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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation " the exhaust gas discharged from the culturing tank into the closed space " in line 9 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason(s) as the base claim(s) upon which they depend. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonaert et al. ( WO 2012080198 A1 ) (machine translation) . Regarding claim 1, Boonaert et al. discloses a culturing device (Abstract) having a culturing tank (1) (p. 2 para. 5) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 3) side walls of which are made from a light-transmitting material (p. 6 para. 1), and configured to culture microalgae in a culturing solution accommodated in the culturing tank (p. 3 third-to-last para., p. 7 para. 5) and which is irradiated with light through the side walls (p. 6 para. 1), the culturing device comprising: a liquid storage tank (2) (p. 2 para. 5) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 3) that stores a stored liquid having a light-transmitting property (Abstract, p. 5 para. 4-5), wherein: the culturing tank (1) is arranged inside the stored liquid stored in the liquid storage tank (Abstract, p. 5 para. 4-5) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 3), and includes a light-transmitting heat insulating portion configured to cover the liquid storage tank (p. 4 second-to-last para.-p. 5 para. 1), and the heat insulating portion forms an air layer that insulates an interior of the culturing tank (the liquid level in the liquid storage tank 2 does not reach the top which is covered by the heat insulating portion, see Fig. 1 and p. 9 para. 3-10, and therefore an air layer is necessarily formed; the air layer necessarily insulates an interior of the culturing tank as air is an insulating material). Boonaert et al. does not expressly teach wherein the liquid storage tank (2) is formed from a light-transmitting material. Nonetheless, it has been held that “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination ” ( MPEP 2144.07). Boonaert et al. discloses that the liquid storage tank should be impervious to the liquid (p. 4 para. 4), and elsewhere discloses that the culturing tank is made of a transparent material such as a polymer or glass (p. 4 para. 2) and is impervious to the liquid (p. 4 para. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the liquid storage tank out of the same material as the culturing tank, i.e., a transparent material such as polymer or glass, as Boonaert et al. discloses that such materials are suitable for arriving at a container impervious to the liquid. Regarding claim 3, Boonaert et al. discloses wherein the heat insulating portion is in the form of a film (reads on a sheet) that possesses flexibility (p. 5 para. 1-2); and the air layer is formed between the liquid storage tank and the heating insulating portion that are arranged with a space therebetween (see rejection of claim 1, above, see also Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 3). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonaert et al. ( WO 2012080198 A1 ) (machine translation) in view of Gyure (US Patent Application Publication 2009 / 0130704 ). Regarding claim 2, Boonaert et al. discloses the heat insulating portion configured to cover the liquid storage tank, as set forth above, wherein the heat insulating portion is glass plate (p. 5 para. 1). Boonaert et al. is silent as to wherein the heat insulating portion is an aerogel and the air layer is formed within pores of the aerogel. Gyure discloses that it was known in the art to form a cover of a bioreactor tank from an aerogel (Abstract), wherein aerogels can be transparent insulation materials (para. 4) and comprise an air layer formed within pores thereof (para. 62, 191) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the heat insulating portion disclosed by Booneart et al. with an aerogel such that the air layer is formed within pores of the aerogel, as such a modification represents simple substitution of one known element for anothe r to obtain predictable results ( MPEP § 2143) , in this case, substituting an aerogel for a glass in order to arrive at a heat insulating material. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonaert et al. ( WO 2012080198 A1 ) (machine translation) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 5 , 137 , 828 ). Regarding claim 4, Boonaert et al. discloses wherein the heat insulation portion is a sheet, as set forth above, and wherein the heat insulation portion covers an upper surface of the liquid storage tank and an upper surface of the culturing tank (p. 4 second-to-last para.). Boonaert et al. further discloses wherein the culturing device comprises a photobioreactor and is operated outside where it is exposed to ambient weather (p. 4 para. 3, p. 6 para. 6-8). Boonaert et al. is silent as to wherein the heat insulation portion covers side walls of the liquid storage tank. Robinson et al. discloses that it was known in the art to cover side walls of a photobioreactor with transparent polyethylene sheeting during severe weather for insulation thereof (col. 3 line 62-col. 4 line 29, col. 9 lines 60-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat insulation portion disclosed by Boonaert et al. to cover side walls of the liquid storage tank, based on the teachings of Robinson et al., in order to enhance insulation against ambient weather conditions. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonaert et al. ( WO 2012080198 A1 ) (machine translation) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 5 , 137 , 828 ) as applied to claim 4, above, and in further view of Suehiro et al. ( JP 2011254766 A ) (machine translation). Regarding claim 5, Boonaert et al. discloses wherein the heat insulating portion forms a closed space in which the culturing tank is accommodated on an inner side thereof (p. 4 para. 6-p. 5 para. 1) , and wherein the culturing device is configured to culture microalgae as set forth above. Boonaert et al. is silent as to the culturing tank being provided with a gas supply port, the upper surface of the culturing tank being provided with a communication port, and an upper part of the h e at insulating portion being provided with a gas discharge port as claimed. Suehiro et al. discloses a culturing device for culturing microalgae (p. 2 para. 1) comprising a culturing tank (1) accommodated within a water tank (2) (p. 2 para. 8) (Fig. 1), the culturing tank (1) comprising a gas supply port ( 6 ) configured to be capable of supplying a supplied gas to culturing solution inside the culturing tank (p. 2 para. 14) (Fig. 1), specifically, to supply carbon dioxide for microalgae growth (p. 3 para. 2) wherein the upper surface of the culturing tank (1) is provided with a communication port (7) configured to place the interior of and the exterior of the culturing tank in communication to discharge carbon dioxide (p. 2 para. 13, p. 3 para. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the culturing tank disclosed by Boonaert et al. to comprise a gas supply port configured to be capable of supplying carbon dioxide to the culturing solution inside the culturing tank and such that the upper surface of the culturing tank is provided with a communication port for discharging carbon dioxide to an exterior of the culturing tank, as Suehiro et al. discloses that it was known in the art to use such a configuration to circulate carbon dioxide through a culturing tank for microalgae growth, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide such a configuration for effective microalgae photosynthesis. The prior art combination does not expressly teach wherein an upper part of the heat insulating portion is provided with a gas discharge port configured to enable the exhaust gas discharged from the culturing tank into the closed space through the communication port to be discharged from the closed space; nonetheless, given that Suehiro et al. discloses discharging the carbon dioxide from inside the culturing tank to ambient air (p. 3 para. 2), it would have been obvious to further modify Boonaert et al. such that an upper part of the heat insulating portion is provided with a gas discharge port, to avoid buildup of exhausted gas within the closed space and allow for gas discharge to an exterior of the culturing device as is envisioned by Suehiro et al. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonaert et al. ( WO 2012080198 A1 ) (machine translation) in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent 5 , 137 , 828 ) and Suehiro et al. ( JP 2011254766 A ) (machine translation), as applied to claim 5, above, and in further view of Sundaram (US Patent Application Publication 2021 / 0087513 ). Regarding claim 6, Boonaert et al. in view of Suehiro et al. teaches the gas supply port and the gas discharge port, as set forth above, and Suehiro et al. further discloses wherein the gas supply port is connected to a gas supplying mechanism (called blower) via a gas supply pipe (p. 2 para. 14) (Fig. 1); therefore, this subject matter is obvious in view of the prior art combination. The prior art combination is silent as to one end part of a gas recovery pipe configured to recover the exhaust gas discharged from the gas discharge port being connected to the gas discharge port, and another end of the gas recovery pipe being connected to the gas supply pipe, wherein the exhaust gas recovered into the gas recovery pipe is supplied to the culturing solution inside the culturing tank through the gas supply pipe and the gas supply port. Sundaram discloses a culturing device for culturing algae (Abstract) comprising a culturing tank (104) (para. 22) including a gas supply pipe (108) connected to the culturing tank via a gas supply port (130) (para. 26) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 6) and a gas recovery pipe (110) configured to recover exhaust gas discharged from a gas discharge port (122) of the culturing tank connected at one end of the gas recovery pipe (para. 24) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 6). Another end of the gas recovery pipe (110) is connected to the gas supply pipe (108) such that exhaust carbon dioxide gas recovered into the gas recovery pipe is supplied to culturing solution inside the culturing tank (104) through the gas supply pipe (108) and the gas supply port (130) thereby allowing for recycling of carbon dioxide (para. 24-26) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration taught by Boonaert et al. in view of Suehiro et al. such that one end part of a gas recovery pipe is configured to recover the exhaust gas discharged from the gas discharge port being connected to the gas discharge port, and another end of the gas recovery pipe is connected to the gas supply pipe, wherein the exhaust gas recovered into the gas recovery pipe is supplied to the culturing solution inside the culturing tank through the gas supply pipe and the gas supply port, based on the teachings of Sundaram , in order to enable recycling of carbon dioxide to enhance efficiency of device operation. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonaert et al. ( WO 2012080198 A1 ) (machine translation) in view of Duncan et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022 / 0124987 ). Regarding claim 7, Boonaert et al. discloses the heat insulating portion configured to cover the liquid storage tank, as set forth above, wherein the heat insulating portion may be a film (p. 5 para. 1). Boonaert et al. is silent as to a support mechanism configured to support the heat insulating portion, wherein the heat insulating portion includes a first portion and a second portion configured to face toward one another while sandwiching therebetween in a horizontal direction the culturing tank that is installed at an installation location, and the support mechanism supports the heat insulation portion in a manner so that the first portion and the second portion are capable of approaching toward or separating away from each other. Duncan et al. discloses a device for cultivating algae (Abstract, para. 65) comprising a transparent heat insulating film configured to cover the algae (para. 65, 69, 93) (Fig. 8, sheet 4 of 4), the device comprising a support mechanism configured to support the heat insulating film (para. 95) (Fig. 8, sheet 4 of 4), the heat insulating film including a first portion ( 100a ) and a second portion ( 100b ) configured to face toward one another while sandwiching therebetween in a horizontal direction the algae that is installed at an installation location (para. 93) (Fig. 8, sheet 4 of 4), wherein the support mechanism supports the heating insulating film in a manner so that the first portion and the second portion are capable of approaching toward or separating away from each other (para. 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat insulating portion disclosed by Boonaert et al. to adopt the configuration taught by Duncan et al., i.e., so as to include a support mechanism configured to support the heat insulating portion, wherein the heat insulating portion includes a first portion and a second portion configured to face toward one another while sandwiching therebetween in a horizontal direction the culturing tank that is installed at an installation location, and the support mechanism supports the heat insulation portion in a manner so that the first portion and the second portion are capable of approaching toward or separating away from each other, so as to cover sides of the culturing tank in an adjustable manner, thereby enhancing the heat insulating properties and flexibility of the device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ellem et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012 / 0164712 ) is directed to a culturing device comprising a flexible tubular reactor immersed in a volume of water, the reactor comprising a gas inlet and a gas outlet. Forth (US Patent 5 , 846 , 816 ) is directed to a culturing device comprising a transparent jacket. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0658 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8.30- 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Marcheschi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721374 . 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. /HOLLY KIPOUROS / Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799