim 1 and claim 5, recites “opens or closes depending upon gravity conditions”
suggesting the system operation results from the variability of the gravity condition;
It is unclear how claim 7 can simultaneously be independent from, responsive to, and dependent upon gravity.
For the purpose of prosecution, Examiner interprets claim 7 as a system independent of gravity that regulates operation across gravity condition variability as sensed by a gravity sensor, in light of Specification p 8 ¶2: “it is desirable for the bioreactor to function properly irrespective of the presence or absence of gravity”
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2012/0048801 A1, hereinafter Hong, in view of US 2020/0017383 A1, hereinafter Veolia,
further in view of US2019/0016620A1, hereinafter Saslaw.
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes as stated in MPEP 2115, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Although hygiene water is not positively claimed, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets “the anaerobic bioreactor is configured to receive organic waste and hygiene water as inputs” in light of instant specification pp 6-7 “hygiene water…can comprise … residuals of personal care products, such as soaps and shampoo”, indicating the system has structural capacity for processing soap residuals.
”Hong discloses a closed-loop, bioregenerative water purification system (Fig. 1; para [0006], [0015], closed anaerobic process for degrading wastewater and producing biogas ... wastewater filtered to form high quality permeate line, 28, as shown.)
comprising: a gravity-independent anaerobic membrane bioreactor capable of operating in the presence and absence of gravity (Fig. 1; para [0020], inlet valve, 40, and feed line, 18, is opened and pump turned on if the flow is not by gravity), the gravity-independent anaerobic membrane bioreactor including an anaerobic bioreactor (Fig. 1; para [0012], [0014]), anaerobic digestion of organic matter in the digester process tank, 12), a first membrane solid/liquid filtration unit (Fig. 1; para [0014]-[0015]. process liquid, 24, enters membrane tank, 20, with membrane filter, 22), and a second membrane filtration unit (Fig. 1; para [0013]), system has a plurality of membrane trains, each in its own tank or in a common tank.),
wherein the anaerobic bioreactor is configured to receive organic waste as inputs and break them down into constituent components using anaerobic microbes (Fig. 1; para [0012]. [0014]. anaerobic digestion of organic matter in the digester process tank, 12), wherein the first membrane solid/liquid filtration unit is configured to receive effluent output from the anaerobic bioreactor (Fig. 1; para [0014-0015], process liquid, 24, enters membrane tank, 20, with membrane filter, 22.), return concentrate to the anaerobic bioreactor (Fig. 1; para [0015], a portion of wastewater leaves the membrane tank through premeate line, 28, and another part through process liquid recirculation line, 26.); wherein the second membrane filtration unit is configured to receive the permeate output from the first membrane filtration unit (Fig. 1; para [0013], system has a plurality of membrane trains, each in its own tank.), separate biogas from the permeate, and output nutrient-rich water (Fig. 1; para [0015]-[0016], biogas bubbles up to the surface of the membrane tank, 20, and biogas returns to the process tank, 12, through a gas recirculation line, 32, and high quality permeate is removed from the tank, 28, as shown.);
Hong does not specifically disclose: providing hygiene water; the first membrane filtration unit is configured to output permeate to the second membrane filtration unit; and wherein the second membrane filtration unit is configured to receive the permeate output from the first membrane filtration unit.
However, Veolia teaches a second gas/liquid membrane filtration unit (Any of Fig. 1 Element 6; Fig. 3 Membrane contactor;) wherein the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit is configured to receive permeate output (Any of Fig 1 Element 1b; Fig. 3 Permeate; [0055] “RO concentrate”, respectively) from the first membrane filtration unit, separate biogas from said permeate, and output nutrient-rich water (Any of Fig 1 gas outlet 31 and liquid outlet 32; Fig. 3 CO2 recycle and water leading to Fertilizer outlet).
Veolia also provides motivation for gas/liquid separation units in anaerobic filtrate treatment (“it is possible to recover carbon dioxide from biogas produced in the anaerobic digester”, [0059]; “to recover carbon dioxide, which is used to adjust the pH of the filtrate to be treated by RO or NF”, [0055]; “It is in particular preferred to combine the recovery of carbon dioxide from the RO or NF concentrate with a precipitation step to recover an inorganic salt”, [0057])
Veolia is analogous because Veolia teaches and provides motivation for anaerobic membrane reactor filtrate treatment with gas/liquid separation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the gas/liquid membrane separation of Veolia in the membrane filter train of Hong. Doing so would allow for multi-purpose uses of the biogas, including to isolate carbon dioxide for pH-adjusted treatments, as disclosed in Veolia [0055].
The combination of Hong and Veolia does not specifically disclose configured to receive hygiene water.
However, Saslaw discloses a method purifying water (para [00081]) through at least three membrane filtration units (Fig. 3 at least FBMR1-3 and Gl-AnMBR), the method comprising receiving urine and hygiene water (para [0019], [0067]);
To a person of ordinary skill in the art, substituting hygiene water as taught by Saslaw would have been obvious for use in the method of purifying water as in Hong in order to purify water in future extraplanetary surfaces (Saslaw Title: Closed-loop bioregenerative water purification system for the international space station (ISS) and for sustainable Mars exploration), because Hong and Saslaw are directed towards methods purifying water using anaerobic bioreactors.
Regarding Claim 2, Examiner interprets “the first membrane filtration unit” as the first membrane liquid/solid filtration unit of claim 1.
Hong further discloses the water purification system of claim 1, wherein the first membrane liquid/solid filtration unit includes a microfiltration (para [0014]), ultrafiltration (para [0014]), nanofiltration, or osmotic membrane configured to separate solids from liquid.
Regarding Claim 3, Examiner interprets “the second membrane filtration unit” as the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit of claim 1.
The combination of Hong and Veolia teaches the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit includes a membrane configured to separate gases from liquid (In Veolia: Any of Fig 1 gas outlet 31 and liquid outlet 32; Fig. 3 CO2 recycle and water leading to Fertilizer outlet).
Regarding Claim 5, Hong further discloses the water purification system of claim 1, further comprising an automated valve associated with the gravity-independent anaerobic bioreactor, wherein the valve is configured to automatically open or close in response to gravity conditions (Fig. 1; para [0020], inlet valve, 40, and feed line, 18, is opened and pump turned on if the flow is not by gravity) and venting biogas from the anaerobic bioreactor using a valve (Fig. 1; para [0018], biogas exhaust valve, 18); but does not specifically disclose an automated valve associated with the bioreactor through which biogas produced in the bioreactor can be vented.
However, Hong further discloses managing process liquid recirculation to keep the biogas at a higher pressure than the biogas in the process tank (Fig. 1; para [0016]).
Further, Saslaw discloses gravity as a technology constraint ([0088], [0097], [0103-0105], [0108]).
To a person of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to use a valve operable based on gravity in order to optimize biogas pressure during long-duration missions from Earth.
Regarding Claim 14, For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets “a third membrane filtration unit configured to receive biogas from the anaerobic bioreactor and the second membrane filtration unit” to mean “a third membrane filtration unit configured to receive biogas from the anaerobic bioreactor and the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit”
While Hong discloses a plurality of membranes with a permeate pump and biogas removed through a gas recirculation line (Fig. 1; para [0013], [0016]), Hong does not specifically disclose a third membrane filtration unit configured to receive biogas from the anaerobic bioreactor and the second gas/liquid membrane filtration unit and separate the biogas into different gas streams.
However, Veolia teaches a membrane filtration unit configured to receive biogas from the anaerobic bioreactor and the second membrane filtration unit and separate the biogas into different gas streams ([0059]: “For recovery of carbon dioxide from biogas, a known technique may be use, such as a separation over a gas-selective membrane, which is either more permeable to carbon dioxide than to methane or more permeable to methane than to carbon dioxide”)
Furthermore, Saslaw discloses a third membrane filtration unit configured to receive biogas from the anaerobic bioreactor and the second membrane filtration unit and separate the biogas into different gas streams (Fig. 7 at least 660)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to include the selective gas/liquid membrane separation of Veolia and/or Saslaw in the membrane filter train of Hong. Doing so would allow for multi-purpose uses of the biogas, including to isolate carbon dioxide for pH-adjusted treatments, as disclosed in Veolia [0055].
Regarding Claim 15, while Hong is silent on how the output biogas is treated, Hong does support creating products from the biogas produced (“Excess biogas produced as the
wastewater is degraded is removed from the system and maybe used as a product”, Abstract; “The removed biogas is a product that can be used, for example, as a fuel burned to generate electricity”, [0008]), which suggests scrubbing or cleaning of the biogas would be necessary to create a clean, efficient, and/or valuable product.
However, Saslaw discloses a scrubber configured to remove impurities from the biogas before it is provided to the third membrane filtration unit (“there are two outputs from FBMR1 630 the above-mentioned hydrogen and argon gas mixture 661, which is sent to a H2 Separator 660, and a resulting output cleaned gas, which is pressurized through a conduit and heated 641 prior to entering Fixed Bed Membrane Reactor 2 (FBMR2) 640… the output from FBMR2 being sent for another heat pretreatment 651 before entering Fixed Bed Membrane Reactor 3 (FBMR3) 650. The same process is repeated within this third reactor”, [0100]).
Saslaw [0100] provides multiple motivations for cleaning the biogas outs: “From FBMR3 650, the hydrogen and argon gas 661 exits to the H2 Separator 660, while the rest of the output is considered clean nitrogen (N2 ) gas 652, meaning that it contain no hydrogen (or virtually no hydrogen). This valuable final output of the ACC is used for resupply of breathing air for life support aboard a space structure (e.g., the ISS) or on another planet such as Mars. Finally, the hydrogen and argon gas mixture 661 accumulates within the H2 Separator 660. Using another membrane, the mixture 661 is separated into ultraclean hydrogen gas 662 and argon gas 672. The hydrogen gas 662 is an extremely valuable final output of the ACC 600 because, for example, it can be used for launch propulsion applications (a huge need for Mars applications)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to employ the gas separator, heat treatment, and scrubbing of Saslaw to create the carrier gas of Saslaw Fig. 7 through the membrane reactor system of Hong and Veolia combined. Doing so would also create valuable products of nitrogen gas and ultraclean hydrogen gas (Saslaw [0100]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hong does not positively teach a fourth membrane filtration unit.
However, Saslaw teaches a fourth membrane filtration unit (Fig. 3 Gl-AnMBR) configured to receive urine, rinse, hygiene, and laundry water (Fig. 3, 100) and separate organic materials from liquid within the water, (“These three to four sources are fed simultaneously into the system, and an overarching four-step sequential purification process occurs. First, urea and other organic matter are removed from the effluent”, [0068]), wherein the organic materials are input into the anaerobic bioreactor (Fig. 3 at least Gl-AnMBR and/or FBMBR1) and the liquid is added to the nutrient- rich water output from the gravity-independent anaerobic membrane bioreactor (Fig. 3 at least SFP 700 and/or Liquid Fertilizers [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hydroponic Plant System 900 and/or Water 800).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the robust filtration unit of Saslaw to process the mixed input waste waters of Hong for an efficient reuse and repurpose of the waste into value-added products such as liquid fertilizer (Saslaw Fig. 3) and potable water (“After completion of these four steps, potable water is output”, Saslaw [0068]).
Regarding Claim 17, Hong is silent on disinfection.
However, Saslaw discloses a water disinfection unit (Fig. 4, 300) configured to kill or inactivate pathogens in the liquid from the fourth membrane filtration unit before the liquid is added to the nutrient-rich water, (Fig. 3 at least SFP 700 and/or Water 800; “The flow is then run under an ultraviolet (UV) light to kill any microorganisms present. …the resulting effluent flow is then sent through a Continuous Electro-Deionization (CEDI) device, which separates the brine (salts) … The brine solution is concurrently sent to a Sequential Fertilizer Producer (SFP) secondary subsystem, which produces fertilizers to be used in a hydroponic plant system, as well as other valuable resources”, [0070]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use the disinfection unit of Saslaw to process the effluent of Hong for an efficient reuse and repurpose of the waste into value-added products such as liquid fertilizer (Saslaw Fig. 3) and potable water (“After completion of these four steps, potable water is output”, Saslaw [0068]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong, in view of Veolia, further in view of Saslaw, further in view of Hou (Hou et al. Hydrophobic Gas Transfer Membranes for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 11618−11635. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b00902), hereinafter Hou.
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Hong and Veolia teaches the second membrane filtration unit (Veolia Fig. 3 membrane contactor).
While Veolia is silent on the membrane material, Veolia [0059] teaches “For recovery of carbon dioxide from biogas, a known technique may be use, such as a separation over a gas-selective membrane, which is either more permeable to carbon dioxide than to methane or more permeable to methane than to carbon dioxide.”
However, Hou teaches a gas/liquid membrane (“Hydrophobic membranes, recently, became an emerging method for more efficient gas transfer (extraction or supply)… the dissolved gas diffuses from the liquid phase to the gas phase”, p 2; Fig 1A) comprises one or more of a silicon rubber elastomer (“hydrophobic membranes can also be prepared from hydrophilic polymers via modifications … silicone (e.g., silicone rubber) polymers”, p 3 Sec 2.2), hydrophobic (“Hydrophobic Gas Transfer Membranes…”, Title), composite (“PDMS is a silicone-based elastomer that is hydrophobic but organophilic, so it has been extensively used in pervaporation
for the recovery of VFAs… PDMS membranes are generally made as composite membranes”, p 3 Col 2 Sec 2.1), or microporous hollow-fiber membrane (“focuses on hydrophobic, microporous membranes ... Hydrophobic membranes … are commercially available in different form factors, including… hollow-fiber”, p 3 Col 1).
Hou is analogous because Hou is in the same field of using a membrane for gas separation from liquid “for wastewater treatment and resource recovery” (Hou Title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use any of the materials of a silicon rubber elastomer, hydrophobic, composite, or microporous hollow-fiber membrane(s) of Hou as the gas/liquid membrane material of the combined Hong and Veolia system. In so doing, “With these unique mass transfer properties, hydrophobic membrane processes provide a new approach to advancing wastewater treatment and resource recovery. For example, membrane gas separation not only enables the efficient extraction and separation of gas products…but also supplies gaseous electron donors or acceptors into wastewater for enhanced treatment and remediation”, Hou p 2 Col 2- p2 Col 1).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong, in view of Veolia, further in view of Saslaw, further in view of Kane (Jeff Kane. Design Elements to Consider when Selecting a Check Valve. DFT. July 10, 2014. https://www.dft-valves.com/blog/design-elements-consider-selecting-check-valve/. Accessed 5/6/2025), hereinafter Kane.
Regarding Claim 6, Hong further discloses the automated valve is configured to open if a gravitational force is acting on the valve (Fig. 1; para [0020], inlet valve, 40, and feed line, 18, is opened and pump turned on if the flow is not by gravity.); but does not specifically disclose that the force is equal to or greater than approximately 0.05 G. While Earth’s standard gravity is 1G, and Hong suggests operation with standard gravity present (“pumped or gravity-fed wastewater”, [0007]), extraterrestrial conditions should be considered.
However, Kane supports using a combination of swing check valve and counterweight for gravity-driven operation without slamming (“ Swing check valves utilize a disc that pivots around a hinge. They are not powered by spring, but rather the natural force and direction of water flow. Swing Check valves are very prone to slamming. Some swing check valves are assisted by an external spring, counterweight, or hydraulic or air cylinder to prevent this from happening… They are the most common types of check valve today because they are easily obtainable, cost-effective, and efficient.”, Swing Check Valve Elements Section).
Kane is analogous because Kane teaches known variants for check valves (“Silent Check Valve Elements… Swing Check Valve Elements… Pump Control Valves”, Sub-Headings) and the importances of selecting design elements that meet the needs of the application (Title).
To a person of ordinary skill in the art, a ubiquitous valve such as that of Kane would be an obvious variant to the inlet valve driven by gravity of Hong. Varying the design element, including the weight and/or inclusion of the counterweight, to meet necessary microgravity and/or terrestrial gravity threshold conditions when not activating the pump would have been obvious in order to optimize water purification during long-duration missions from Earth.
Regarding Claim 8, Hong further discloses the automated valve is a valve that automatically opens or closes depending upon the gravity conditions; but does not specifically disclose that said valve is an entirely mechanical valve.
Kane supports using a combination of swing check valve and counterweight for gravity-driven operation without slamming (“ Swing check valves utilize a disc that pivots around a hinge. They are not powered by spring, but rather the natural force and direction of water flow. Swing Check valves are very prone to slamming. Some swing check valves are assisted by an external spring, counterweight, or hydraulic or air cylinder to prevent this from happening… They are the most common types of check valve today because they are easily obtainable, cost-effective, and efficient.”, Swing Check Valve Elements Section).
To a person of ordinary skill in the art, selecting among known types of valves would have been obvious in order to optimize operating cost of the bioreactor (para [0013]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong, in view of Veolia, further in view of Saslaw, further in view of (Dhoble AS et. Al. “Design and operation of an anaerobic digester for waste management and fuel generation during long term lunar mission” Advances in Space Research 54 (2014) 1502–1512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2014.06.029), hereinafter Dhoble, further in view of (TRW. “Advanced spacecraft valve technology compilation volume ii nonmechanical controls” REPORT NO. 12411-6012-ROOO. July 1970), hereinafter TRW.
Regarding Claim 7, For the purpose of prosecution, Examiner interprets claim 7 as a system independent of gravity configured to regulate valve operation across changes in gravity conditions as sensed by a gravity sensor, in light of Specification p 8 ¶2: “it is desirable for the bioreactor to function properly irrespective of the presence or absence of gravity”
Hong discloses the automated valve associated with the gravity-independent anaerobic bioreactor, wherein the valve is configured to automatically open or close depending upon gravity conditions (Fig. 1; para [0020], inlet valve, 40, and feed line, 18, is opened and pump turned on if the flow is not by gravity).
While Hong is silent to a gravity sensor, Hong suggests adaptiveness to conditions sensed by one or more sensors (“an exhaust valve 36 that is controlled to open when gas pressure in the system 10 exceeds a predetermined maximum”, [0018]).
However, Dhoble discloses “The active components of the circuit include a 3-way solenoid valve, a float switch, an electromechanical counter, a time delay relay and a U-tube manometer component”
Furthermore, TRW discloses solenoid valves combined with controls for detecting and regulating pressure is known in the art for regulating gas in low/zero gravity environments “A pressure regulator is defined as a component, or valve, that controls pressure by varying flow as a function of the sensed difference between the actual and the desired value of pressure… A solenoid valve operated by a pressure switch would be an elementary non-modulating regulator.” (p. 11 Sec. 8.6.4); “The space environment is characterized by radiation, vacuum, zero gravity” (p 7 Sec 8.5.2.12); “In an electrical to fluidic (E-F) transducer, an electrical signal produces a mechanical movement of an element into the active area of a fluidic device. There is a wide variety of these E-F transducers in general use. For example, an E-F transducer for on-off or digital operation can be a solenoid valve” (p 5 Sec 8.4.10.1).
TRW also discloses “Acceleration requirements for spacecraft vehicles also impose severe g-loads along any axis, so that compensation is necessary to accurately maintain the regulator set point” (p 11 last para.), providing motivation for valves responsive to changes in gravity condition.
To a person of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to use a valve operable based on gravity in order to optimize biogas pressure during long-duration missions from Earth.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong, in view of Veolia, further in view of Saslaw, further motivated by and in view of Schwartzkopf (Steven H. Schwartzkopf. Design of a Controlled Ecological Life Support System. BioScience Vol. 42 No.7, 526-535. 1992), hereinafter Schwartzkopf.
Regarding Claim 9, Examiner interprets “the second membrane filtration unit” as the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit of claim 1.
Hong discloses nutrient-rich water output from the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit of the gravity-independent anaerobic membrane bioreactor (Hong Fig. 1; para [0020], inlet valve, 40, and feed line, 18, is opened and pump turned on if the flow is not by gravity.).
Hong is silent on a hydroponic cultivation system configured to cultivate crops using nutrient-rich water output of the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit.
However, Saslaw teaches a hydroponic cultivation system configured to cultivate crops using nutrient-rich water output (“a water purification (WP) system is supplemented by adding a viable hydroponic plant system to utilize these excess plant fertilizers”, [0011]).
Additionally, Schwartzkopf provides further motivation to combine in that “Combining higher plants with anaerobic bacterial systems provides several distinct advantages. Most significant is the capability for increasing the removal of NH3 and NO3 nitrogen over that obtained with bacterial systems without plants”(Schwartzkopf p 7 Col 3 ¶ 4 – p 8 Col 1 ¶1).
Schwartzkopf is analogous because Schwartzkopf addresses the problem of bioregenerative water purification and recycling techniques using higher plant growth with a benefit of nutrient dampening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, it include the hydroponic system of Saslaw in the modified Hong systems. By doing so, “The plants, fed by these fertilizers, will produce food resources for the crew in space, whether on the ISS or on Mars.”, (Saslaw [0011]) given that “many outputs from the WP system are extremely useful plant fertilizers” (Saslaw [0020]). Furthermore “Combining higher plants with anaerobic bacterial systems provides several distinct advantages. Most significant is the capability for increasing the removal of NH3 and NO3 nitrogen over that obtained with bacterial systems without plants”(Schwartzkopf p 7 Col 3 ¶ 4 – p 8 Col 1 ¶1).
Regarding Claim 10, Hong is silent on disinfection.
However, Saslaw teaches a water disinfection unit configured to kill or inactivate pathogens in the nutrient-rich water prior to it being provided to the hydroponic cultivation system (“light-treatment subsystem comprising an input fluidically connected to the bioreaction output and receiving the first effluent, an ultraviolet (UV) light exposing the first effluent to UV light to create a second effluent substantially free from microorganisms”, [0022]; at least Fig. 3 shows the UV light upstream of the hydroponic system 900 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use a combination of anaerobic digestion of Hong with the disinfection unit of Saslaw to purify water in future extraplanetary surfaces because doing so would utilize “UV light to create a second effluent substantially free from microorganisms”, (Saslaw [0022]), which is important for creating an ingestible product, such as hydroponically grown crops.
Regarding Claim 11, Examiner interprets “prior to it being provided to the hydroponic cultivation system” as “prior to the nutrient-rich water being provided to the hydroponic cultivation system”
Hong is silent to a nutrient dampener configured to reduce a concentration of nutrients within the nutrient-rich water.
However, Saslaw teaches a nutrient dampener (“an ammonia-reducing reactor”, [0023]) configured to reduce a concentration of nutrients within the nutrient-rich water prior to it (at least Fig. 3 Element 800) being provided to the hydroponic cultivation system (“an ammonia-reducing reactor … and a sequential fertilizer producer secondary subsystem…producing fertilizers for use in a hydroponic plant system”, [0023]; at least Fig. 3 Element 800).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use a combination of anaerobic digestion of Hong with the nutrient dampener of Saslaw to purify water in future extraplanetary surfaces because doing so would allow for “producing fertilizers for use in a hydroponic plant system”, Saslaw [0023]), which is important for creating an ingestible product, such as hydroponically grown crops.
Regarding Claim 12, Hong is silent on potable water.
However, Saslaw teaches a water processor assembly configured to polish effluent water output from the hydroponic cultivation system (at least Fig. 3 subsystem 700) and produce potable water (“The WP system, of course, produces potable drinking water at an optimal efficiency, which is the primary output and purpose of the entire system”, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use a combination of anaerobic digestion of Hong with the polishing steps of Saslaw to purify water in future extraplanetary surfaces because doing so would generate potable water.
Alternatively:
Hong is silent on potable water.
However, Saslaw teaches a water processor assembly configured to polish effluent water output from the hydroponic cultivation system (at least Element 700 )
While Saslaw generates water 722 post-hydroponics, Saslaw is silent as to whether this water is potable.
However, Schwartzkopf teaches configuration to polish effluent water output from the hydroponic cultivation system to produce potable water (“drinking and food-preparation water are obtained by polishing condensate collected from the crew chamber or … recovering condensate from the plant growth chamber and purifying it with the same systems”, p 7 Col 2 ¶2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use a combination of anaerobic digestion of Hong and hydroponic system of Saslaw with the post-hydroponic polishing step of Schwartzkopf to purify water post-hydroponic cultivation in future extraplanetary surfaces because doing so would generate drinking water.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong, in view of Veolia, further in view of Saslaw, motivated by Schwartzkopf, further in view of US-2014/0045234 -A1, hereinafter Burke
Regarding Claim 13, Examiner interprets “the second membrane filtration unit” as the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit of claim 1.
Hong is silent to a photobioreactor configured to act upon the output of the second membrane gas/liquid filtration unit.
However, an embodiment of Saslaw teaches a bioreactor configured to cultivate algae and reduce a concentration of nutrients within nutrient-rich water output (“the ammonia-reducing reactor removes ammonia from the second effluent with at least one of a magnesium phosphate plug flow reactor, algae, and ammonia reducing techniques”, [0030]).
Saslaw is silent on whether the algae nutrient dampening technique is a photobioreactor.
However, Burke discloses a photobioreactor (“The rotating photobioreactor (RPB)”, [00016]) configured to cultivate microalgae ( "Substrate" is broadly defined to include…algae”, [0051]; “Microalgae as a feedstock for biofuels”, [0060]) and reduce the concentration of nutrients within nutrient-rich water output (“The rotating photobioreactor (RPB) is an improved method of producing biomass for energy production, as well as removing and concentrating nutrients from waste streams… Those attributes make the RPB an attractive, simple, economical, and scalable method for removing soluble nutrients (NPK) from waste streams”, [00016] ).
Burke also teaches it is known that “Conversion of soluble nutrients to particulate matter, such as micro and macro algae is an attractive method for removing soluble nutrients” [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effectively filed date, to use a combination of anaerobic digestion of Hong with an algae bioreactor as a nutrient dampener, taught by Saslaw, more specifically a photobioreactor, taught by Burke, to purify water in future extraplanetary surfaces because doing so would allow for “producing fertilizers for use in a hydroponic plant system”, Saslaw [0023]), which is important for creating an ingestible product, such as hydroponically grown crops. Burke provides similar motivation: “This invention can be applied to a variety of processes for recovering valuable gases, nutrients, and products”, (Burke [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140124439 A1 teaches an apparatus and method for anaerobic wastewater treatment with a membrane, which effectively generates biogas and suppresses fouling on a membrane
US 5,776,351 A teaches regeneration and closed loop recycling of cleaning solutions contaminated with used surfactants, fats, oils, greases, and inorganic and organic contaminants.
US 10,676,374 B1 addresses the problem of water recovery during space missions, the process including a water polisher and hydroponic system for urine and hygiene water processing and use.
US 5,005,787 teaches a life support system for space missions using filtration, nutrient adjustment, and bio-regenerative techniques to reuse liquid wastes in greenhouses, including hydroponic greenhouses, also including cultivation of plants and algae.
ISM. Spring Loaded Check Valves – Check Valves Part III. April 2019. https://www.industrialspec.com/about-us/blog/detail/spring-loaded-check-valves-check-valves-part-iii. Accessed 05/06/2025. ISM teaches the key benefit of building a spring into a check valve’s mechanism is that it largely eliminates the effect of gravity on check valve function.
R.M. Wheeler et al. NASA/TM-2003-211184. Crop Production for Advanced Life Support Systems-Observations From the Kennedy Space Center Breadboard Project. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, February 2003. Technical Memorandum. Addresses the problem of nutrient control in anaerobic reactor effluent.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm EST.
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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773