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
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's priority to the US provisional application 63240211 filed on 09/02/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2024 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent naming of claim limitations. Claim 15 states “said at least one insulative divider plate” while the term that has antecedent basis is “divider plate” not “insulative divider plate”. In light of the applicant’s disclosure, it seems insulative can be a limitation or property of the divider plate, and that this is not a separate item from the already mentioned “divider plate”. The examiner will interpret this term as if it was the same “divider plate” as mentioned in claim 14, which this claim depends on. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. Claim 26 current states, “further comprising baffles within said device are used to …”. This reads as if the device is used to prevent hydraulic short circuiting. The examiner will interpret, but not limit, the claim as “further comprising baffles within said device which are used to …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 has language that has invoked 112(f): “illumination means for”. Given the invocation of 112(f), the term “illumination means” has been interpreted in light of the page 24 within the applicant’s specification as: direct sunlight; sunlight passed through a window or light filter; sunlight redirected using a solar tube, fiberoptics, or reflector; artificial full spectrum lighting; artificial lighting optimized for photosynthetic active radiation; bioluminescence; nuclear radiation; or a combination thereof.
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 23 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. Regarding the use of the “hydraulic grade line”, given the information in the disclosure of the application, the examiner is interpreting this as, but not limited to, the water line where the water passively enters the system; since the figures of the disclosure show reference (23) in line with the inlet of the device. As for the remainder of the content of the claim, the examiner has deemed it indefinite due to the confusion of the meanings of the claims. It seems the claims would violate natural/physical properties of gas as the applicant states, the gas passively, due to gravity, would be released through a gas relief valve that is below the hydraulic grade line, or in the case of their device, the fluid line within the device. Gas, given its lower density than fluid, would need to be pumped below the hydraulic grade line to be released from the device. If the applicant intends something other than the examiner’s interpretation, it is requested to amend the claims for clarity, or if the applicant has the same interpretation of the examiner, it is similarly requested to further define this feature for clarity.
The examiner would also like to note that the while claim 22 is not rejected, under 112(b), the limitations state the gas is pumped out of the system through a relief valve above the hydraulic grade line, wherein a pump would not be needed, as this is the scenario where gas could passively, through gravity, be released from the system. However, just because a pump isn’t needed, does not mean it cannot be there, hence why there is not a rejection for claim 22.
The examiner would further like to note, the applicant’s disclosure shows the ability for this device to tilt and/or rotate. If these limitations, including the hydraulic grade line, would be affected by the moving of the device, the applicant should further define or specify to avoid clarity issue in further prosecution.
Claims 41-42 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. The applicant states a method claim (claim 40), but then states, “the device of claim 40” in both claims 41 and 42. Given claim 40 is directed to a method, and claims 41-42 are directed to a device, these claims are rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 13 (as well as their dependents, 2-12 and 14-39, and 40-42 as method claim 41 recited the device of claim 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s), due to the 112(f) invocation for claim 1, and the verbiage of claim 13: direct sunlight, bioluminescence, and nuclear radiation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the elements do not contribute to any meaningful limitation to the natural product. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only disclose natural occurring phenomena, with nothing more limiting or adding to the natural phenomena that would change the characteristics of the phenomena (sunlight and the light occurring from chemical and biological reactions). Accordingly, the types of light is direction to an exception (Step 2A: Yes), but because the claims do not include any additional features that could add significantly more to the exception (Step 2B: NO), the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter and are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9, 11, 13, 28, and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (NPL, “The development and characterization of a thermosiphon photobioreactor for the cultivation of photosynthetic bacteria”).
In regards to claim 1, Cho teaches a photobioreactor (Passive Aerobic Treatment Unit (PATU)) {Title, "thermosiphon photobioreactor"} for treating wastewater from a preferably liquid influent stream using at least one biofilm, comprising: {Bottom page 4, "The aim … to apply TPBR for waste-water treatment"} a) at least one illuminated conduit oriented on an angle from the horizontal with a transparent face to admit incident radiation and pass heat to or from the outside environment; {Figure 15 reference (riser) wherein the riser pipe is illuminated by lamps (5) and at a perpendicular angle from the horizon or ground and Middle page 43, "thermosiphon PBR was constructed with glass"} b) at least one shaded conduit that runs adjacent to said at least one illuminated conduit and passes heat to or from the outside environment; {Figure 15 reference (downcomer) wherein this pipe adjacent to the riser pipe and Bottom page 43, "a layer of cotton will and aluminum foil were used for thermal insulation" this insulation shows the pipe as being opaque or shaded from the light source, however, the insulation does not inhibit the pipe from being capable of passing heat to or from the outside environment} c) at least one connection between said at least one illuminated conduit and said at least one shaded conduit at high and low points such that said wastewater recirculates by convection as a result of imbalanced heating or cooling of said at least one illuminated conduit and said at least one shaded conduit; {Figure 15 wherein the riser and the downcomer are connected at the upper and lower portions of the system and Middle page 4, "aim of the project … achieves natural fluid circulation by the thermosiphon effect arising from temperature differences"} d) at least one biofilm provided on at least a portion of at least one internal surface of said device; {Page 36, "thermosiphon PBR should minimize biofilm formation by having smooth internal surfaces" Just because it is made to minimize biofilms, does not mean that biofilms do not exist within the device} e) at least one illumination means for applying to said at least one illuminated conduit and the microorganisms therein; {Figure 15 reference (5) "halogen lamps"} and f) at least one inlet port and at least one outlet port. {Top page 44, "to the inlet … from the outlet"}
In regards to claim 9, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one illuminated conduit and said at least one shaded conduit connect: (i) at the upper end of said device; (ii) below said device; {Figure 15 wherein the riser and the downcomer are connected at the upper and lower portions of the system} (iii) by way of at least one settling chamber {Figure 25 The portion at the bottom of the flow path where the bacteria cells are settling} from which said at least one influent pipe ascends to said at least one illuminated conduit, and to which said at least one effluent pipe descends from said at least one shaded conduit. {Figures 15 & 37 showing the direction of flow being in a counterclockwise direction, wherein looking at Figure 15, one can see the influent is directed upward into the tank eventually going through the riser, and the influent is directed downward from the tank, leaving from the downcomer pipe}
In regards to claim 11, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one biofilm comprises autotrophic, phototropic, mixotrophic, chemotrophic, heterotrophic microorganisms, or a combination thereof. {Bottom page 2, ""In application, such a thermosiphon photobioreactor … the bacterium is anoxygenic … during its heterotrophic growth mode"}
In regards to claim 13, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said a least one illumination means comprise: a) direct sunlight; b) sunlight passed through a window or light filter; c) sunlight redirected using a solar tube, fiberoptics, or reflector; d) artificial full spectrum lighting; e) artificial lighting optimized for photosynthetic active radiation; f) bioluminescence; g) nuclear radiation; or h) a combination thereof. {Figure 15 reference (5) "halogen lamps"}
In regards to claim 28, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said device comprises at least one tank to store untreated wastewater, partially treated wastewater, treated wastewater, or a combination thereof. {Figure 15 reference (storage tank)}
In regards to claim 35, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said device is a closed system and thereby can operate passively at, above, or below the influent hydraulic grade line. {Bottom page 2, "thermosiphon photobioreactor will be closed system"}
In regards to claim 36, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said wastewater enters and leaves said device by gravity. {Middle page 24, "2.4 Thermosiphon Loops, Design and Applications … natural or free convection flows … due to the effect of a density difference in a body field (e.g., gravity)"}
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) 2-3, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (NPL, “The development and characterization of a thermosiphon photobioreactor for the cultivation of photosynthetic bacteria”), in view of van Walsem (US20110151507A1).
Cho teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 9, 11, 13, 28, and 35-36 , as mentioned in the prior 102 rejection.
Cho does not teach:
Claim 2: The device of claim 1, wherein said at least one illuminated conduit comprises at least one flat panel conduit that comprises at least in part at least one transparent face to at least intermittently admit incident radiation.
Claim 3: The device of claim 1, wherein said at least one illuminated conduit comprises a series of parallel transparent conduits that admit incident radiation at least intermittently.
Claim 7: The device of claim 1, wherein said at least one shaded conduit comprises a series of parallel transparent conduits that admit incident radiation.
Claim 8: The device of claim 7, wherein said at least one illuminated conduit is only intermittently illuminated during the day while said at least one shaded conduit is intermittently shaded during the day as they are oriented such that the former receives incident radiation in the morning while shading the latter and the latter receives incident radiation in the afternoon while shading the former.
However, van Walsem teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2-3 and 7-8 that Cho does not teach.
In regards to claim 2, van Walsem teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one illuminated conduit comprises at least one flat panel conduit {Figure 1 and Paragraph 33, "Fig. 1 depicts a … flat-panel design"} that comprises at least in part at least one transparent face to at least intermittently admit incident radiation. {Paragraph 72, "The panel can be transparent"}
In regards to claim 3, van Walsem teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one illuminated conduit comprises a series of parallel transparent conduits that admit incident radiation at least intermittently. {Paragraph 72, "The panel can be transparent" and Paragraph 163, "multiple parallel channels" … to form a single panel"}
In regards to claim 7, van Walsem teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one shaded conduit comprises a series of parallel transparent conduits that admit incident radiation. {Paragraph 72, "The panel can be transparent" and Paragraph 163, "multiple parallel channels" … to form a single panel"}
In regards to claim 8, van Walsem teaches the device of claim 7, wherein said at least one illuminated conduit is only intermittently illuminated during the day {Paragraph 101, "The photobioreactor … raised at an angle … one end of the panel is fixed" Given the panel reactor is set up at an angle other than horizontal to the ground, and that it utilizes light from the sun, it is inherent, that at intermittent parts of the day, different sections of the device will be illuminated or shaded, depending on the orientation of the device} while said at least one shaded conduit is intermittently shaded during the day {Paragraph 101, "The photobioreactor … raised at an angle … one end of the panel is fixed" Given the panel reactor is set up at an angle other than horizontal to the ground, and that it utilizes light from the sun, it is inherent, that at intermittent parts of the day, different sections of the device will be illuminated or shaded, depending on the orientation of the device} as they are oriented such that the former receives incident radiation in the morning while shading the latter and the latter receives incident radiation in the afternoon while shading the former. {Paragraph 101, “a 30-degree tilt can provide a fairly uniform yearly insolation in the southwest U.S.” This is showing that depending where on is, will require adjustments with the angle of the device, but that the adjustments required to orient the device pertaining to the time of day and location of the device is not novel}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention the tilting and conduit structure of van Walsem with Cho because van Walsem discloses separate embodiments of photobioreactors that have the same function as the ones in the disclosure of Cho. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine van Walsem to Cho because the waviness of the panel of van Walsem further stiffens the panels, as well as providing increased surface area that improves heat transfer. (van Walsem paragraph 96}
Claim(s) 4-5, 14-16, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (NPL, “The development and characterization of a thermosiphon photobioreactor for the cultivation of photosynthetic bacteria”), in view of Berzin (US20090011492A1).
Cho teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 9, 11, 13, 28, and 35-36 , as mentioned in the prior 102 rejection.
Cho does not teach:
Claim 4: The device of claim 1, wherein said at least one shaded conduit comprises a heat exchange element.
Claim 5: The device of claim 1, wherein said at least one shaded conduit comprises a series of thermally conductive parallel heat exchange conduits that run adjacent to said at least one illuminated conduit and increase the area available for heat exchange.
Claim 14: The device of claim 1, wherein at least one of said at least one illuminated conduit and at least one of said at least one shaded conduit are separated, in whole or in part, by an at least one divider plate.
Claim 15: The device of claim 14, wherein said at least one insulative divider plate shades said at least one at least intermittently shaded conduit.
Claim 16: The device of claim 14, wherein said at least one divider plate shades said at least one at least intermittently shaded conduits, reflects or absorbs incident radiation as needed to optimize the temperature, convective recirculation, and incident radiation exposure of the illuminated conduits(s) for the growth of microorganisms inside the device, and thermally separates the illuminated and shaded conduits except where they meet at the upper and lower ends of said device.
Claim 29: The device of claim 1, wherein multiple devices are connected in parallel.
Claim 30: The device of claim 1, wherein multiple devices are connected in series.
However, Berzin teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 4-5, 14-16, and 29-30 that Cho does not teach.
In regards to claim 4, Berzin teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one shaded conduit comprises a heat exchange element. {Paragraph 136, "Heat exchange tubes 656 … the heat exchange element may be located in solar channel 104 or both channels 104 and 106"}
In regards to claim 5, Berzin teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one shaded conduit comprises a series of thermally conductive parallel heat exchange conduits {Figure 8C showing the parallel tubes of the heat exchange unit which can be placed in the shaded or illuminated conduit sections} that run adjacent to said at least one illuminated conduit and increase the area available for heat exchange. {Paragraph 136, "Heat exchange element may be located in … both channels 104 and 106" and Figure 8B This heat exchanger is shown to have increased surfaces area to aid in heat dissipation}
In regards to claim 14, Berzin teaches the device of claim 1, wherein at least one of said at least one illuminated conduit and at least one of said at least one shaded conduit are separated, in whole or in part, by an at least one divider plate. {Figure 7 reference 101 "partition plate" and Paragraph 75, "partition 101 is not transparent, resulting in channel 106 being a dark tube"}
In regards to claim 15, Berzin teaches the device of claim 14, wherein said at least one insulative divider plate shades said at least one at least intermittently shaded conduit. {Figure 7 reference 101 "partition plate" and Paragraph 75, "partition 101 is not transparent, resulting in channel 106 being a dark tube" and Paragraph 76, "to provide a desirable level of photo modulation (i.e. temporal pattern)… using materials which do not allow light to penetrate }
In regards to claim 16, Berzin teaches The device of claim 14, wherein said at least one divider plate shades said at least one at least intermittently shaded conduits, {Figure 7 reference 101 "partition plate" and Paragraph 75, "partition 101 is not transparent, resulting in channel 106 being a dark tube"} reflects or absorbs incident radiation as needed to optimize the temperature, convective recirculation, and incident radiation exposure of the illuminated conduits(s) for the growth of microorganisms inside the device, {Paragraph 76, "For example … may be constructed from an opaque material, along with partition 101, … an important consideration in designing certain photobioreactors according to the invention is to provide a desirable level of photomodulation (i.e. temporal pattern of alternating periods of exposure of the photosynthetic organisms to light at an intensity sufficient to drive photosynthesis …) within the photobioreactor" teaching the temperature optimization and radiation exposure to promote growth and Paragraph 88, "These two levels of fluid dynamic control enabling photomodulation comprise: (1) control the overall liquid flow rate around the loop" teaching the convective properties} and thermally separates the illuminated and shaded conduits {Paragraph 76, "to provide a desirable level of photo modulation (i.e. temporal pattern”} except where they meet at the upper and lower ends of said device. {Figure 7A reference (101) "partition"}
In regards to claim 29, Berzin teaches the device of claim 1, wherein multiple devices are connected in parallel. {Paragraph 95, "photobioreactor 100 can comprise one of a plurality of identical or similar bioreactors interconnected in parallel, in series, or in a combination of parallel and series configurations"}
In regards to claim 30, Berzin teaches the device of claim 1, wherein multiple devices are connected in series. {Paragraph 95, "photobioreactor 100 can comprise one of a plurality of identical or similar bioreactors interconnected in parallel, in series, or in a combination of parallel and series configurations"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structures and limitations of Berzin’s conduits, heat exchangers, partition plates, and device orientations to the device of Cho because both Berzin and Cho are photobioreactors that exist to harness energy from a light source and utilize it for treatment of a solution. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Berzin to Cho because Berzin further limits the conduits of Cho as Berzin states that making the conduit non-transparent will allow for dark intervals to be better controlled and lead to improved growth and performance of the algae in the photobioreactor, making one of reasonable skill in the art motivated to utilize components of this invention and combine them to Cho. {Berzin paragraph 76}
Claim(s) 6 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (NPL, “The development and characterization of a thermosiphon photobioreactor for the cultivation of photosynthetic bacteria”) and van Walsem (US20110151507A1), in view of Berzin (US20090011492A1).
The combination of Cho and van Walsem teach all of the limitations of claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11, 13, 28, and 35-36; as mentioned in prior 102 and 103 rejections.
In regards to claim 6, van Walsem further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one shaded conduit comprises at least one flat panel conduit. {Figure 1 and Paragraph 33, "Fig. 1 depicts a … flat-panel design" the claims do not specify a difference in structure of the two conduits, just that one is intermittently shaded and the other is not, hence why the same mapping was used to show the flat panel conduit for both the illuminated and shadow conduits}
In regards to claim 6, Cho further teaches that the flat panel conduit and has at least one thermally conductive back face. {Figure 15 reference (downcomer) wherein this pipe adjacent to the riser pipe and Bottom page 43, "a layer of cotton will and aluminum foil were used for thermal insulation" this insulation shows the pipe as being opaque or shaded from the light source, however, the insulation does not inhibit the pipe from being capable of passing heat to or from the outside environment}
They do not teach:
Claim 6: That the flat panel conduit is shaded by said at least one illuminated conduit.
Claim 17: The device of claim 7, wherein at least one of said at least one illuminated conduit and said at least one shaded conduit are separated, in whole or in part, by an at least one divider plate.
Claim 18: The device of claim 17, wherein said at least one divider plate alternately shades said at least one at least intermittently shaded conduits and said at least one at least intermittently illuminated conduits depending on the position of the sun in the sky.
However, Berzin teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 6 and 17-18 that the combination of Cho and van Walsem does not teach.
In regards to claim 6, Berzin teaches that the flat panel conduit is shaded by said at least one illuminated conduit. {Figure 7A channel (106) [shaded] can is behind channel (104) illuminated and (101) divider plate, showing that the dark is shaded by the illuminated channel and the plate}
In regards to claim 17, Berzin teaches the device of claim 7, wherein at least one of said at least one illuminated conduit and said at least one shaded conduit are separated, in whole or in part, by an at least one divider plate. {Figure 7 reference 101 "partition plate" and Paragraph 75, "partition 101 is not transparent, resulting in channel 106 being a dark tube"}
In regards to claim 18, Berzin teaches the device of claim 17, wherein said at least one divider plate alternately shades said at least one at least intermittently shaded conduits and said at least one at least intermittently illuminated conduits depending on the position of the sun in the sky. {Figure 7 reference 101 "partition plate" and Paragraph 75, "partition 101 is not transparent, resulting in channel 106 being a dark tube" it is claimed that the partition plate shades a portion of the shaded conduit(s) depending on the location of the sun, given the sun inherently will move positions throughout the sky, the divider plate or the currently combined invention will inherently shade a portion of the shaded conduit, thus no further teaching is needed for this claim limitation}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structures and limitations of Berzin’s conduits, heat exchangers, partition plates, and device orientations to the combined device of Cho and van Walsem because Berzin, Cho and van Walsem, are photobioreactors that exist to harness energy from a light source and utilize it for treatment of a solution. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Berzin to Cho and van Walsem because Berzin further limits the conduits of Cho and van Walsem as Berzin states that making the conduit non-transparent will allow for dark intervals to be better controlled and lead to improved growth and performance of the algae in the photobioreactor, making one of reasonable skill in the art motivated to utilize components of this invention and combine them to Cho. {Berzin paragraph 76}
Claim(s) 10, 12, 19-20, 26, and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (NPL, “The development and characterization of a thermosiphon photobioreactor for the cultivation of photosynthetic bacteria”), in view of Lennox (US20150101981A1).
Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 13, 28, and 35-36; as mentioned in a prior 102 rejection.
In regards to claim 10, Cho further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one illuminated conduit and said at least one shaded conduit connect at the upper end of said device and again at the lower end of said device. {Figure 15 wherein the riser and the downcomer are connected at the upper and lower portions of the system}
In regards to claim 40, Cho further teaches a method of treating wastewater, comprising: a) providing at least one device of claim 1; {Top page 43, "3.4.1 Experimental Setup"} wherein said wastewater is treated. {Top page 90, "to apply the thermosiphon PBR for waste-water treatment"}
In regards to claim 41, Cho further teaches the device of claim 40, wherein said wastewater comprises sewage, cistern waste, household waste, municipal waste, industrial waste, animal waste, digestate, leachate, farm waste, run-off, a polluted water body, or a combination thereof. {Top page 90, "to apply the thermosiphon PBR for waste-water treatment"}
In regards to claim 42, Cho further teaches the device of claim 41, wherein said wastewater is untreated, partially treated, fully treated, or a combination thereof. {Top page 90, "to apply the thermosiphon PBR for waste-water treatment" This claim merely states that wastewater must exist within the system as the limitations are untreated, partially, fully, or a combination thereof}
Cho does not teach:
Claim 10: Said at least one influent pipe and said at least one effluent pipe can connect to the upper end and lower end of said device.
Claim 12: The device of claim 1, wherein said at least one biofilm is provided on at least one of said at least one illuminated conduit, said at least one at least intermittently shaded conduit, or a combination thereof.
Claim 19: The device of claim 1, wherein said at least one inlet port transports influent into said device.
Claim 20: The device of claim 1, wherein said at least one outlet port transports effluent out of said device.
Claim 26: The device of claim 1, further comprising baffles within said device are used to prevent hydraulic short- circuiting.
Claim 39: The device of claim 1, wherein said device contains baffles that prevent hydraulic short circuiting through said device.
Claim 40: b) operably engaging said at least one device of claim 1 with at least one source of wastewater to be treated; c) operating said at least one device of claim 1 with said at least one source of wastewater.
However, Lennox teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 10, 12, 19, 20, 26, 39, and 40 that Cho does not teach.
In regards to claim 10, Lennox teaches said at least one influent pipe and said at least one effluent pipe can connect to the upper end and lower end of said device. {Paragraph 14, "The inlet and the outlet are generally disposed at opposite ends of the longitudinal direction of the vessel"}
In regards to claim 12, Lennox teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one biofilm is provided on at least one of said at least one illuminated conduit, said at least one at least intermittently shaded conduit, or a combination thereof. {Paragraph 14, "The panel comprises a biofilm-coated matrix that permits wastewater through the panel"}
In regards to claim 19, Lennox teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one inlet port transports influent into said device. {Paragraph 14, "inlet configured to direct wastewater into the vessel"}
In regards to claim 20, Lennox teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said at least one outlet port transports effluent out of said device. {Paragraph 14, "outlet configured to direct water out of the vessel"}
In regards to claim 26, Lennox teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising baffles within said device are used to prevent hydraulic short-circuiting. {Paragraph 54, "may include stepped treatment cells … to increase individual retention and maintain the water level to take advantage of all treatment potential from panels… high flow events can open baffles at the bottoms of the steps to allow for greater flow" this teaches how the use or adjustment of baffles can allow for increased efficiency and functionality of the device during low or high flow periods}
In regards to claim 39, Lennox teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said device contains baffles that prevent hydraulic short circuiting through said device. {Paragraph 54, "may include stepped treatment cells … to increase individual retention and maintain the water level to take advantage of all treatment potential from panels… high flow events can open baffles at the bottoms of the steps to allow for greater flow" this teaches how the use or adjustment of baffles can allow for increased efficiency and functionality of the device during low or high flow periods}
In regards to claim 40, Lennox teaches b) operably engaging said at least one device of claim 1 with at least one source of wastewater to be treated; c) operating said at least one device of claim 1 with said at least one source of wastewater. {Paragraph 26, "The method further includes the steps of directing waster into the vessel, treating the wastewater, while in the vessel … directing the treated water out of the vessel"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention method steps and device features such as conduit locations because both Cho and Lennox are wastewater treatment devices that utilize a biofilm for the treatment of the water. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Lennox to Cho because in Lennox the influent or effluent of water for the purpose of maximizing biofilm metabolism uses geothermal cooling to lower water temperature to reduce thermal pollution. {Lennox, paragraph 80} Given that both inventions aim to treat water, and Lennox utilizes geothermal energy to create a more efficient, less pollutant process, one would be motivated to combine aspects of Lennox to Cho.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-25, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cho (NPL, “The development and characterization of a thermosiphon photobioreactor for the cultivation of photosynthetic bacteria”), in view of Roulston (US20150299630A1).
Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 13, 28, and 35-36; as mentioned in a prior 102 rejection.
Cho does not teach:
Claim 21: The device of claim 1, wherein at least one gas relief valve is provided at the top of said device for removing gas build-up.
Claim 22: The device of claim 21, wherein said at least one gas relief valve is connected to a pump to facilitate removing gas build-up as said at least one gas relief valve is above the hydraulic grade line.
Claim 24: The device of claim 1, wherein an at least one outlet port is provided at the top of said device.
Claim 25: The device of claim 24, wherein said at least one outlet port facilitates the removal of gas build-up along with liquid effluent.
Claim 37: The device of claim 1, wherein said wastewater is pumped to and from said device.
However, Roulston teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 21-22, 24-25, and 37 Cho does not teach.
In regards to claim 21, Roulston teaches the device of claim 1, wherein at least one gas relief valve is provided at the top of said device for removing gas build-up. {Paragraph 179, "The feed vessel 600 has a pressure relief line 700 with a pressure relief valve 702" and Figure 6 reference (702)}
In regards to claim 22, Roulston teaches the device of claim 21, wherein said at least one gas relief valve is connected to a pump to facilitate removing gas build-up {Paragraph 9, "pressure relief valves … pumps to maintain pressure"} as said at least one gas relief valve is above the hydraulic grade line. {Paragraph 179, "The feed vessel 600 has a pressure relief line 700 with a pressure relief valve 702" and Figure 6 reference (702)}
In regards to claim 24, Roulston teaches the device of claim 1, wherein an at least one outlet port is provided at the top of said device. {Figure 6 reference (702) "pressure relief valve"}
In regards to claim 25, Roulston teaches the device of claim 24, wherein said at least one outlet port facilitates the removal of gas build-up along with liquid effluent. {Paragraph 9, "combined gas and sterilizant manifold" and Paragraph 19, "sterilizant source may be … a liquid sterilizant pack"}
In regards to claim 37, Roulston teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said wastewater is pumped to and from said device. {Paragraphs 156 and 158, "first culture line 14 enters the scale up vessel 200 at an inlet… 14 optionally has an inline pump" and "culture line 80 leaves the feed vessel 300 through an outlet 82 … passes through an inline pump 84"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine gas and liquid ports and pumps to from Roulston to Cho because both Roulston and Cho are types of bioreactors that can be used to treat water, given these inventions appear within a narrower field of endeavor of water treatment, it would be obvious to utilize components of either within the other’s invention. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Roulston to Cho because Roulston specifically states their invention was designed reduce the chance of contamination in the bioreactor, {Roulston, abstract} which given there are living components in both systems, the threat of contamination in Cho is realistic.
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cho (NPL, “The development and characterization of a thermosiphon photobioreactor for the cultivation of photosynthetic bacteria”), in view of Kuehnle (US20150001149A1).
Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 13, 28, and 35-36; as mentioned in a prior 102 rejection.
Cho does not teach:
Claim 31: The device of claim 1, wherein said device is preceded, followed, or a combination thereof, by solids removal.
Claim 32: The device of claim 31, wherein said solid removal comprises settling, screening, filtration, or a combination thereof.
Claim 33: The device of claim 1, wherein said device is preceded by solids removal.
Claim 34: The device of claim 33, wherein said solid removal comprises settling, screening, filtration, or a combination thereof.
However, Kuehnle teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 31-34 that Cho does not teach.
In regards to claim 31, Kuehnle teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said device is preceded, followed, or a combination thereof, by solids removal. {Paragraph 24, "One or more solid removal apparatuses … can be employed before wastewater treatment"}
In regards to claim 32, Kuehnle teaches the device of claim 31, wherein said solid removal comprises settling, screening, filtration, or a combination thereof. {Paragraph 24, "One or more solid removal apparatuses … can be employed before wastewater treatment" }
In regards to claim 33, Kuehnle teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said device is preceded by solids removal. {Paragraph 24, "One or more solid removal apparatuses … can be employed before wastewater treatment" }
In regards to claim 34, Kuehnle teaches the device of claim 33, wherein said solid removal comprises settling, screening, filtration, or a combination thereof. {Paragraph 24, "One or more solid removal apparatuses … can be employed before wastewater treatment" }
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention solid removal capabilities of Kuehnle to the invention of Cho because the invention of Kuehnle utilizes bacteria to aid in their treatment process, similar to Cho. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Kuehnle to Cho because aspects of the invention of Kuehnle (solids removal in this case) help with water quality improvement, thereby meeting existing or planned discharged limits {Kuehnle, paragraph 15}, in which any industrial treatment setup, such as the ones taught by Cho, must abide by.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cho (NPL, “The development and characterization of a thermosiphon photobioreactor for the cultivation of photosynthetic bacteria”), in view of Johnston (US4926643A).
Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 13, 28, and 35-36; as mentioned in a prior 102 rejection.
Cho does not teach:
Claim 38: The device of claim 1, wherein a recirculation pump is used to supplement the convective recirculation rate into and out of said device.
However, Johnston teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 38 that Cho does not teach.
In regards to claim 38, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a recirculation pump is used to supplement the convective recirculation rate into and out of said device. {Column 2 lines 58-63, "closed loop recirculation system … the system operates by natural convention and … supplemented by a pump provided within the system"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention the supplemental pump of Johnston to the invention of Cho because Johnson utilizes thermal convection properties of a liquid, similar to the closed-loop system of Cho. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Johnston to Cho because Johnston states, how any improvement to thermal efficiency is considered significant, {Column 5 lines 47-51} given how inefficient thermal systems are; and that utilizing a pump to supplement the thermal convention improves the efficiency of the system, specifically when there are pressure changes within the closed loop. {Column 2 lines 58-63} As any temperature change will have a pressure change in a closed system, this issue is similarly pertinent to the invention of Cho.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the invention of the instant application pertains to a photobioreactor. The art that the examiner was able to find almost in their entirety pertained to more industrial treatment capabilities, and the systems that one of reasonable skill in the art would define as “residential” or “mobile” did not utilize environmental differences on either side of a skylight or a window to improve the convective properties of the liquid in the system on top of the energy being harnessed by an illumination means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights