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 .
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.
Claims 5, 6, 16, 17, and 19 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckelberry (US 9085745).
Regarding claim 1, Eckelberry teaches a system and method using microalgae slurry comprising at least one compartment (328,329,334,335 and/or,336) comprising a plate-shaped catalytic membrane (refer to Figure 1 and 11) which directly converts microalgae into biofuel and separates products and/or raw materials in a reaction medium and two cells (328,329,334,335 and/or,336), a warm water inlet (333), a warm water outlet (330), a wet microalgae inlet (333), wherein wet microalgae enter through, a liquid products and unconverted wet algae outlet (330), wherein wet microalgae exit through.
Eckelberry fails to teach the warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C enters through and the warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C exits through. Eckelberry does teach heating water to control the specific gravity of the water relative to the algae and the impact on the power required to extract the lipids.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to heat the warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C enters through and the warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C exits through in order obtain optimal operating conditions for the algae.
Regarding claim 2, the reactor (328) comprises one compartment.
Regarding claim 3, the reactor (328) comprises two compartments (refer to figure 11) having a first compartment (334) and a last compartment (329).
Regarding claims 4, the reactor (328) further comprises at least one intermediate compartment (335) between a first compartment (334) and a last compartment (329).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the warm water inlet (333) and the liquid products and unconverted wet algae outlet (330) are located in the upper right corner of the reactor (328), and the wet algae inlet (333) and warm water outlet (330) are located at the lower-left corner of the reactor (328). (Refer to Figures 1 and 11) Applicants further recite “to create reverse flow when number of compartments is odd” and “…even”. This limitation is considered a process and/or intended use limitation, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus (i.e. from apparatus claim 1) from that of the prior art. Since claim 1, etc. are drawn to an apparatus statutory class of invention, it is the structural limitations of the apparatus, as recited in the claims, which are considered in determining the patentability of the apparatus itself. This recited process or intended use limitation is accorded no patentable weight to an apparatus. Process limitations are not germane to patentability to a structure, which is not distinguished from the prior art. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the surface of the membrane is covered with catalysts. (Refer to Col. 9, Lines 40-45)
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the catalysts is alumina-silica supported nickel catalyst. (Refer to Col. 9, Lines 25-35)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the wet microalgae comprise a solid content between 2-10% in the growth medium. (Refer to Col. 15, Lines 1-10)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the growth medium comprises sea water and f/2 medium. (Refer to Col. 11, Lines 8-15)
Regarding claims 11 and 21, the f/2 medium comprises trace metals, vitamins, Na₂SiO₃.9H₂O, NaH₂PO₄.H₂O and NaNO₃. (Refer to Col. 11, Lines 8-15)
Regarding claims 12 and 16, the microalgae is Nannochloropsis oculato (N. oculata). (Refer to Col. 5, Lines 25-35)
Regarding claim 13-15, the method comprising entrance of the wet microalgae to one of the cells through wet microalgae inlet, wherein the wet microalgae comprise a solid content between 2-10% in the growth medium, at the same time, entrance of warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C to the cell through warm water inlet in order to bring the reaction temperature to the desired point, after the entry of wet microalgae to the compartment, reacting wet microalgae on the plate-shaped catalytic membrane surface, passing of water, polar products and salt to the other cell through the membrane inside the compartment, after the end of the reaction, exit of liquid products and unconverted wet algae through the liquid products and unconverted wet algae outlet, at the same time, exit of warm water through the warm water outlet. (Refer to Col. 10, Lines 51-67 and Col. 11, Lines 1-54)
Eckelberry fails to teach the warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C enters through and the warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C exits through. Eckelberry does teach heating water to control the specific gravity of the water relative to the algae and the impact on the power required to extract the lipids.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to heat the warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C enters through and the warm water with a temperature between 80°C-90°C exits through in order obtain optimal operating conditions for the algae.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798