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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-21, is/are filed on 9/15/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 14-17 is/are withdrawn without traverse, 1-13, and 18-21 is/are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, and 18-21 thereof is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term ‘small volume of water’ in claim(s) 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ‘small’ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the specification what size is covered by ‘small.’ For the purposes of examination, the relevant claim limitations are interpreted as simply ‘any volume of water ’. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘small’ from the claim(s).
Claim(s) 7 recites the limitation ‘the biodegradable apparatus.’ There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term ‘rigid materials’ in claim(s) 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ‘rigid’ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the specification what degree of flexibility is covered by ‘rigid.’ For the purposes of examination, the relevant claim limitations are interpreted as simply ‘any flexible material ’. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘rigid’ from the claim(s).
The term ‘biodegrade large amounts or bulk volumes’ in claim(s) 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms ‘large’ and ‘bulk’ are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the specification what size is covered by ‘large’ or ‘bulk’. For the purposes of examination, the relevant claim limitations are interpreted as simply ‘any size amount or volume’. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘large’ or ‘bulk’ from the claim(s).
The term ‘biodegrade small amounts’ in claim(s) 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ‘small’ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the specification what size is covered by ‘small’. For the purposes of examination, the relevant claim limitations are interpreted as simply ‘any size amount or volume’. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘small’ from the claim(s).
The term ‘generally rectangular’ in claim(s) 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ‘generally’ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the specification what degree of deviation covered by ‘generally.’ Could a diamond shape or parallelogram shape be considered a rectangale? For the purposes of examination, the relevant claim limitations are interpreted as simply ‘rectangular’. Applicant may overcome this rejection by deleting the word ‘generally from the claim(s).
Regarding claim 13, 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).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 1-11, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 20190226172 A1) in view of Gu (US 20190194044 A1) and El-Shehawy (US 11162066 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Higgins teaches a method for in-situ biodegradation of cyanobacteria and reducing their cyanotoxin levels, in a water body (Higgins teaches a method for removing algae or cyanobacteria from a surface water body, [0008], [0069]; the biodegradation and toxin reduction are addressed below), comprising: deploying an enclosable, floating biodegradation apparatus (floatable apparatus with base member 2, floatation members 1, openings 3 that can be closed 3A, and a removable cover, [0023], [0039], [0042]) in a water body by itself, attached to or adjacent to another floatable or fixed-position apparatus (the apparatus can be "anchored, secured with rods 4 and attached to a fixed structure," and linked to other apparatuses through attachment points 5, [0049], [0060]), wherein the biodegradation apparatus is configured for removing cyanobacteria from a water column or a targeted water column depth interval in a water body (collection member 7 extends through the water column or is fixed to collect from a targeted water column depth interval, [0007], [0053], [0061]);
capturing and transferring the cyanobacteria from the water body to the biodegradation apparatus (collection members 7 capture the targeted volume and move it through influent opening 3 into base member 2, "by drawing in one or more collection members, by pumping," [0008], [0057]); holding the cyanobacteria in a small volume of water in a storage area of the biodegradation apparatus in the water body for a period of time (the solids are concentrated and held inside base member 2 with openings 3A closed "until they can be processed and removed," [0023], [0051], [0060]) and under the environmental conditions of the water body to induce an in-situ biodegradation process, thereby causing the cyanobacteria and their cyanotoxins to biodegrade into degradation products.
Higgins does not teach holding the cyanobacteria under the environmental conditions of the water body to induce an in-situ biodegradation process, thereby causing the cyanobacteria and their cyanotoxins to biodegrade into degradation products. Higgins does teach placing biologically-reactive media, including "bacteria inoculated granular carbon," in the base member ([0052]) and using biological substances in the apparatus ([0062]). Gu teaches that cyanobacteria gathered in a water body break down in place. Gu states that accumulated algae pulp "can easily form anaerobic decay under high temperature and poor water mobility" ([0004]). Gu also teaches that conventional treatments "require removing cyanophytes from the water body," which wastes labor, materials and money ([0003]).El-Shehawy teaches that removing a bloom releases "a large amount of microcystins" from the cells ([0006]), and that the natural breakdown of a bloom releases microcystins as well ([0114]). El-Shehawy further teaches that bacteria native to bloom-affected water bodies degrade microcystins ([0129], [0131]) at 15-35 °C, under aerobic conditions, within 1 to 120 hours (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hold the cyanobacteria collected in the closed base member of Higgins in the water body until the cells and their toxins break down, as taught by Gu and El-Shehawy. The motivation would have been to avoid the cost of hauling harvested cyanobacteria out of the water body (Gu, [0003]) and to keep toxins released from the captured cells out of the open water (El-Shehawy, [0006]). Higgins already provides a closed floating container and contemplates biological treatment inside it ([0023], [0052]). The modification uses known structure for its known purpose and would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the biodegradation apparatus can further house biotic species from the water body (collection members 7 enclose areas containing "invasive or nuisance plants, animals," which are processed into base members 2, Higgins [0070]; water taken from a bloom-affected water body carries indigenous microcystin-degrading bacteria, El-Shehawy [0129], [0131]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cyanobacteria can be transferred to the biodegradation apparatus by conduit or pump (piping and pumps connected at attachment points 5, Higgins [0044], [0049], [0057]) through a side opening of the biodegradation apparatus (side opening 11 and influent opening 3, Higgins [0043], [0060]) or into the top opening of the biodegradation apparatus (base member 2 has "an open or closed top," Higgins [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the biodegradation process is initiated in-situ by crowding the cyanobacteria in the biodegradation apparatus (collection members 7 are "drawn together to contain and isolate these solids," and the solids are concentrated inside circular wall member 6A, Higgins [0051], [0054], [0058]; accumulated cyanobacteria "captured and enriched" in one place decay in place, Gu [0004], [0005]). The reason to combine is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Higgins teaches wherein the enclosable, floating biodegradation apparatus comprises a storage area (base member 2) with sidewalls (sides of the rectangular trough, FIG. 2B, [0014]), a closed bottom and an open top ("closed bottom, and an open or closed top," [0004]), a floatation member (floatation members 1, [0042]), an optional removable cover to enclose the open top (removable film, fabric or rigid sheeting cover, [0039]), and side opening for transfer of solids and fluid into and out of the storage area (influent and effluent openings 3, closable at 3A, and side opening 11, [0043], [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the in-situ biodegradation process is augmented by covering the biodegradation apparatus. Higgins teaches covering the apparatus to control "wind and wave disturbance, sunlight, diffusion of gas" ([0039]). Gu teaches that accumulated cyanobacteria decay under "poor water mobility" ([0004]). El-Shehawy degrades microcystins while samples are "incubated at 27° C. in the dark" ([0119]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to cover the apparatus of Higgins during the holding step. Blocking sunlight cuts off the light the cyanobacteria need, and limiting wind, waves and gas exchange creates the still conditions Gu identifies as driving decay.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the biodegradable apparatus is constructed of one or more layers of permeable to impermeable continuous film, fabric or rigid materials ("fluid pervious to impervious materials such as continuous sheeting, layers or fabric," and rigid pervious 13 or impervious 12 materials, Higgins [0040], [0041], [0043]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the floatation member has attachment points for fixing the biodegradation apparatus in place and to other apparatus or parts when deployed in surface water (floatation members 1 have attachment points 5 "for attaching multiple apparatuses together, for attaching fixed structural supports," and for anchoring, Higgins [0038], [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising in-situ degrading the degradation products in the biodegradation apparatus. El-Shehawy teaches that microcystins are broken down in stages, through linearized MC-LR and a tetrapeptide to the Adda moiety (El-Shehawy, Detailed Description, definition of "degrading microcystins"), while the medium is kept "under conditions suitable for the degradation of said microcystins" (El-Shehawy, claim 1). Gu teaches that decayed cyanobacteria leave nutrients "that can be reused by aquatic plants" ([0004]). It would have been obvious to keep holding the material in the apparatus of Higgins until these intermediate products are also broken down. The motivation would have been to fully detoxify the captured material before it is released or removed.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the floating biodegradation apparatus can be used to store and biodegrade large amounts or bulk volumes of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins from the water body (base members 2 are linked "to increase fluid and total solids containment volume," and the apparatus captures a "harmful algae bloom area," Higgins [0060], [0064], [0066]; biodegradation as discussed for claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the floating biodegradation apparatus can be used to store and biodegrade small amounts of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins accumulating over time from the water body (passive collection "using natural or induced water flows," including "the natural action of wind, waves or currents," for "concurrent or later processing," Higgins [0057], [0058], [0065]; biodegradation as discussed for claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is an enclosable, floating biodegradation apparatus comprising a storage area with sidewalls, a closed bottom and an open top, a floatation member, an optional removable cover to enclose the open top (base member 2, floatation members 1 and removable cover, as mapped for claim 5, Higgins [0004], [0014], [0039], [0042]), and an opening to the water body for transfer of solids and fluid into the storage area (influent opening 3, Higgins [0043]), wherein the opening to the water body is a curved flow pathway extending along at least a portion of the inner wall of the storage area and open to the interior of the storage area (wall member 6 inside circular wall member 6A is "suitable for directing flow around the inside edge of the circular wall member 6A," and influent is directed "tangentially along the upper interior radial side of the circular member," Higgins [0020], [0051]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising flaps that flank the opening of the water body (openings 3 may be a "unidirectional flap, bidirectional flap," Higgins [0038]; collection member 7 forms "a narrowing yoke or fork structure having two fork members" on either side of the opening, Higgins claim 5).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the opening extends into the water body by extensions, flaps or flanges and optional attachable structures that direct fluids and solids into the opening (a second collection member 7 is attached near influent opening 3 and extends "from the first base member into the water body," and opening 3 may be a funnel-shaped opening 3B, Higgins [0028], [0035], [0053]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 2019/0226172 A1) in view of Gu (US 2019/0194044 A1) and El-Shehawy (US 11162066 B2) and Schmidt (US 20220025668 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the floating biodegradation apparatus can be used to store, biodegrade and remove tree pollen and similar sources of nutrients to cyanobacteria that enter a water body. Higgins teaches removing "detritus ... colloidal and dissolved nutrients" from a water body, and ties nutrients to harmful algae blooms ([0002], [0038]). Higgins does not mention tree pollen. Schmidt teaches that debris "such as leaves, pollen, seeds, insects" collects on the water surface ([0004]). Schmidt's floating device, held up by floats 113 and fitted with funnel 100 and coarse skimmer basket 103, pulls in "small floating debris, such as pollen" ([0042], [0045]). The device can "freely float within the body of water" and can be used "In fishponds to remove surface debris" ([0040], [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the floating apparatus of Higgins to also capture pollen floating on the water body, as taught by Schmidt. Higgins is directed to removing organic solids and nutrients that feed algae blooms, and Schmidt shows that pollen is a common floating solid that a floating device readily collects. Once captured, the pollen would be held and broken down along with the other organic solids, as discussed for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of floating biodegradation apparatuses can be used together or in sequence (base members 2 and apparatuses are "linked together side by side or end to end" or connected in series, and moved from one collection area to another, Higgins [0043], [0058], [0060], FIG. 4) to contain, biodegrade and remove cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins from a water body (as discussed for claim 1) and for removal of external sources of nutrients to cyanobacteria such as tree pollen that enter a water body (as discussed for claim 12, Schmidt [0004], [0042], [0056]). The reason to combine is the same as for claims 1 and 12.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 2019/0226172 A1) in view of Gu (US 2019/0194044 A1) and El-Shehawy (US 11162066 B2) and Templeton (WO 0166220 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the portion of the flow pathway that extend along the inner curved wall has a generally rectangular cross section, with a height greater than the width. Higgins teaches directing influent tangentially along the inside of circular wall member 6A ([0020], [0051]). Higgins does not give the cross-sectional shape of this flow path. Templeton teaches a vortex chamber for ponds and similar water bodies, where inflow enters through inlet port 8 tangentially along curved internal wall surface 2 (pp. 1, 5; claim 1). Inlet port 8 has a substantially rectangular cross-section whose "long axis ... is aligned substantially parallel to this longitudinal axis 3," which is vertical in use, so the port is taller than it is wide (p. 10). The long-to-short side ratio is about 3:1 to 15:1 (p. 4; claim 3), with a long side of about 20-50 cm and a short side of about 1-10 cm (p. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give the curved flow path of Higgins a rectangular cross-section that is taller than it is wide, as taught by Templeton. Templeton teaches that this slot shape feeds the incoming water into the layer of flow along the curved wall, which improves solids separation and shortens settling time (pp. 3, 22). Higgins uses tangential flow along a curved wall for the same purpose of concentrating solids ([0051]).
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights