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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous claim rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes the claim limitation “controller” which is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. These claim limitations are:
“a controller configured to control a composition of the atmosphere within the chamber” in claim 1;
“the controller is configured to introduce a CO2-rich gas into the chamber” in claim 14;
“the controller is configured to introduce an O2-depleted gas into the chamber” in claim 15;
“the controller is configured to introduce an effluent gas from an industrial or combustion source into the chamber” in claim 16;
“the controller is configured to introduce gas into the chamber such that pressure within the chamber is greater than atmospheric pressure” in claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seebo (US 2010/0162621) (previously cited) in view of Trent (US 20100216203) (previously cited) and Codner (US 5686304) (previously cited), as evidenced by Robb (US 3510387) (previously cited) and Robb (“Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications”) (previously cited), wherein references Seebo, Trent, Codner, Robb, and Robb were found in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Seebo discloses a device for production of biomass (paragraph [0008] “growing one or more specific strains of micro algae”), the device comprising:
a membrane photobioreactor (PBR) (abstract and paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0022] “a pliable transparent gas permeable membrane”, see Figs. 3A-3C), the PBR comprising a liquid medium (paragraph [0009] “nutrient enriched water contained within each of the plurality of growing trays”), at least one photosynthetic microorganism (paragraph [0023]), and at least one outer membrane layer (paragraphs [0009] and [0022] “a pliable transparent gas permeable membrane”, see Figs. 3A-3C), wherein the at least one membrane layer is comprised of a material that is permeable to transfer of a gas across the membrane layer (paragraphs [0009] and [0022] “a pliable transparent gas permeable membrane”, see Figs. 3A-3C), and wherein the gas comprises carbon dioxide (CO2) (paragraphs [0023]-[0024]); and
a chamber (paragraph [0020], Fig. 1, element 12 “transparent housing structure”) defining a gaseous atmosphere continuously comprising CO2 enclosed within (paragraph [0023] and Fig. 2, element 38 “CO2 infusion system”);
wherein the PBR (abstract and paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0022] “a pliable transparent gas permeable membrane”, see Figs. 2-3C) is located inside the chamber (Fig. 1, element 12 “transparent housing structure”); and
a pump (paragraph [0023] “The CO2 infusion system 38 includes a pump” as well as monitoring CO2 in paragraph [0031]) configured to control a composition of the atmosphere within the chamber (paragraph [0023] the infusion system pumps in CO2); and
such that CO2 gas transfer occurs across the at least one membrane layer of the PBR (paragraph [0023]), between the PBR (abstract and paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0022] “a pliable transparent gas permeable membrane”, see Figs. 2-3C) and the atmosphere (paragraphs [0023]-[0024]) comprised within the chamber (paragraph [0020], Fig. 1, element 12 “transparent housing structure”);
wherein the device can produce biomass (abstract and paragraph [0009], wherein algae is the biomass).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
805
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Seebo, Figs. 1 and 2
Seebo does not disclose:
a controller configured to control a composition of the atmosphere within the chamber
wherein the permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide (CO2) through the membrane layer of the PBR is not less than about 1000 Barrer
Trent discloses
a controller configured to control a composition of the atmosphere within the chamber (paragraphs [0040]-[0041])
In the analogous art of algae bioreactors with semi-permeable membranes, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Seebo’s CO2 infusion system to have a controller as in Trent in order to permit flow or shut off flow of CO2 into the permeable membrane for the growth of algae (Trent, paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Codner discloses:
wherein the permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide (CO2) through the membrane layer of the PBR is not less than about 1000 Barrer (col. 4, lines 24-35, see explanation due to Robb, below).
In the analogous art of membranes in microbioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas permeable membrane of Seebo with the silicone of Codner in order to promote gas permeability so that suspension cell cultures can be propagated (Codner, col. 3, lines 13-26).
Regarding the phrase “for the production of biomass”, a preamble merely indicates the intended use of the apparatus and does not add structural limitations to the claims. MPEP § 2111.02(II). Because the apparatus taught by modified Seebo teaches all the structural limitations claimed, it would be capable of being used in such a manner. Applicant is also reminded that the intended use of or manner of operating a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II).
The following evidentiary references, marked above as Robb (US 3,510,387), as well as Robb, “Thin Silicone Membranes--Their Permeation Properties and Some Applications”, are disclosed.
Robb ‘387 discloses that the respective permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide is above the lower limit listed in the claim limitations. Specifically, Robb discloses permeability coefficients of (in Robb, col. 12, Table 1):
320 × 10-9 Pr. cc. gas NTP, cm. thick / sec., sq. cm., cm Hg for CO2
This permeability coefficient corresponds to the equivalent measure of:
3200 × 10-10 Pr. cc. gas NTP, cm. thick / sec., sq. cm., cm Hg for CO2
In turn, this permeability coefficient corresponds to the equivalent or very near equivalent measure of:
3200 Barrers for CO2
Additionally, Robb “Thin Silicone Membranes--Their Permeation Properties and Some Applications” discloses in multiple tables (Tables 1-6) and multiple Figures (Fig. 4-5) that the respective permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide is above the lower limit listed in the claim limitation, similarly to Robb '387, above. For example, Figs. 4-5 and Table 4 refer to permeabilities of silicone rubber with temperature as a variable (see arguments below about the temperatures at which the dimethyl silicone is tested). Referring to Table 6 and dimethyl silicone:
325 × 10-9 Pr. cc. gas RTP, cm. thick / sec., sq. cm., cm Hg for CO2
This permeability coefficient corresponds to the equivalent measure of:
3250 × 10-10 Pr. cc. gas RTP, cm. thick / sec., sq. cm., cm Hg for CO2
In turn, this permeability coefficient corresponds to the equivalent or very near equivalent measure of:
3250 Barrers for CO2
Therefore, the claim 1 limitation is satisfied:
not less than 1000 Barrer for CO2
Regarding claim 2, Seebo discloses wherein the chamber is comprised of a plurality of walls (paragraph [0020] and Fig. 1, elements 12 “transparent housing structure”, 12a “front door”, 12b “side panels”) and at least one wall, or a portion thereof, permits transmission therethrough of visible light into an interior of the chamber (paragraph [0025] and Fig. 1, element 12 “transparent housing structure”).
Regarding claim 3, Seebo discloses wherein the chamber comprises a source of illumination (paragraph [0023] and Fig. 2, elements 36 “lights”).
Regarding claim 4, Seebo discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of walls of the chamber are rigid (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Seebo discloses wherein at least one membrane layer of the PBR is transparent (paragraphs [0009] and [0022] “a pliable transparent gas permeable membrane”, see Figs. 3A-3C).
Seebo does not disclose wherein the at least one membrane layer of parent claim 1 of the PBR is transparent.
Modified Seebo teaches the membrane layer of the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Codner discloses wherein the at least one membrane layer of parent claim 1 of a reactor is transparent (col. 3, lines 13-26 “optical transparency and clarity”).
In the analogous art of membranes in microbioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the membrane of modified Seebo with the PDMS membrane of Codner in order to have a membrane that can be used with suspension cell culture, capable of withstanding sterilization, and that is transparent (Codner, col. 3, lines 13-26), which can then be used to grow algae under naturally or artificially lit conditions (Seebo, paragraphs [0008] and [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Seebo teaches the at least one membrane layer of the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo does not disclose wherein the at least one membrane layer of the PBR comprises polysiloxane.
Codner discloses wherein the membrane layer of the reactor comprises polysiloxane (col. 4, lines 24-35, see evidentiary disclosure of Robb (US 3510387) and Robb (“Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications”), below).
In the analogous art of membranes in microbioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the membrane of modified Seebo with the PDMS membrane of Codner in order to have a membrane that can be used with suspension cell culture, capable of withstanding sterilization, and that is transparent (Codner, col. 3, lines 13-26), which can then be used to grow algae under naturally or artificially lit conditions (Seebo, paragraphs [0008] and [0025]).
Regarding Codner’s citation, specifically (col. 4, lines 24-35), the following evidentiary references, marked above as US 3,510,387 (Robb), as well as Robb, "Thin Silicone Membranes-- Their Permeation Properties and Some Applications", are disclosed. First, Robb '387 discloses polydimethylsiloxanes (PDMS) (col. 3, lines 23-31 "methyl") or elastomers thereof (col. 3, lines 66-72 or col. 7, lines 64-70). Additionally, Robb "Thin Silicone Membranes--Their Permeation Properties and Some Applications" discloses polydimethylsiloxanes (PDMS) (Table 6) or elastomers thereof (Table 6).
Regarding claim 8, modified Seebo teaches the at least one membrane layer of the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo does not disclose wherein a permeability coefficient of oxygen through the at least one membrane layer of the PBR is not less than 100 Barrer.
Codner discloses wherein the permeability coefficient of oxygen through the membrane layer of the PBR is not less than 100 Barrer (col. 4, lines 24-35, see explanation due to Robb, below).
In the analogous art of membranes in microbioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas permeable membrane of Seebo with the silicone of Codner in order to promote gas permeability so that suspension cell cultures can be propagated (Codner, col. 3, lines 13-26).
The following evidentiary references, marked above as Robb (US 3,510,387), as well as Robb, “Thin Silicone Membranes--Their Permeation Properties and Some Applications”, are disclosed.
Robb ‘387 discloses that the respective permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide is above the lower limit listed in the claim limitations. Specifically, Robb discloses permeability coefficients of (in Robb, col. 12, Table 1):
60 × 10-9 Pr. cc. gas NTP, cm. thick / sec., sq. cm., cm Hg for O2
This permeability coefficient corresponds to the equivalent measure of:
600 × 10-10 Pr. cc. gas NTP, cm. thick / sec., sq. cm., cm Hg for O2
In turn, this permeability coefficient corresponds to the equivalent or very near equivalent measure of:
600 Barrers for O2
Additionally, Robb “Thin Silicone Membranes--Their Permeation Properties and Some Applications” discloses in multiple tables (Tables 1-6) and multiple Figures (Fig. 4-5) that the respective permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide is above the lower limit listed in the claim limitation, similarly to Robb '387, above. For example, Figs. 4-5 and Table 4 refer to permeabilities of silicone rubber with temperature as a variable (see arguments below about the temperatures at which the dimethyl silicone is tested). Referring to Table 6 and dimethyl silicone:
60 × 10-9 Pr. cc. gas RTP, cm. thick / sec., sq. cm., cm Hg for O2
This permeability coefficient corresponds to the equivalent measure of:
600 × 10-10 Pr. cc. gas RTP, cm. thick / sec., sq. cm., cm Hg for O2
In turn, this permeability coefficient corresponds to the equivalent or very near equivalent measure of:
600 Barrers for O2
Therefore, the claim 8 limitation is satisfied:
not less than 100 Barrer for O2
Regarding claim 9, modified Seebo teaches the membrane layer of the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo does not disclose wherein the permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide through the membrane layer of the PBR is not less than 1500 Barrer.
Codner discloses wherein the permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide through the membrane layer of the PBR is not less than 1500 Barrer (see above calculation used in the rejection to claim 1; col. 4, lines 24-35, see explanation due to Robb).
In the analogous art of membranes in microbioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas permeable membrane of Seebo with the silicone of Codner in order to promote gas permeability so that suspension cell cultures can be propagated (Codner, col. 3, lines 13-26).
Regarding claim 11, Seebo discloses comprising multiple PBRs (abstract and paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0022] “a pliable transparent gas permeable membrane”, see Figs. 3A-3C; and Figs. 1-2, element 14 “algae growing trays”) located inside the chamber (paragraph [0020], Fig. 1, element 12 “transparent housing structure”) wherein the liquid media of the PBRs are in fluid communication (paragraphs [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 12, Seebo discloses the at least one photosynthetic microorganism (paragraph [0009] “algae”).
Seebo does not disclose wherein the at least one photosynthetic microorganism is selected from one or more of the group consisting of: Haematococcus sp., Haematococcus pluvialis, Chlorella sp., Chlorella autotraphica, Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus sp., Synechococcus sp., Synechococcus elongatus, Synechocystis sp., Arthrospira sp., Arthrospira platensis, Arthrospira maxima, Spirulina sp., Chlamydomonas sp., Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Dysmorphococcus sp., Geitlerinema sp., Lyngbya sp., Chroococcidiopsis sp., Calothrix sp., Cyanothece sp., Oscillatoria sp., Gloeothece sp., Microcoleus sp., Microcystis sp., Nostoc sp., Nannochloropsis sp., Anabaena sp., Phaeodactylum sp., Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Dunaliella sp., Dunaliella salina.
Trent discloses wherein the at least one photosynthetic microorganism is selected from one or more of the group consisting of: Chlorella vulgaris (paragraph [0044]).
In the analogous art of photosynthetic microorganisms, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the algae of modified Seebo to be the microorganism Chlorella vulgaris in order to produce lipids that are useful for the production of hydrocarbons such as biodiesel, or other desired products (Trent, paragraphs [0042] and [0044]).
Regarding the phrase “wherein the at least one photosynthetic microorganism is selected from one or more of the group consisting of: Haematococcus sp., Haematococcus pluvialis, Chlorella sp., Chlorella autotraphica, Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus sp., Synechococcus sp., Synechococcus elongatus, Synechocystis sp., Arthrospira sp., Arthrospira platensis, Arthrospira maxima, Spirulina sp., Chlamydomonas sp., Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Dysmorphococcus sp., Geitlerinema sp., Lyngbya sp., Chroococcidiopsis sp., Calothrix sp., Cyanothece sp., Oscillatoria sp., Gloeothece sp., Microcoleus sp., Microcystis sp., Nostoc sp., Nannochloropsis sp., Anabaena sp., Phaeodactylum sp., Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Dunaliella sp., Dunaliella salina.”, the phrase is claimed in the alternative (“or”).
Regarding claim 13, Seebo discloses wherein the chamber (paragraph [0020], Fig. 1, element 12 “transparent housing structure”) is divided into two or more sections to provide at least a first chamber section (paragraph [0020], Fig. 1, element 12a “front door”) and a second chamber section (paragraph [0020], Fig. 1, elements 12b “openable side panels”).
Regarding claim 14, Seebo discloses wherein the pump is configured to introduce a CO2-rich gas into the chamber (paragraph [0023]).
Seebo does not disclose the controller.
Modified Seebo teaches the controller (see rejection to claim 1, above) and is capable of controlling the pump to introduce a CO2-rich gas into the chamber.
Regarding claim 15, Seebo discloses wherein the pump is configured to introduce an O2-depleted gas into the chamber (paragraph [0023], “CO2”).
Seebo does not disclose the controller.
Modified Seebo teaches the controller (see rejection to claim 1, above) and is capable of controlling the pump to introduce an O2-depleted gas into the chamber.
Regarding claim 19, modified Seebo teaches the membrane layer of the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo does not disclose wherein the membrane layer of the PBR comprises polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS).
Codner discloses wherein the membrane layer of the reactor comprises polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (col. 4, lines 24-35, see evidentiary disclosure of Robb (US 3510387) and Robb (“Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications”)).
In the analogous art of membranes in microbioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the membrane of modified Seebo with the PDMS membrane of Codner in order to have a membrane that can be used with suspension cell culture, capable of withstanding sterilization, and that is transparent (Codner, col. 3, lines 13-26), which can then be used to grow algae under naturally or artificially lit conditions (Seebo, paragraphs [0008] and [0025]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Seebo teaches the membrane layer of the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo does not disclose wherein the permeability coefficient of oxygen through the membrane layer of the PBR is not less than 200 Barrer.
Codner discloses wherein the permeability coefficient of oxygen through the membrane layer of the reactor is not less than 200 Barrer (col. 4, lines 24-35, see explanation due to Robb in the rejection to claim 8).
In the analogous art of membranes in microbioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas permeable membrane of Seebo with the silicone of Codner in order to promote gas permeability so that suspension cell cultures can be propagated (Codner, col. 3, lines 13-26).
Regarding claim 22, modified Seebo teaches the membrane layer of the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo does not disclose wherein the permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide through the membrane layer of the PBR is not less than 2000 Barrer.
Codner discloses wherein the permeability coefficient of carbon dioxide through the membrane layer of the PBR is not less than 2000 Barrer (see above calculation used in the rejection to claim 1; col. 4, lines 24-35, see explanation due to Robb).
In the analogous art of membranes in microbioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas permeable membrane of Seebo with the silicone of Codner in order to promote gas permeability so that suspension cell cultures can be propagated (Codner, col. 3, lines 13-26).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seebo (US 2010/0162621) (previously cited) in view of Trent (US 20100216203) (previously cited) and Codner (US 5686304) (previously cited), as evidenced by Robb (US 3510387) (previously cited) and Robb (“Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications”) (previously cited), wherein references Seebo, Trent, Codner, Robb, and Robb were found in the IDS, as applied to claim 2 (for claim 5) or claim 1 (for claim 16), further in view of Legendre (US 20110318819) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Seebo discloses at least one of the plurality of walls of the chamber (Fig. 1, element 12 “transparent housing structure”).
Seebo does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of walls of the chamber comprise ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE).
Legendre discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of walls of the chamber comprise ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) (paragraphs [0029] or [0193]-[0198]).
In the analogous art of algae reactors in building construction, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the walls of Seebo with ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) as in Legendre in order to thermally insulate and isolate the culture from the external air (Legendre, paragraph [0198]).
Regarding claim 16, Seebo does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to introduce an effluent gas from an industrial or combustion source into the chamber.
Legendre discloses wherein the controller (paragraph [0067]-[0068] “computer”) is configured to introduce an effluent gas from an industrial or combustion source (paragraphs [0020] and [0024]-[0027]) into the chamber (paragraph [0029]).
In the analogous art of algae reactors in building construction, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gases of Seebo with the controller and effluent gases of Legendre in order to facilitate optimization of cultivating algae and/or microorganisms and/or the treatment of effluent (Legendre, paragraph [0068]).
Claims 10, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seebo (US 2010/0162621) (previously cited) in view of Trent (US 20100216203) (previously cited) and Codner (US 5686304) (previously cited), as evidenced by Robb (US 3510387) (previously cited) and Robb (“Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications”) (previously cited), wherein references Seebo, Trent, Codner, Robb, and Robb were found in the IDS, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Cogne (“Design, Operation, and Modeling of a Membrane Photobioreactor to Study the Growth of the Cyanobacterium Arthrospira platensis in Space Conditions”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, modified Seebo teaches the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo discloses a PBR is surrounded on all sides by the atmosphere (Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]) within the chamber (Fig. 1, element 12), wherein the chamber (Fig. 1, element 12) is a gas impermeable chamber (paragraph [0025], it is expected that material properties of polycarbonate or PLEXIGLAS are gas impermeable).
If it is deemed that Seebo does not disclose the impermeability limitation, Cogne discloses wherein the chamber is a gas impermeable chamber (pg. 742, under “Design and Operation”, “stainless steel photobioreactor”).
In the analogous art of flow-through bioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the PBR of modified Seebo with the gas impermeable chamber of Cogne in order to increase and/or maintain carbon dioxide gas levels that are pumped inside the chamber like that of Seebo.
Regarding claim 17, Seebo discloses wherein the pump is configured to introduce gas into the chamber such that pressure within the chamber is greater than atmospheric pressure (paragraph [0023] “under positive pressure”).
Modified Seebo teaches the controller (see rejection to claim 1, above).
If it is deemed that Seebo does not disclose greater than atmospheric pressure, Cogne discloses wherein the controller is configured to introduce gas into the chamber such that pressure within the chamber is greater than atmospheric pressure (pg. 742, second col., under “Design and Operation”, “the pressure attained a ceiling (1.5 × 105 Pa absolute)”, this pressure ceiling is greater than atmospheric pressure).
In the analogous art of photobioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Seebo with the pressurized chamber of Cogne in order to allow the culture to have higher positive pressures of carbon dioxide, like that of Seebo.
Regarding claim 18, modified Seebo teaches the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo discloses wherein the chamber (Fig. 1, element 12) is gas impermeable (paragraph [0025], it is expected that material properties of polycarbonate or PLEXIGLAS are gas impermeable).
If it is deemed that Seebo does not disclose the impermeability limitation, Cogne discloses wherein the chamber is gas impermeable (pg. 742, under “Design and Operation”, “stainless steel photobioreactor”).
In the analogous art of flow-through bioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the PBR of modified Seebo with the gas impermeable chamber of Cogne in order to increase and/or maintain carbon dioxide gas levels that are pumped inside the chamber like that of Seebo.
Regarding claim 20, Seebo discloses wherein the liquid medium (paragraph [0009] “nutrient enriched water”) has a pH (it would be expected that water has a neutral pH of about 7), and wherein the pH is impacted by the gaseous atmosphere within the chamber (it would be expected that high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would impact the water’s pH due to the carbon dioxide dissolving into the water and changing into its respective buffer ions – a process similar to oceanic acidification).
Cogne discloses wherein the pH is controlled by a gaseous atmosphere within the chamber (pg. 743, first col., under “Growth Conditions and Medium”, “To maintain the pH within the optimal range, pure carbon dioxide was added when necessary.”)
In the analogous art of photobioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Seebo with the control of the nutrient water’s pH with gases like that in Cogne in order to maintain the pH in the optimal range.
Regarding the phrase “wherein the pH is controlled by the gaseous atmosphere within the chamber”, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Seebo would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the carbon dioxide gas input into Seebo’s photobioreactor.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seebo (US 2010/0162621) (previously cited) in view of Trent (US 20100216203) (previously cited) and Codner (US 5686304) (previously cited), as evidenced by Robb (US 3510387) (previously cited) and Robb (“Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications”) (previously cited), wherein references Seebo, Trent, Codner, Robb, and Robb were found in the IDS., as applied to claim 1, further in view of Mortimer (WO 0005337) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 23, modified Seebo teaches the membrane layer of the PBR (see rejection to claim 1).
Seebo does not disclose wherein the membrane layer of the PBR is translucent.
Mortimer discloses wherein the membrane layer of the PBR is translucent (abstract, or pg. 3, line 29 to pg. 4, line 9 “translucent” and “polytetrafluoroethylene”).
In the analogous art of photobioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the membrane layer of modified Seebo with the translucent PTFE membrane of Mortimer in order to have a membrane translucent to visible light, which can then be used to grow cultures under lit conditions; and so as to help operators verify if the culture is healthy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant remarks, in pg. 6 of 13, Applicant argues that Seebo does not disclose a membrane photobioreactor for the following reasons:
Seebo discloses an open tray bioreactor in which a medium, comprising algae, sits on top of a membrane layer inflated by a CO2 infusion system (Seebo, paragraphs [0022]-[0023] and Figs. 3 and 5, element 38).
This argument is unpersuasive because of:
Seebo’s photobioreactor is a membrane photobioreactor wherein each growing tray is composed of a stiff transparent plastic sheet having a pliable transparent gas permeable membrane affixed thereon (Seebo, abstract and paragraph [0022]); additionally, this gas permeable membrane is used for CO2 transfer (Seebo, paragraph [0023] “Because the gas permeable membrane 14b allows the escape or infusion of CO2 into the nutrient enriched water 20 when under positive pressure, the nutrient enriched water 20 is further enriched with CO2 during operation”).
Therefore, Seebo discloses “a membrane photobioreactor (PBR), the PBR comprising: a liquid medium, at least one photosynthetic microorganism, and at least one outer membrane layer, wherein the at least one membrane layer is comprised of a material that is permeable to transfer of a gas across the at least one membrane layer, and wherein the gas comprises carbon dioxide (CO2)” (instant claim 1), as shown in the rejection to claim 1 in this Office Action.
The term “outer membrane layer” (instant claim 1) is being argued by the Applicant. Although the pliable transparent gas permeable membrane is below the liquid medium and above the transparent sheet (and the carbon dioxide inflating the membrane layer from below the membrane and above the transparent sheet), the membrane layer can still be interpreted as an outer membrane layer as it is on the outside of the at least one medium and photosynthetic microorganism and is not within these at least two elements (the two elements comprising the PBR as claimed). Furthermore, claim 1 does not describe how the outer membrane layer is to be located with respect to the liquid medium and the at least one photosynthetic microorganism, so broadest reasonable interpretation still applies to the claim language.
Regarding Seebo on pg. 7 of 13 of Applicant remarks, Applicant alleges that CO2 gas transfer cannot be said to occur as stated in claim 1: “CO2 gas transfer occurs across the at least one membrane layer of the PBR, between the PBR and the atmosphere comprised within the chamber”. However, according to Seebo, there is an atmosphere located within the chamber (Figs. 1 and 2, sides of the chamber comprising chambers of carbon dioxide; and, Fig. 1, element 12 “transparent housing structure”) connected to the membranes distributing carbon dioxide to the medium.
Regarding Applicant remarks on pg. 7 of 13 about differences between the claimed invention and Seebo, the claim is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, so Seebo still reads upon the claim, as described above. Specifically, arguments about the lighting setup of Seebo are moot as they are not mentioned within independent claim 1; alternatively, claim 3 only attempts to claim that “the chamber comprises a source of illumination”, which Seebo’s chamber contains (Fig. 2, elements 36 “plurality of lights”).
Regarding Applicant remarks spanning pgs. 7-8 of 13, the CO2 infusion system (Fig. 2, element 38) pumps CO2 into the chamber (paragraph [0023]; Fig. 2, element 10 “the algae growing assembly”), which contains the components claimed to comprise the PBR: a medium, at least one photosynthetic microorganism, and at least one outer membrane layer. Despite any potential significant technical advantages found in the claimed invention, claim 1 is still rejected by the combination of Seebo in view of Trent and Zhang due to broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding Applicant remarks about Trent spanning pgs. 8-9 of 13, although Trent’s photobioreactor is to be used in an aquatic environment, the cited controller would be feasible to use in the present rejection. As only the controller of Trent was cited (see rejection to claim 1 above at Trent, paragraphs [0040]-[0041]) and the controller was used in order to permit flow or shut off flow of CO2 into the permeable membrane for the growth of algae, it acts similarly to a gas regulator. Gas regulators are very common in on-land practical applications, such as in the storage of compressed gases. A controller that does a similar function is present in many similar areas in the art, such as a CO2 incubator that is kept at 5% carbon dioxide to provide cell culture with a growth environment. As Trent is directly relevant to photobioreactors, and the only component cited is the controller for atmospheric control, the examiner finds this limitation obvious in light of Trent. The intricacies of the controller are well described in Trent, and Applicant has cited some of their structures (valves, PID controllers, etc.) and functions (ensuring the flow of CO2 to a membrane) (Trent, paragraph [0040]), both of which point to using the gas controller with gas permeable membranes.
Regarding the remainder of the Applicant remarks about Trent, Trent specifically discloses that the PID controllers permit flow CO2 at a selected pressure pCO2. Therefore, the pressure of the gas is what is being controlled, similarly to that of the claimed invention’s controller which is “a controller configured to control a composition of the atmosphere within the chamber” (instant claim 1).
Regarding Applicant remarks about Zhang on pg. 11 of 13, Codner, Robb, and Robb are disclosed, replacing Zhang; therefore, arguments about Zhang are moot.
Regarding the temperatures of gas measurements, mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above, the Examiner has found that Zhang’s gas permeability (Zhang, Table 1) was measured at 35°C, not at 22.9°C as found in the instant specification (instant specification, paragraph [00209]). Rather than using Zhang’s gas permeability data on PDMS, the corresponding data from Robb (US 3,510,387) and Robb “Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications” are now disclosed, as explained below.
Robb patent reference (US 3,510,387) is assumed to be measured at “room temperature”, particularly 20°C (NTP) as is convention, extremely close, but below the 22.9°C found in the instant specification. This difference of about three degrees Celsius is being considered negligible, with further evidence of this from Robb “Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications”, below. Robb “Thin silicone membranes-thein permeation properties and some applications” is measured at 25°C (Robb “Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications”, pg. 121, second paragraph and Table 6), which surpasses 22.9°C as found in the instant specification. Robb “Thin silicone membranes-their permeation properties and some applications” also provides gas permeability data on a range of temperatures encompassing about 23°C (Robb “Thin silicone membranes-thein permeation properties and some applications”, pgs. 125-126, Fig. 4 and Table 4). In particular, Figure 4 graphs this data and provides relevant gas permeabilities that can be interpolated from a range of temperatures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807, and whose fax number is 571-273-8464. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799