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
Applicant’s election of Group II in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2007/011343, hereinafter Berzin.
Regarding claim 5, Berzin teaches a culturing device (figure 7A) that gathers gas generated by microalgae in a culturing solution, the culturing device comprising: an accommodation portion (item 102) that accommodates the culturing solution and the microalgae (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)); a support body (items 210, 212 and 214) that supports the accommodation portion in a posture inclined with respect to a vertical direction (figure 3A); a gas supply unit (item 608) that supplies culturing gas to the culturing solution in the accommodation portion (figure 7A); a guide portion (item 101) that is provided to the accommodation portion and guides the culturing gas from a bottom portion of the accommodation portion toward a liquid surface of the culturing solution (figure 7A); and a gas gathering portion (item 141) that is provided at an upper portion of a side wall of the inclined accommodation portion (figure 7A), an outer surface of the side wall facing obliquely upward (figure 7A), wherein the gas produced by the microalgae being cultured is gathered with the gas gathering portion (figure 7A).
Regarding claim 8, these limitations are directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Berzin and the apparatus of Berzin is capable of working on Chlamydomonas and hydrogen. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Berzin (see MPEP §2115).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berzin in view of United States Application Publication No. 2012/0094350, hereinafter Raap.
Regarding claim 6, Berzin teaches the guide portion (item 101) includes a discharge port (the upper opening between item 101 and 102) that discharges the culturing gas (figure 7a).
Berzin fails to teach the gas gathering portion includes a gathering port opened in the culturing solution, and the gathering port is positioned below the discharge port or at a same height as the discharge port.
Raap teaches a gas collection hood which is placed below the water surface so that gas bubbles do not reach the water surface and results in a calm zone at the top of the container (Raap, paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a gas collection hood which is opened in the culturing solution because it would produce a calm zone at the top of the container (Raap, paragraph [0003]). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum height for the gathering port so that it is at or below the height of the discharge port which would allow for the gas bubbles to not reach the water surface and result in a calm zone at the top of the container (Raap, paragraph [0003]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berzin in view of JP H1080267, hereinafter Kitajima.
Regarding claim 7, Berzin teaches all limitations of claim 5; however, Berzin fails to teach a sliding member that is provided to the accommodation portion and slides along an inner surface of the side wall of the accommodation portion.
Kitajima teaches a photosynthesis reactor which has a stirring member which slides on the inner surface of the cylinder so that it can simultaneously perform stirring and cleaning of the walls (Kitajima, page 7, paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a sliding member which slides along the inner surface of the accommodation portion because it would simultaneously perform stirring and cleaning of the walls (Kitajima, page 7, paragraph 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796