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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
For claims 1-21, the term “system” is being interpreted as either device or apparatus for purposes of examination. Furthermore, if there are contingent limitations, the limitation will be taught by the art if the structure present can perform the functional limitation if the condition should occur. See also MPEP §2111.04 II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Appropriate corrective action is required.
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) 1-13, 15 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Constantz et al. (US 2014/0234946 A1 – hereafter ‘946).
‘946 disclose a method for removing carbon dioxide (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 1:
“A system for processing an ultramafic material”: ‘946 discloses a system for removing carbon dioxide from a gas stream that contains carbon dioxide ([0007]). Furthermore, ‘946 uses ultramafic rocks ([0086]) in this process and therefor, the system processes ultramafic material. It should also be noted that preamble statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the invention rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations is not considered to structurally define the claimed invention over the prior art. See also MPEP §2111.02 II and §2114.
“a reactor for accelerating weathering of said ultramafic material”: ‘946 discloses a reactor (Fig. 4; [0193]) that processes the CO2 gas. This reactor is fully capable of accelerating weathering of the ultramafic material.
“wherein said reactor comprises one or more chambers comprising one or more microbes, one or mor biological mediators, or one or more enzymatic accelerants to facilitate weathering of said ultramafic material.”: ‘946 discloses that the reactor can contain catalysts such as enzymes ([0073]) where these enzymes are being interpreted as enzymatic accelerants. Furthermore, the specific microbes or accelerants are drawn to material operated on by an apparatus which does not structurally define the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP § 2115.
Claims 2-10 and 20-22 are drawn to the material operated on by the apparatus which does not structurally define the claimed device over the prior art. See MPEP §2115.
For claim 11, ‘946 discloses using a mechanical component such as a pump ([0202]).
For claim 12, ‘946 discloses using mechanical conveying means such as pumps or conveyor belts ([0202]).
For claim 13, ‘946 discloses that the systems for mechanical conveying provides flow control ([0202]).
For claim 15, ‘946 discloses two reactors or chambers that are coupled together (Fig. 4). The specific material in each reactor is drawn to the material operated on by an apparatus which does not structurally define the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP §2115.
For claim 19, ‘946 discloses a controller ([0266]) that is connected to a plurality of sensors such as temperature and pH ([0266]). These sensors are connected to the processor and provide data to the controller that allows the system to operate the reactors ([0267]).
Therefore, ‘946 meets the limitations of claims 1-13, 15 and 19-22.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantz et al. (US 2014/0234946 A1 – hereafter ‘946) in view of Senaratne et al. (WO 2020/033262 A1 – hereafter ‘262).
‘946 (Constantz) discloses multiple chambers, but does not disclose the three chambers for claim 16.
‘262 (Senaratne) discloses a system for converting CO/CO2 ([0032]) that for claim 16 includes having three chambers (bioreactors 110 and 120; Fig. 3) that can be used to treat different gases ([0039]; [0040]). This allows for treating additional gases such as CO and H2 ([0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious ton one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the additional chambers of ‘262 within ‘946 in order to process additional gasses. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to treat additional gases such as CO and H2 ([0039]).
For claim 17, ‘946 discloses that the chambers are connected to a water source (Fig. 4; [0193]).
For claim 168 ‘946 differs with regards to having a fourth chamber.
For claim 18, ‘262 discloses that there can be two or more bioreactors (bioreactors 120; [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing using the same reasoning as claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
For claim 15, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole a system that includes one or more mechanical components that are operably coupled to a body of water within a zone comprising wave or current energy, such that said one or more mechanical components transfer mechanical energy from said body of water to said contents of said one or more chambers.
The closest prior art is Constantz et al. (US 2014/0234946 A1 – hereafter ‘946) which discloses a system for carbon sequestration using mafic or ultramafic material and includes that the bioreactors are connected to a body of water such as the ocean. While not specifying a pump to withdraw the sea water, the use of a pump would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a pump to move the sea water as this is a very conventional and well-known fluid transfer means within the biological arts. However, Constantz does not teach or suggest placing the pump or mechanical transfer component within a wave or current zone to use the energy from the waves or current on the contents of the chambers.
The next closest art is Senaratne et al. (WO 2020/033262 A1 – hereafter ‘262) that includes a system for treating CO and CO2 using multiple bioreactor chambers, but Senaratne does not teach or suggest placing the pump or mechanical transfer component within a wave or current zone to use the energy from the waves or current on the contents of the chambers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fradette et al. (US 2006/0048517 A1) discloses a system for recycling carbon dioxide from a fossil-fuel plant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799