DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to an electrolysis system integrated with an ammonia synthesis reactor, classified in C25B15/081.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to a method of improving productivity in an aquaculture farm, classified in A01K63/042.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus of Invention I can be used for the production of hydrogen cyanide via reduction of carbon dioxide to methane and reaction with nitrogen, a process materially distinct from the production of ammonia recited in Invention II.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art in view of their different statutory categories;
the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
the prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention; and/or
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and/or 112)..
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Atty. Blake Ronnebaum on 09/17/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied language i.e., “The present disclosure provides …”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 line 1 recites “system fluidly”, but should recite “system is fluidly” to be grammatically correct;
Claims 8 and 10 recite the terms “electricity storage device” and “energy storage device”, respectively, which appear to correspond to the same component of the invention. These claims should both recite either “electricity storage device” or “energy storage device” to maintain consistent terminology throughout the claims.
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.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrical storage device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, neither claim 8 nor any of the claims from which it depends recite “an electrical storage device”. It is therefore unclear to what the limitation “the electrical storage device” refers.
Claim 8 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation "the photovoltaic panel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, neither claim 13 nor any of the claims from which it depends recite “a photovoltaic panel”. It is therefore unclear to what the limitation “the photovoltaic panel” refers.
Claim 13 is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zullo (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0039833 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zullo teaches a system for improving production of an aquaculture pond farm (“systems and methods for producing ammonia fertilizer for culturing algae and aquaculture” abstract), the system comprising:
an electrolyzer module to produce hydrogen and oxygen (“an electrolyzer … Electrolysis is performed by application of an electric current to the electrodes, and oxygen is produced at the anode, while hydrogen is produced at the cathode” para. 18 and Fig. 1);
an ammonia synthesizer (“ammonia synthesis reactor” Fig. 1 and see para. 19) fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module and operable to receive hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer module (“the hydrogen outlet provides a hydrogen stream for mixing with nitrogen for the synthesis reaction” para. 18 and Fig. 1);
and a diffuser to diffuse oxygen produced by the electrolyzer module in the aquaculture pond farm (“the oxygen outlet is connected to … a subsystem for delivering oxygen to an algae culture and/or aquaculture” para. 18).
Regarding claim 5, Zullo further teaches a hydrogen storage system fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module (“the hydrogen outlet provides a hydrogen stream … connected to a hydrogen storage” para. 18).
Regarding claim 9, Zullo anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Zullo further teaches a photovoltaic panel electrically connected to the electrolyzer module (“the systems provided herein comprise an apparatus for generating electricity. … also contemplated is the use of solar power” para. 16).
Regarding claim 10, Zullo further teaches an energy storage device in electrical communication with the electrolyzer module (“a battery system for storing surplus power and provide power during startup.” Para. 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zullo (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0039833 A1) in view of Shaffer (US Pat. No. 4161657).
Regarding claim 2, Zullo anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Zullo does not explicitly teach the system includes both a diffuser to diffuse oxygen and an oxygen storage device fluidly connected to the electrolyzer and the diffuser.
However, Shaffer teaches a system for generating hydrogen, oxygen, and ammonia (abstract) comprising a water electrolyzer (“electrolysis cell 17” col. 3 lines 25-48 and Fig. 1) and an ammonia synthesizer (“synthetic ammonia plant 114” col. 5 lines 10-28 and Fig. 1), wherein the oxygen produced by the electrolyzer is stored in an oxygen storage device (“Oxygen storage tank 30” col. 4 lines 18-34 and Fig. 1) to provide the predictable benefit of allowing a controlled amount of oxygen to be supplied to an oxygen use (Id.).
Furthermore, Zullo teaches that the system may include an oxygen storage device fluidly connected to the electrolyzer (“the oxygen outlet is connected to an oxygen storage” para. 18) as an alternative to a diffuser (Id.).
As Zullo teaches a system for improving aquaculture by supplying oxygen an ammonia using an electrolyzer fluidly connected to an ammonia synthesis system, Zullo is analogous art to the instant invention. As Shaffer teaches a system comprising a water electrolyzer and ammonia synthesis reactor, Shaffer is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zullo by adding an oxygen storage device fluidly connected to the electrolyzer and the diffuser. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of storing the oxygen produced by the electrolyzer for controlled consumption later, as taught by Shaffer, and because Zullo suggests the use of an oxygen storage system. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zullo, via Shaffer, further teaches a valve fluidly connected to the oxygen storage device and to the diffuser (“valve 37 for simply producing an oxygen supply for any one of several purposes” col. 4 lines 18-34 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zullo teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above.
Zullo further teaches an air separator to produce nitrogen and oxygen fluidly connected to the oxygen storage device and to the ammonia synthesizer (“pressure swing adsorption” para. 20 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Zullo anticipates the limitations of claim 5, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Zullo does not explicitly teach the hydrogen storage system is fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer.
However, Shaffer teaches a system for generating hydrogen, oxygen, and ammonia (abstract) comprising a water electrolyzer (“electrolysis cell 17” col. 3 lines 25-48 and Fig. 1) and an ammonia synthesizer (“synthetic ammonia plant 114” col. 5 lines 10-28 and Fig. 1), wherein the hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer is stored in a hydrogen storage device (“hydrogen storage device 31” col. 3 line 63 through col. 4 line 17 and Fig. 1) to provide the predictable benefit of maintaining a constant supply of hydrogen to the ammonia synthesizer (Id.).
As Zullo teaches a system for improving aquaculture by supplying oxygen an ammonia using an electrolyzer fluidly connected to an ammonia synthesis system, Zullo is analogous art to the instant invention. As Shaffer teaches a system comprising a water electrolyzer and ammonia synthesis reactor, Shaffer is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zullo, such that the hydrogen storage system is fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer, as taught by Shaffer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of providing a constant supply of hydrogen to the ammonia synthesizer, as taught by Shaffer. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 7, Zullo anticipates the limitations of claim 5, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Zullo does not teach the hydrogen storage system is fluidly connected to a hydrogen fuel cell.
However, Shaffer further teaches the hydrogen storage system may further be fluidly connected to a hydrogen fuel cell (“H-O fuel cell 109” col. 5 lines 3-9 and Fig. 1), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing electricity to be generated using excess hydrogen gas (Id. and see col. 8 lines 7-19).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zullo, by adding a hydrogen fuel cell fluidly connected to the hydrogen storage system, as taught by Shaffer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of converting excess hydrogen to electricity when the intermittent primary power source is insufficient to power the system, as taught by Shaffer. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 8, Zullo further teaches the system comprises an electrical storage device (“a battery system for storing surplus power and provide power during startup.” para. 16).
Modified Zullo does not explicitly teach the hydrogen fuel cell is electrically connected to the electrical storage device.
However, Shaffer teaches the fuel cell is used to produce electricity (col. 5 lines 3-9 and Fig. 1), and Zullo teaches that the electrical storage device stores excess power (para. 16).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, when adding the fuel cell to the system of Zullo, to do so such that it is connected to the electrical storage device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefit of storing the energy produced by the hydrogen fuel cell. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Zullo further teaches the hydrogen fuel cell is electrically connected to the electrolyzer module and the ammonia synthesizer, because the electrolyzer module and ammonia synthesizer of Zullo are connected to the electrical storage device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zullo (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0039833 A1) in view of Gibson (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0065302 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zullo anticipates the limitations of claim 9, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Zullo does not teach a DC/DC converter electrically connected to the photovoltaic panel and to the electrolyzer module.
However, Gibson teaches a system for improving the efficiency of water electrolyzers connected to photovoltaic modules (abstract), wherein a DC/DC converter is used to match the voltage of the photovoltaic module to that of the electrolyzer (para. 27 and Fig. 3).
As Zullo teaches a system for improving aquaculture by supplying oxygen an ammonia using an electrolyzer fluidly connected to an ammonia synthesis system, Zullo is analogous art to the instant invention. As Gibson teaches an electrolysis system powered by photovoltaics, Gibson is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zullo, by adding a DC/DC converter electrically connected to the photovoltaic panel and to the electrolyzer module, as taught by Gibson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the efficiency of the system by matching the voltage of the photovoltaic module to that of the electrolyzer, as taught by Gibson. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zullo (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0039833 A1) in view of Villamar (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0172083 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Zullo anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Zullo does not explicitly teach an oxygen sensor which monitors the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond farm.
However, Villamar teaches a system for maintaining an oxygen level in an aquaculture pond farm (abstract) comprising an oxygen sensor which monitors the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond farm (“a water probe disposed within the fish tank to measure water parameters of the fish tank water including dissolved oxygen,” para. 12).
Furthermore, Zullo teaches that it is desirable to maintain the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture farm within a specific range (“the culturing of fishes and shellfishes in the body of water can entail … maintaining the level of dissolved oxygen in the water favorable for growth of fishes and shellfishes.” para. 23).
As Zullo teaches a system for improving aquaculture by supplying oxygen an ammonia using an electrolyzer fluidly connected to an ammonia synthesis system, Zullo is analogous art to the instant invention. As Villamar teaches a means for oxygenating aquaculture pond farms, Villamar is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zullo by adding an oxygen sensor which monitors the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond farm, as taught by Villamar. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of enabling the oxygen concentration in the aquaculture pond farm to be monitored, as taught by Villamar. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 13, Zullo anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Zullo further teaches an aerator to aerate the aquaculture pond farm (“the aquaculture subsystem can comprise … apparatus for aeration of water at various depths” para. 23) and a photovoltaic panel (“the systems provided herein comprise an apparatus for generating electricity. … also contemplated is the use of solar power” para. 16).
Zullo does not explicitly teach the aerator is electrically connected to the photovoltaic panel.
However, Villamar teaches a system for maintaining an oxygen level in an aquaculture pond farm (abstract) comprising aerators electrically connected to photovoltaic panels (“An air pump 606 (e.g., an 18-35 watt air pump running from electric, solar, wind power, etc.) is connected to an air line 608 (e.g., ¼" plastic line, etc.) that pumps air into the bottom of the air chamber 602.” para. 39 and Fig. 15).
As Zullo teaches a system for improving aquaculture by supplying oxygen an ammonia using an electrolyzer fluidly connected to an ammonia synthesis system, Zullo is analogous art to the instant invention. As Villamar teaches a means for oxygenating aquaculture pond farms, Villamar is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zullo, such that the aerator is electrically connected to the photovoltaic panel, as taught by Villamar. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Villamar teaches a photovoltaic system is suitable for providing power to an aeration system. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zullo (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0039833 A1) in view of Heid (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0277894 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Zullo teaches a system for improving production of an aquaculture pond farm (“systems and methods for producing ammonia fertilizer for culturing algae and aquaculture” abstract), the system comprising:
an electrolyzer module to produce hydrogen and oxygen (“an electrolyzer … Electrolysis is performed by application of an electric current to the electrodes, and oxygen is produced at the anode, while hydrogen is produced at the cathode” para. 18 and Fig. 1) in electrical communication with a photovoltaic panel (“the systems provided herein comprise an apparatus for generating electricity. … also contemplated is the use of solar power” para. 16);
an ammonia synthesizer (“ammonia synthesis reactor” Fig. 1 and see para. 19) fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module and operable to receive hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer module (“the hydrogen outlet provides a hydrogen stream for mixing with nitrogen for the synthesis reaction” para. 18 and Fig. 1);
an air separator to produce nitrogen and oxygen fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer (“pressure swing adsorption” para. 20 and Fig. 1); and
a diffuser to diffuse oxygen produced by the electrolyzer module and the air separator in the aquaculture pond farm (“the oxygen outlet is connected to … a subsystem for delivering oxygen to an algae culture and/or aquaculture” para. 18 and Fig. 1 shows the air separator is fluidly connected to the oxygen output of the electrolyzer module, and therefore also the diffuser).
Zullo does not explicitly teach an oxygen storage device fluidly connected to the air separator.
However, Heid teaches a system for the generation of oxygen, hydrogen, and ammonia (abstract) comprising a water electrolyzer (“electrolyzer 21” Fig. 1 and para. 56), an ammonia synthesizer (“NH3 reaction chamber 41” Fig. 1 and para. 61), and an air separator (“air separation unit (ASU) 22” Fig. 1 and para. 57), wherein an oxygen storage device is fluidly connected to the air separator (“Oxygen storage 70” Fig. 1 and para. 70) to provide the predictable benefit of allowing a supply of the oxygen from the air separator to be distributed in a controlled manner (para. 72).
As Zullo teaches a system for improving aquaculture by supplying oxygen an ammonia using an electrolyzer fluidly connected to an ammonia synthesis system, Zullo is analogous art to the instant invention. As Heid teaches a system comprising a water electrolyzer and ammonia synthesis reactor, Heid is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Zullo, by adding an oxygen storage device fluidly connected to the air separator, as taught by Heid. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the supply of oxygen from the air separator to be controlled, as taught by Heid. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 or 12 of copending Application No. 18/075138 (the reference application) in view of Zullo (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0039833 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference application recites a system for improving production of an aquaculture pond farm, the system comprising (“A system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond farm, the system comprising” lines 1-2):
an electrolyzer module to produce hydrogen and oxygen (“an electrolyzer module operable to produce hydrogen and oxygen” line 3); and
a diffuser to diffuse oxygen produced by the electrolyzer module in the aquaculture pond farm (“a diffuser to diffuse the produced oxygen into the aquaculture pond” lines 7-8).
Claim 1 of the reference application does not recite an ammonia synthesizer fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module and operable to receive hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer module.
However, Zullo teaches that the hydrogen produced by an electrolyzer configured to supply oxygen to an aquaculture pond can be used to form ammonia in an ammonia synthesizer, which can be used to provide nutrients to the aquaculture pond (abstract and see Fig. 1 and e.g., para. 5).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, by adding recite an ammonia synthesizer fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module and operable to receive hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer module, as taught by Zullo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of providing nutrients for use in the aquaculture pond, as taught by Zullo. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 1 are thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 2, modified claim 1 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Claim 8 of the reference application further teaches an oxygen storage device (“an oxygen storage device” line 1) fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module (“to store the produced oxygen” line 2) and to the diffuser (claim 1 indicates the produced oxygen is sent to the diffuser, thus as the oxygen storage device receives the produced oxygen, it is also necessarily fluidly connected to the diffuser).
The limitations of claim 2 are thus rendered obvious by claim 8 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 4, modified claim 8 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 2, as described above.
Modified claim 8 of the reference application does not recite an air separator to produce nitrogen and oxygen fluidly connected to the oxygen storage device and to the ammonia synthesizer.
However, Zullo further teaches an air separator to produce nitrogen and oxygen fluidly connected to the oxygen storage device and to the ammonia synthesizer (“pressure swing adsorption” para. 20 and Fig. 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of claim 8 of the reference application by adding an air separator to produce nitrogen and oxygen fluidly connected to the oxygen storage device and to the ammonia synthesizer, as taught by Zullo. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 4 are thus rendered obvious by claim 8 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 5, modified claim 1 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Claim 12 of the reference application further recites a hydrogen storage system fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module (“a hydrogen load fluidly connected to the photo electrolysis array, wherein the hydrogen load is selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen storage system,” lines 1-3).
The limitations of claim 5 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 6, modified claim 12 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 5, as described above.
Modified claim 12 of the reference application further recites, via Zullo, the hydrogen storage system is fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer (Zullo teaches the hydrogen supply is fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer, and claim 12 of the reference application recites the hydrogen storage system is fluidly connected to the hydrogen supply, thus the hydrogen storage system is fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer).
The limitations of claim 6 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 7, modified claim 12 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 5, as described above.
Claim 12 of the reference application further recites the hydrogen storage system fluidly connected to a hydrogen fuel cell (“the hydrogen load is selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen storage system, a fuel cell, a combustion system, and any combination thereof.” lines 2-4).
The limitations of claim 7 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 8, modified claim 12 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 7, as described above.
Modified claim 12 of the reference application further recites, via Zullo, he hydrogen fuel cell is electrically connected to the electrolyzer module and the ammonia synthesizer (Zullo teaches the hydrogen supply is fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer, and claim 12 of the reference application recites the hydrogen storage system is fluidly connected to the hydrogen supplied by the electrolyzer, thus the hydrogen storage system is fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer and the electrolyzer).
Modified claim 12 of the reference application does not recite an electrical storage device, wherein the electrical storage device is connected to the hydrogen fuel cell.
However, Zullo further teaches an electrical storage device can be used to store energy for use during startup (“a battery system for storing surplus power and provide power during startup.” Para. 16).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of claim 12 of the reference application by adding an electrical storage device, as taught by Zullo, and connected to the hydrogen fuel cell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of storing energy from the fuel cell.
The limitations of claim 8 are thus rendered obvious by claim 12 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 9, modified claim 1 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Claim 1 of the reference application further recites a photovoltaic panel electrically connected to the electrolyzer module (“the electrolyzer module is to be electrically connected to the photovoltaic cell” lines 5-6).
The limitations of claim 9 are thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 10, modified claim 1 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 9, as described above.
Claim 1 of the reference application does not recite an energy storage device in electrical communication with the electrolyzer module.
However, Zullo further teaches an electrical storage device can be used to store energy for use during startup (“a battery system for storing surplus power and provide power during startup.” Para. 16).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of claim 1 of the reference application by adding an energy storage device in electrical communication with the electrolyzer module, as taught by Zullo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefits of providing storage for surplus power and providing power during startup, as taught by Zullo. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 10 are thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 12, modified claim 1 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Claim 14 of the reference application further recites an oxygen sensor which monitors the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond farm (“an oxygen sensor operable to measure the concentration of oxygen in the aquaculture pond” lines 1-2).
The limitations of claim 12 are thus rendered obvious by claim 14 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Regarding claim 14, claim 8 of the reference application recites a system for improving production of an aquaculture pond farm, the system comprising (“A system for enhancing production of an aquaculture pond farm, the system comprising” claim 1 lines 1-2):
an electrolyzer module to produce hydrogen and oxygen in electrical communication with a photovoltaic panel (“an electrolyzer module operable to produce hydrogen and oxygen … wherein: the electrolyzer module is to be electrically connected to the photovoltaic cell” claim 1 lines 3-6);
an oxygen storage device (“an oxygen storage device” claim 8 line 1); and
a diffuser to diffuse oxygen produced by the electrolyzer module in the aquaculture pond farm (“a diffuser to diffuse the produced oxygen into the aquaculture pond” claim 1 lines 7-8).
Claim 8 of the reference application does not recite an ammonia synthesizer fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module and operable to receive hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer module.
However, Zullo teaches that the hydrogen produced by an electrolyzer configured to supply oxygen to an aquaculture pond can be used to form ammonia in an ammonia synthesizer, which can be used to provide nutrients to the aquaculture pond (abstract and see Fig. 1 and e.g., para. 5).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention recited in claim 1 of the reference patent, by adding recite an ammonia synthesizer fluidly connected to the electrolyzer module and operable to receive hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer module, as taught by Zullo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of providing nutrients for use in the aquaculture pond, as taught by Zullo. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 8 of the reference application does not recite an air separator to produce nitrogen and oxygen fluidly connected to the ammonia synthesizer, wherein the air separator is connected to the oxygen storage device and the diffuser.
However, Zullo further teaches an air separator to produce nitrogen and oxygen fluidly connected to the diffuser and to the ammonia synthesizer (“pressure swing adsorption” para. 20 and Fig. 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of claim 8 of the reference application by adding an air separator to produce nitrogen and oxygen fluidly connected to the diffuser (and therefore also the oxygen storage device) and to the ammonia synthesizer, as taught by Zullo. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 14 are thus rendered obvious by claim 8 of the reference application in view of Zullo. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/075138 (the reference application) in view of Zullo, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Shaffer (US Pat. No. 4161657).
Regarding claim 3, modified claim 8 of the reference application renders obvious the limitations of claim 2, as described above.
Modified claim 8 of the reference application does not recite a valve fluidly connected to the oxygen storage device and to the diffuser.
However, Shaffer teaches that a valve is a suitable means to control flow of oxygen gas from an oxygen storage unit in a system comprising a water electrolyzer integrated with an ammonia synthesizer.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention recited in claim 8 of the reference application by adding a valve fluidly connected to the oxygen storage device and to the diffuser. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of controlling the amount of oxygen gas released by the invention of the reference claim, as taught by Shaffer. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 3 are thus rendered obvious by claim 8 of the reference application in view of Zullo and Shaffer. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/075138 (the reference application) in view of Zullo, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Gibson (US Pat. Pub. 2006/0065302 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 9 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Zullo, as described above.
Modified claim 1 of the reference application does not recite a DC/DC converter electrically connected to the photovoltaic panel and to the electrolyzer module.
However, Gibson teaches that a DC/DC converter can improve the efficiency of a water electrolyzer by matching the voltage of a photovoltaic module to that of the electrolyzer (para. 27 and Fig. 3).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of claim 1 of the reference application, by adding a DC/DC converter electrically connected to the photovoltaic panel and to the electrolyzer module, as taught by Gibson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the efficiency of the electrolyzer, as taught by Gibson. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
The limitations of claim 11 are thus rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference application in view of Zullo and Gibson. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore appropriate.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections, as the co-pending application has not, in fact, been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vandenborre (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0335722 A1) teaches an integrated water electrolyzer and photovoltaic system configured to oxygenate an aquaculture pond (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795