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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, states “said covering means are”. Examiner believes this is a grammatical error and should read “said covering means is”.
Claim 3, line 2, states “the partition of the reservoir”. Examiner believe this should read “the partition wall of the reservoir”.
Claim 9, line 2, states “selected from a group of sensors”. This should read “selected from the group of sensors”.
Claim 12, line 4, states “network, and long range”. Examiners believes this should read “network, or long range”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-12 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 1, line 4, states “ambient light can be incident”. It is unclear if this is a required limitation of the claim or if it is an optional limitation. For examination purposes it is interpreted as the ambient light is incident. Further clarification and correction is required.
Claims 2-5 and 7-12 are further rejected as they depend from Claim 1.
Claim 2, line 2, states “generally oval-shaped”. It is unclear what “generally” means. For examination proposes, it is interpreted as having an oval shape.
Claim 2, line 5, states “said walls”. It is unclear if the walls being referred to are the curved end walls, the straight side walls, or the partition wall. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as the curved end walls and the straight side walls. Further clarification and correction is required.
Claims 3 is further rejected as it depends from Claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the flow path at a velocity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. First, there is no flow path recited prior to this in the claim. Second, it is unclear if the velocity is the same velocity as referred to in Claim 1. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as “a flow path at the velocity”.
Claim 7 recites “said system includes photovoltaic panels to power said circulating means or the movement of said covering means”. It is unclear if these are the same photovoltaic panel as recited in Claim 1 or different ones. Further clarification and correction is required.
Claim 8, lines 1-2, states “wherein said system includes circulating means (3), covering means (5)”. It is unclear if these are the same circulating means and covering means as recited in Claim 1. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as the same limitations from Claim 1. Further clarification and correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the flow path" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as a flow path. Further clarification and correction is required.
Claim 9, line 6, states “said set of solar panels”. It is unclear if these are the photovoltaic panels as previously claimed or a different feature entirely. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as the photovoltaic panels. Further clarification and correction is required.
Claim 11, lines 2-4, states ““and comprises motor driven circulating means (3) and motor driven covering means (5)”. It is unclear if these are the same limitations of Claim 1 (see amended limitations). For examination purposes, it is interpreted as the same limitations from Claim 1. Further clarification and correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonkovich et al. (WO2014144270A1) in view of Jin et al. (CN111032849A).
Regarding Claim 1, Tonkovich teaches the following:
A bioreactor system comprising a culture vessel (reservoir) with an inner volume configured to contain an aqueous culture of mixotrophic microorganisms (configured to contain a fluid medium having an algal culture) and at least one lighting device or a component [an opening or window] to allow the inner volume exposure to some light (para 35)(an opening through with the ambient light can be incident on the fluid medium contained in the reservoir in its operative configuration)
The culture may be circulated by any known means such as thrusters, pumps, paddlewheels, and gravity (para 47)(at least one circulating means configured to circulate the fluid medium in said reservoir in its operative configuration at a desired velocity and the circulating means is controlled by means of at least one second motor)
A cover configured to block at least a portion of the sunlight from contacting the culture of microorganisms in which the cover may comprise a photovoltaic panel, a film, a passive shade cloth, a polymer, tinted glass, and combinations thereof (para 51)(at least one covering means configured in its operative state to at least partially cover said opening of reservoir to at least partially block the light incident on the fluid medium) and said covering means is a plurality of moveable photovoltaic panels)
The covering means to define an intermittent light and dark cycle for the fluid medium for a predetermined period of time in the reservoir to define a predetermined ratio of light and dark time is an intended use of the device. 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 (see MPEP 2114). The device of Tonkovich would be capable of defining the light and dark cycle and therefore meets the claim.
Tonkovich further teaches the cover may comprise a greenhouse (para 56).
Tonkovich does not explicitly teach the movement of the photovoltaic panels is controlled by means of at least one motor.
Jin teaches an apparatus for the cultivation and harvesting of microalgae (para 2). Jin further teaches a greenhouse for microalgae cultivation with a light shield and a light shield drive motor (para 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover (photovoltaic panels) of Tonkovich with a motor as taught by Jin. One would have been motivated to make this modification as excessive light can inhibit photosynthesis through light saturation (para 113) and the motor would allow the covering and uncovering of the algae cultivation vessel.
Further, the photovoltaic panels powering the first and second motor is an intended use of the device. Tonkovich’s photovoltaic panels would be capable of powering the first and second motor and therefore meets the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Tonkovich further teaches the bioreactor may comprise a culturing vessel such as... a raceway pond (para 35)(reservoir is an open raceway pond). Tonkovich further teaches the pond to be generally oval-shaped with curved end walls and straight side walls and a partition wall provided in the reservoir spaced apart from the sidewalls to define a path for fluid medium circulating in the reservoir in its operative configuration (see Fig. 7, below).
Further the raceway pond may be constructed above ground with a frame or molded body, or may be constructed in the ground (para 59)(said walls of said reservoir being at least partially embedded in the ground or projecting therefrom).
Regarding Claim 4, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Tonkovich further teaches the culture may be circulated by any known means such as thrusters, pumps, paddlewheels, and gravity (para 47)(circulating means being defined by a pump or a pump and paddle wheels). The circulating means being configured to circulate the fluid medium along the flow path at a specific velocity is an intended use of the device. The pump of Tonkovich would be capable of circulating the fluid medium at a specific velocity and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). The covering means configured to cover a footprint area of the reservoir to the extent of 15-55% is an intended use of the device. Given Tonkovich teaches the bioreactor may be at least partially covered with a cover, the device of Tonkovich would be capable of covering 15-55% of the footprint area, and therefore meets the claim. Further, the cover must be aligned across the flow path, parallel to the flow path or partially parallel to the flow path as there is no other possible alignment.
Regarding Claim 7, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). The photovoltaic panels to power said circulating means or the movement of said covering means is an intended use of the device. Tonkovich’s photovoltaic panels would be capable of powering the circulating means and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Tonkovich further teaches the system may comprise sensors to measure and monitor at least one of pH, temperature, flow velocity, light, culture concentration (para 81). The sensors configured to detect the light intensity including low light, moderate light, and intense light as well as the absence of light and rotate said set of solar panels, detect the level of said fluid medium of said reservoir in real-time, as well as the physico-chemical parameters required for the algal culture is an intended use of the device. Tonkovich’s sensors would be capable of detecting such parameters and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Given the covering means being configured to define the predetermined ration of light and ark time is an intended use of the device, system would be capable of having the ration of light and dark time being in the range of 6:1 and therefore meets the claim.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonkovich et al. (WO2014144270A1) in view of Jin et al. (CN111032849A) and further in view of Mohan et al. (WO2018203211A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Tonkovich further teaches the sidewalls and the partition are aligned parallel to each other (see Fig. 7, above). Tonkovich further teaches when the temperature of the culture of microorganisms cannot be consistently maintained, methods of cooling and heating may need to be added to the system (para 41). Further, the reservoir must be aligned in a direction of north-south and east-west as there is no other direction to align it with. Tonkovich does not teach the depth of the reservoir in the range of 5 cm to 30 cm, or the temperature of the fluid medium to be controlled to be 28 to 40 degrees Celsius.
Mohan teaches an algal cultivation system with an algal raceway pond (page 8, lines 16-20). Mohan further teaches the system to operate at shallow depths, i.e. less than 10 cm (page 13, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Tonkovich and adjust the depth of the reservoir to less than 10 cm as taught by Mohan. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it ensures maximum utilization of sunlight with minimum attenuation losses (page 13, lines 11-12).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the fluid medium to be in an acceptable range dependent upon the material being cultivated and Tonkovich teaches adding a cooling or heating method to achieve the desired temperature (para 41).
Regarding Claim 8, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Tonkovich further teaches sensors to measure and monitor at least one of temperature, flow velocity and light (para 81). Given the device of Tonkovich requires a pump and an array of sensors, a power device for supplying power to said sensors being selected from an external power device, a power device mounted on said covering means, and a combination of power devices is a required element of Tonkovich’s device. Tonkovich in view of Jin does not teach a sensor for sensing the depth of the fluid medium in the reservoir.
Mohan teaches a sensor within the system such as a level sensor (depth sensor)(page 3, lines 10-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a level sensor in the system of Tonkovich in view of Jin as taught by Mohan. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow the monitoring of the level of the system and allow the stopping or starting of the pump of the device (page 3, lines 27-28).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonkovich et al. (WO2014144270A1) in view of Jin et al. (CN111032849A) and further in view of Shoham et al. (US20150250113A1).
Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Tonkovich does not teach the system is controlled and operated remotely over a wireless communication network selected from a group that consists of at least one of the internet of things, short-range communication, and long-range communication.
Shoham teaches a system for monitoring growth of an aquatic plant culture (Abstract). Shoham further teaches the system to be automated with Wi-Fi communication and remote control (para 144). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tonkovich in view of Jin with the communication and remote control as taught by Shoham. One would have been motivated to make this modification to facilitate accurate and highly potent real time culture management and performance optimization (para 144).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding Claim 11, Tonkovich in view of Jin teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Tonkovich does teach a pump (motor driven circulating means). Tonkovich does not teach a motor driven covering means, a controller configured to regulate the condition for growth of the culture, a memory, or a microprocessor configured to operate and execute one or more devices of the system.
Jin teaches a greenhouse for microalgae cultivation with a light shield and a light shield drive motor (motor driven covering means)(para 82). Jin does not teach a controller configured to regulate the condition for growth of the culture, a memory, or a microprocessor configured to operate and execute one or more devices of the system.
Mohan teaches the system to comprise a controller with cooperates with the pumping device, level sensors, and salinity sensors which generate signals received by the controller and the controller generates an output signal to trigger to stop the pumping device (page 3, lines 23-28).
Mohan does not teach the motor driven covering means or the microprocessor to cover or uncover a desired area in accordance with the exposed area of the reservoir in real time.
Further, examiners search found no other prior art that anticipated or would have been obvious to combine to arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 17+ regarding the advantages of moveable photovoltaic panels, it appears the applicant is arguing unexpected results, the examiner acknowledges the results, however, the examples are insufficient to overcome the above rejection because (1) applicant has not compared the claimed invention to the teachings of the references and (2), more importantly, the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the examples are directed to specifics not defined by the claims. Evidence of unexpected results must be clear and convincing. In re Lohr 137 USPQ 548. Evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed. In re Linder 173 USPQ 356. Further, these advantages would be expected with the device of Tonkovich in view of Jin which has the same structure as claim 1 absent clear evidence otherwise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN E LEPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3971. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 ET.
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.
/J.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights