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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both "the device" and “the lighting device.” It is unclear if these are the same or if “the device” is meant to refer to the algal bioreactor system as a whole.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "3", "6" and “7” have all been used to designate the tube area of the bioreactor. The specification states that 3 is the diffuser body, 6 is a containment volume and 7 is an air purification means, however this is not apparent in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 10 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph.
The claim language recites “an aeration means.” This limitation meets the three-prong test
for 112(f) due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims. The specification states “the aeration means 11 can comprise a pneumatic pump 12.” Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the aeration means will be interpreted as a pneumatic pump.
The claim language recites “an air diffusion means.” This limitation meets the three-prong test
for 112(f) due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims. The specification states “In particular, the air diffusion means 13 can comprise an airstone or a porous body.” Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the air diffusion means will be interpreted as an air stone or a porous body.
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 2 and 5-10 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 2 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “wherein said algal culture comprises or consists of microorganisms selected in the group consisting of.” It is unclear whether Applicant means for the claim to be open ended (comprises) or closed (consists of). Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claims 5-10 are rejected for the use of the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” when listing method steps or conditions. These are relative terms that are unclear as to whether their corresponding limitations are actually required by the claim or not. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 7 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “are carried out for a period of time comprised between 12 and 22 hours, preferably between 14 and 20 hours, more preferably said period of time being a continuous period of time.” It is unclear whether the period of time is a continuous time that can be longer than 22 hours or whether Applicant means to claim that the light or air conveyance is continuous (as opposed to pulsed or on and off) for a duration of 12-22 hours. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20160166985 A1, as cited by Applicant IDS dated 06/01/2023) in view of Licamele (US 20110258920 A1) and Wang (CN 109320377 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lau discloses a method for purifying the air of an indoor environment (see abstract and para 0034), comprising the steps of:
i) providing an aqueous medium comprising an algal culture (microalgae culture medium, uses Bristols medium, i.e. a freshwater growth medium, see para 0034);
ii) illuminating said aqueous medium with a light source (light source 120 – array of LED lights, para 0036-0037);
iii) conveying an air flow into said aqueous medium, thereby generating a plurality of air bubbles having an average diameter of less than 20 mm (small air bubbles from a sparger, small implies less than 20mm, see paras 0011, 0034);
iv) maintaining said algal culture in a state of constant growth by replacing, with a periodic frequency, between 1 time every two weeks and 1 time every 8 weeks (operation cycle & removing is every two weeks, para 0034) an amount of the volume of said aqueous medium comprising said algal culture with a corresponding volume of fresh aqueous medium (removing & replacing with fresh culture medium in the tank, see para 0034) and maintaining the aqueous medium comprising said algal culture at an average temperature between 15 and 30 ⁰C (15-30⁰C, para 0002, 0009, 0034).
Lau fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of air bubbles having an average diameter of less than 20 mm, an amount between 60% and 80%, of the volume of said aqueous medium, and the temperature between 15 and 27 ⁰C.
Licamele teaches a plurality of air bubbles having an average diameter of less than 20 mm (bubbles having diameter 1-3mm, see para 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the bubbles having a diameter less than 20 mm as taught by Licamele with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the bubbles deliver gas effectively without disrupting the algal culture, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Wang teaches maintaining the aqueous medium comprising said algal culture at an average temperature between 15 and 27 ⁰C (culture cultivating temperature is 20 degrees centigrade, see examples 2-4, pages 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature to be between 15 and 27 ⁰C as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the algae has favorable growth conditions and is not too hot, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The modified references teach the claimed invention except the volume being an amount between 60% and 80%, of the volume of said aqueous medium. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the volume replaced to be 60-80% with a reasonable expectation of success as this would ensure the majority of the medium is replenished such that the algal culture has fresh solution and nutrients for optimized growth, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Lau further discloses wherein said algal culture comprises or consists of microorganisms selected in the group consisting of: microalgae of the genus Chlorella (Chlorella species, see para 0034), cyanobacteria of the genus Arthrospira, green algae, red algae, brown algae, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein said step iv) is carried out with a periodic frequency comprised between once every three weeks and once every 6 weeks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method to be between once every 3 and every 6 weeks with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the aqueous medium is replenished frequently enough to prevent mold growth or disease and provide fresh solution to the algal culture, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Wang further teaches wherein maintaining said algal culture in a state of constant growth is achieved by maintaining the aqueous medium comprising said algal culture at an average temperature comprised between 18 and 24 ⁰C (culture cultivating temperature is 20 degrees centigrade, see examples 2-4, pages 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature to be between 18 and 24 ⁰C as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the algae has favorable growth conditions and is not too hot, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein said bubbles have an average diameter of less than 5 mm, more preferably comprised between 0.5 mm and 5 mm.
Licamele teaches wherein said bubbles have an average diameter of less than 5 mm, more preferably comprised between 0.5 mm and 5 mm (bubbles having diameter 1-3mm, see para 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the bubbles having a diameter less than 20 mm as taught by Licamele with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the bubbles deliver gas effectively without disrupting the algal culture, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Lau further discloses wherein said air flow is conveyed into said aqueous medium at a flow rate comprised between 5 L/h and 18000 L/h for a volume of aqueous medium comprised between 0.5 and 300 L (example 3: volume is 100 L, flow rate is 10 L/min, see para 0045), preferably between 500 L/h and 1500 L/h for a volume of aqueous medium comprised between 2 and 25 L (see 112(b) rejection above), more preferably between 50 L/h and 1000 L/h for a volume of aqueous medium between 1.5 and 25 L (Example 1: volume is 4 L, flow rate is 1L/min, see para 0043).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Lau further discloses wherein said step ii) of illuminating said aqueous medium with a light source (reactor tank is transparent so light can pass through, para 0034, light is radiated continuously for 2 weeks via LED setup, see para 0043, also uses sunlight for natural day-night conditions) and/or said step iii) of conveying an air flow into said aqueous medium, thereby generating a plurality of air bubbles, are carried out for a period of time comprised between 12 and 22 hours, preferably between 14 and 20 hours, more preferably said period of time being a continuous period of time (light is radiated continuously for 2 weeks via LED setup, see para 0043, also uses sunlight for natural day-night conditions, see also 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Lau further discloses wherein said light source is selected from among: sunlight, full-spectrum light, artificial light, preferably an LED, more preferably a plurality of LEDs, or a combination thereof (light source 120 is an array of LED lights, para 0036-0037, also sunlight, see para 0036, 0039 and 0045).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Lau
further discloses wherein said aqueous medium comprising said algal culture is comprised inside a container (tank 110), preferably a tank (tank 110, see para 0034), made at least partly of a transparent or translucent material, said material being preferably glass (tank 110 is glass, see para 0034), borosilicate glass, or polymethylmethacrylate.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (US 20160166985 A1) in view of Licamele (US 20110258920 A1) and Wang (CN 109320377 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thai (US 11788041 B2).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Lau
further discloses wherein said step iii) is carried out using an aeration means, preferably an air pump (air bubbles made by sparger pump, see para 0011, 0034), adapted to inject an air flow comprising a predetermined amount of air into said aqueous medium.
The modified reference fails to teach an air diffusion means configured to receive said flow of air and to generate a plurality of bubbles, said diffusion means preferably comprising an airstone or a porous body.
Thai teaches wherein said step iii) is carried out using an aeration means, preferably an air pump (air pump for bubbles, see col 7, lines 65-67 and col 8, lines 1-6), adapted to inject an air flow comprising a predetermined amount of air into said aqueous medium and an air diffusion means (airstone, see col 7, lines 65-67 and col 8, lines 1-6) configured to receive said flow of air and to generate a plurality of bubbles, said diffusion means preferably comprising an airstone (airstone, see col 7, lines 65-67 and col 8, lines 1-6) or a porous body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the airstone of Thai with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure gas is circulated properly to encourage healthy growth and development of the algal culture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art noted in the References Cited document is relevant as it pertains to similar systems for algae cultivation. Specifically, Erb is a bioreactor system for cultivating algae.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642