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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the application
2. Claims 1-9, 12-19, 44, 45 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-9, 12-19, 44, 45 have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 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.
4. 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 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1, 2, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Muller et al. (WO 2021/074807 A1) and further in view of Lucas et al. (AU 2015323611 A1).
6. Regarding claims 1 , 2, Machado et al. discloses a method of reducing methane production in a ruminant animal comprising the step of administering at least one species of red marine macroalgae ([0009]) when supplemented in a feed comprising roughage from barley straw (0056]) for a ruminant animal ([0022]). Machado et al. also discloses that this red algae additive can be provided as powder form or can be sprayed as solution ([0130]-[0132]).
Regarding the claim limitation of 1%-5% by weight” as claimed in claim 1, it is to be noted that Machado et al. discloses that at least one species of red marine macroalgae is administered at a dose preferably at least 0.067% to 16.67% of the organic matter administered to the ruminant animal [0091] and if 80% of the feed is organic matter ([0090]), then it will be 0.05-13.336% by weight which encompasses the claimed range of 1-5% by weight of additive red macroalgae in the animal feed as claimed in claim 1. It shows prima facie case of obviousness according to MPEP 2145. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further Machado et al. discloses that the amount of macroalgae as an additive may be determined by the method ([0066]) by considering parameters like ruminant animals body weight, daily consumption of percent organic dry matter, and percent organic dry matter consumption etc. (at least 0060]-[0066]).
Therefore it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to evaluate these parameters to determine the amount of dried additive in the feed composition under specific condition for specific diet of the specific ruminant animal.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of dry additive red algae is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount of dry organic matter and the amount of dry feed consumption and body weight of the ruminants are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of dry additive red algae, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of dry additive algae in Machado et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. sufficient amount of algae as dry additive to have desired nutritional benefit (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
The method of reducing total methane gas production by maintaining effective levels of desirable volatile fatty acids in a ruminal animal by administering an effective amount of at least one species of macroalgae ([0009]) which meets claimed range amount of 1-5% dry weight of claim 1, inherently provides “an enhanced feedstock” and which is fed to the ruminant” ([0009]) to meet claim 1.
Machado et al. is silent about the specifically claimed macroalgae.
Muller et al. discloses that a nutritional supplement comprising macroalgae composition comprising at least one red macroalgae and the nutritional supplement is used as an animal feed supplement (at least in claims 1,3,14 of Mueller et al.). Muller et al. also discloses that at least one red macroalga can be selected from Callophyllis spp. at least one brown macroalgae is Saccharina latissima, (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12). This meets claim limitation of claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. to include the teaching of Muller et al. to consider at least one red macroalgae and the nutritional supplement is used as an animal feed supplement (at least in claims 1,3,14 of Mueller et al.) and that at least one red macroalga can be selected from Callophyllis spp. at least one brown macroalgae is Saccharina latissima, (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12) which are valuable nutritional supplement for animal feed composition.
Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. are silent about the “drying method” as claimed in claim 1.
Lucas et al. discloses the step of drying macroalgae (Under “Summary of the Invention”, paragraphs 6,7) in order to make dried product for its further use.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Lucas et al. who discloses the step of drying macroalgae ( Under “Summary of the Invention”, paragraphs 6,7) in order to make dried product for its further use.
It is to be noted that the claim limitation of “native to the northeastern Pacific Ocean” as claimed in claim 1, can be addressed by considering that the combined teaching disclose the claimed macroalgae as discussed above. Therefore, in this instance, these disclosed macroalgae are identical to the claimed microalgae of claim 1, which would have obvious they are native to the northeast pacific ocean as claimed in claim 1 and is available in that region.
7. Regarding claim 17, the discussion made for claim 1 is applicable for claim 17. However, precisely, Machado et al. discloses a method of reducing methane production in a ruminant animal comprising the step of administering at least one species of red marine macroalgae ([0009]) when supplemented in a feed comprising roughage from barley straw (0056]) for a ruminant animal ([0022]). Machado et al. also discloses that this red algae additive can be provided as powder form or can be sprayed as solution ([0130]-[0132]).
In addition to the discussion as discussed above, it is to be noted that Muller et al. discloses that a nutritional supplement comprising macroalgae composition comprising at least one red macroalgae and the nutritional supplement is used as an animal feed supplement (at least in claims 1,3,14 of Muller et al.). Muller et al. also discloses that at least one red macroalga can be selected from Callophyllis spp. at least one brown macroalgae is Saccharina latissima (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12).
It is to be noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consider more than one macroalgae in order to provide many nutritional components contributed by more than one macroalgae as disclosed by Muller et al. (at least last paragraph of page 2 and first paragraph of page 3) as claimed in claim 17.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. to include the teaching of Muller et al. to consider at least one red macroalgae and the nutritional supplement is used as an animal feed supplement (at least in claims 1,3,14 of Mueller et al.) and that at least one red macroalga can be selected from Callophyllis spp. at least one brown macroalgae is Saccharina latissima, (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12) which are valuable nutritional supplement for animal feed composition.
Regarding the phrase “dried, powdered” as claimed in claim 17, Machado et al. discloses that this red algae additive can be provided as powder form ([0130]-[0132]).
Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. are silent about the specific “drying method” as claimed in claim 1.
Lucas et al. discloses the step of drying macroalgae (Under “Summary of the Invention”, paragraphs 6,7) in order to make dried product for its further use.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Lucas et al. who discloses the step of drying macroalgae ( Under “Summary of the Invention”, paragraphs 6,7) in order to make dried product for its further use.
8. Regarding claims 2, 18, Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. are silent about the claim limitation of “blanching the microalgae prior to drying method”.
Lucas et al. discloses the step of drying macroalgae (Under “Summary of the Invention”, paragraphs 6,7) and blanching the macroalgae in order to disperse the natural coloring elements of macroalgae, or chloroplasts (at least page 4, paragraph 8).If we consider the disclosure of blanching and drying steps as a whole, which makes compact granular form with reduced moisture content (Pages 3-4) , then it is understood that the blanching step is prior to drying step.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Lucas et al. discloses the step of drying macroalgae ( Under “Summary of the Invention”, paragraphs 6,7) and blanching the macroalgae in order to disperse the natural coloring elements of macroalgae, or chloroplasts (at least page 4, paragraph 8) which is prior to drying step.
9. Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Muller et al. (WO 2021/074807 A1) and further in view of Lucas et al. (AU 2015323611 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view Weakley et al. (WO 2012/145679 A2).
10. Regarding claim 3, Machado et al. discloses a feed composition for a ruminant animal ([0022]) is supplemented with macroalgae comprising roughage from barley straw (0056]).
Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. in view of Lucas et al. are silent about barley silage and barley straw : barley silage ratio in the feed composition.
Weakley et al. discloses that the ruminally digestible starch component of the feed may be provided as barley silage ([0073]) and the ruminally undigested forage NDF component of the feed may be provided as barley straw ([0074]).
Weakley et al. also discloses that dietary energy density may be increased and the feed cost can be reduced by manipulating a diet of an amount of a ruminally digestible starch and ruminally undigested forage neutral detergent fiber (NDF) component in at varying range amounts and varying ratios ([0069]-[0071]) including, in one embodiment, ingredients and amounts include in the diet may involve substituting purchased ingredients (both starch and fiber components) with home grown ingredients while maintaining the selected ratio for ruminally digestible starch in the approximate range of 12 to 20 weight percent of ruminally digestible starch component in relation to the dry matter of the feed, and the selected ratio for ruminally undigested forage NDF in the approximate range of 10 to 18 weight percent of ruminally undigested forage NDF component in relation to the dry matter of the feed ([0071]). This overlaps the claimed ratio of barley straw : barley silage 1:1 as claimed in claim 3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Miller et al. and Lucas et al. to include the teaching of Weakley et al. who discloses that the feed may be provided as barley silage as ruminally digestible starch ([0073]) and barley straw as the ruminally undigested forage NDF component of the feed ([0074]) in a disclosed arrange amount ([0071]) which overlaps claimed ratio in order to manipulate the feed composition by which dietary energy density may be increased and the feed cost can be reduced by manipulating a diet.
11. Regarding the claim limitation of “5% by weight” as claimed in claim 4, it is to be noted that and as discussed for claim 1 above that Machado et al. discloses that at least one species of red marine macroalgae is administered at a dose preferably at least 0.067% to 16.67% of the organic matter administered to the ruminant animal ([0091]) and if 80% of the feed is organic matter ([0090]), then it will meet the claimed 5% by weight of additive red macroalgae in the animal feed as claimed in claim 4.
However, if we consider broadly disclosed amount of red algae in the organic dry matter which organic dry matter is 80% of ruminant feed ([0012], [0063], [0064], [0083] , [0130]-[0132]), Machado et al. discloses that “an effective amount” may be determined by the method ([0066]) by considering parameters like ruminant animals body weight, daily consumption of percent organic dry matter, and percent organic dry matter consumption etc. (at least 0060]-[0066]). It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to evaluate these parameters to determine the amount of dried additive in the feed composition under specific condition for specific diet of the specific ruminant animal.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of dry additive red algae is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount of dry organic matter and the amount of dry feed consumption and body weight of the ruminants are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of dry additive red algae, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of dry additive algae in Machado et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. sufficient amount of algae as dry additive to have desired nutritional benefit (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
12. Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Muller et al. (WO 2021/074807 A1) and further in view Weakley et al. (WO 2012/145679 A2) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Wood et al. US 2013/0202562.
13. Regarding claim 5, Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. are specifically silent about Hedophyllum sessile and/or Egregia menziesii.
Wood discloses that microorganism composition which includes
macroalgae Hedophyllum sessile and/or Egregia menziesii and is used as additives in food or in feed composition ([0001], [0031], [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Wood discloses that microorganism composition which includes macroalgae Hedophyllum sessile and/or Egregia menziesii and is used as additives in food or in feed composition ([0001], [0031],[0061] ).
14. Regarding claim 6, Muller et al. discloses that a nutritional supplement comprising macroalgae composition comprising at least one red macroalgae and the nutritional supplement is used as an animal feed supplement (at least in claims 1,3,14 of Mueller et al.). Muller et al. also discloses that at least one red macroalga can be selected from Callophyllis spp. (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12). This meets claim limitation of claim 6.
15. Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Lucas et al. (AU 2015323611 A1) and further in view of Bakken et al. (DK 2375884 T3).
16. Regarding claim 7, Machado et al. discloses a method of reducing methane production in a ruminant animal comprising the step of administering at least one species of red marine macroalgae ([0009]) when supplemented in a feed comprising roughage from barley straw (0056]) for a ruminant animal ([0022]). Machado et al. also discloses that this red algae additive can be provided as powder form or can be sprayed as solution ([0130]-[0132]).
Machado et al. is specifically silent about the “drying method” as claimed in claim 7.
Lucas et al. discloses the method step of harvesting macroalgae so as to extract nutritional components e.g. protein etc. (at least third paragraph under “Summary of the Invention”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Lucas et al. who discloses the method step of harvesting macroalgae so as to extract nutritional components e.g. protein etc. (at least third paragraph under “Summary of the Invention”).
Machado et al. in view of Lucas et al. are specifically silent about the method of “cultivation of macroalgae in an ocean” which macroalgae “is native to the ocean” as claimed in claim 7.
Bakken et al. discloses that Seabed-anchored carrier arrangement for automated seeding, cultivation and harvesting of macroalgae in the sea (at least in claim 1 of Bakken et al.).
It is to be noted that the claim limitation of “ in an ocean”, it is to be noted that it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the steps of processing macroalgae including the step of harvesting the macroalgae in the specific region of sea in order to harvest the macroalgae for further use. Also, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to select specific time including the claimed time of fall or spring is known convenient time for harvesting specific macroalgae.
Bakken et al. discloses that Seabed-anchored carrier arrangement for automated seeding, cultivation and harvesting of macroalgae in the sea, comprising one or more carriers (11) suspended in the water and capable of withstanding changing flow directions, and means for attaching the carrier to the anchorage in which - each carrier (11) ) comprises a plate of flexible material selected from the group consisting of a solid, laminated and reinforced material, the surface of the plate (11) being configured to hold sperm and spores, - the plate has openings (12) allowing water flow to pass from one side of the plate to the other, thereby reducing the resistance to waves and current and allowing a stream of nutrients in the water to circulate through the carrier - wherein each carrier (11) floats in the water by its positive buoyancy and / or being provided with buoyancy means (40, 28), and the carrier (11) is connected to the fastening means (19,38,39,41,42) at a point or edge of the plate (at least in claim 1 of Bakken et al.).
It is known and evidenced by applicant’s specification (e.g. as claimed in applicant’s claimed invention in claim 1), that the claimed macroalgae can be native to the ocean. Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the specific region “in a farm in an ocean” where the macroalgae can be cultivated in a region which is native to them in that region of an ocean as claimed in claim 7 because of its availability and suitable environment to grow them in that region.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Bakken et al. to consider the steps of processing including the step of suspending macroalgae in the sea, including a specific area of sea where it is available, e.g. in this instance, it is specific region of an ocean where disclosed macroalgae is native in order to harvest the macroalgae for further use.
17. Regarding claim 8, Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. are silent about the claim limitation of “blanching the microalgae prior to drying method”.
Lucas et al. discloses the step of drying macroalgae (Under “Summary of the Invention”, paragraphs 6,7) and blanching the macroalgae in order to disperse the natural coloring elements of macroalgae, or chloroplasts (at least page 4, paragraph 8).If we consider the disclosure of blanching and drying steps as a whole, which makes compact granular form with reduced moisture content (Pages 3-4) , then it is understood that the blanching step is prior to drying step.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Lucas et al. discloses the step of drying macroalgae (Under “Summary of the Invention”, paragraphs 6,7) and blanching the macroalgae in order to disperse the natural coloring elements of macroalgae, or chloroplasts (at least page 4, paragraph 8) which is prior to drying step.
18. Claims 9, 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Lucas et al. (AU 2015323611 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Bakken et al. (DK 2375884 T3) and as evidenced by Taylor et al. US 2011/0314723 A1.
19. Regarding claim 9, Machado et al. in view of Lucas et al. are silent about claim limitations of claim 9.
Bakken et al. discloses the step of suspension in the water to perform processing which includes steps of seeding, cultivation and harvesting of macroalgae in the sea (at least in claim 1 of Bakken et al.). It is evidenced that the epipelagic zone is the water from the surface of the sea down to 200 meters as evidenced by Taylor et al. ([0002]). It is understood that it is the property of claimed macroalgae to be in an environment of epipelagic zone. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would select epipelagic zone of the ocean for the better growth processing environment during cultivation of the macroalgae.
It is to be noted that the claim limitation of “ in an ocean”, it is to be noted that it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the steps of processing macroalgae including the step of harvesting the macroalgae in the specific region of sea where it is available, in order to harvest the macroalgae for further use. Also, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to select specific time including the claimed time of fall or spring is known convenient time for harvesting specific macroalgae.
20. Regarding claim 12, Muller et al. discloses that a nutritional supplement comprising macroalgae composition comprising at least one red macroalgae and the nutritional supplement is used as an animal feed supplement (at least in claims 1,3,14 of Mueller et al.). Muller et al. also discloses that at least one red macroalga can be selected from Callophyllis spp. at least one brown macroalgae is Saccharina latissima, (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12).
21. Claims 13, 14, 15 , 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Lucas et al. (AU 2015323611 A1) and further in view of Bakken et al. (DK 2375884 T3) and as evidenced by Taylor et al. US 2011/0314723 A1 as applied to claim 12 and further in view of Wood et al. US 2013/0202562.
22. Regarding claim 13, Machado et al. in view of Lucas et al. and Bakken et al. are specifically silent about Hedophyllum sessile and/or Egregia menziesii.
Wood discloses that microorganism composition which includes
macroalgae Hedophyllum sessile and/or Egregia menziesii and is used as additives in food or in feed composition ([0001], [0031], [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Wood discloses that microorganism composition which includes macroalgae Hedophyllum sessile and/or Egregia menziesii and is used as additives in food or in feed composition ([0001], [0031],[0061]).
23. Regarding claims 14, 16, Machado et al. discloses that the macroalgae can be considered “at least one” (at least in [0009], [0018]-[0023], claim 1 , of Machado et al.).
Muller et al. discloses that a nutritional supplement comprising macroalgae composition comprising at least one red macroalgae and the nutritional supplement is used as an animal feed supplement (at least in claims 1,3,14 of Mueller et al.). Muller et al. also discloses that at least one red macroalga can be selected from Callophyllis spp. at least one brown macroalgae is Saccharina latissima (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12).
It is to be noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consider more than one macroalgae in order to provide many nutritional components contributed by more than one macroalgae as disclosed by Muller et al. (at least last paragraph of page 2 and first paragraph of page 3) as claimed in claims 14, 16.
24. Regarding claim 15, Muller et al. also discloses that one red macroalga can be selected from Callophyllis spp. (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12).
25. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Muller et al. (WO 2021/074807 A1) and further in view of Lucas et al. (AU 2015323611 A1) as applied to claim 18 and further in view of Anderson et al. US 2017/0099856 A1.
26. Regarding claim 19, Muller et al. discloses that at least one brown macroalgae including Saccharina latissimi can be used as feed supplement (Under Summary of the invention, paragraph 12).
Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. are silent about Alaria marginate in food.
Anderson et al. discloses that Alaria marginate algae is used to make the nutrient-dense meat structured protein product wherein such nutrient-dense meat structured protein product is used as food product ([0002], [0059]) in the form of patties ([0060], [0080], claim 1 of Anderson et al.).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include further Alaria marginate algae in order to nutritionally supplement the feed composition.
27. Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Muller et al. (WO 2021/074807 A1) and further in view of Lucas et al. (AU 2015323611 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bakken et al. (DK 2375884 T3).
28. Regarding claim 44, Lucas et al. discloses the method step of harvesting macroalgae so as to extract nutritional components e.g. protein etc. (at least third paragraph under “Summary of the Invention”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Lucas et al. who discloses the method step of harvesting macroalgae so as to extract nutritional components e.g. protein etc. (at least third paragraph under “Summary of the Invention”).
However, Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. and Lucas et al. are silent about all other claim limitations of claim 44.
Bakken et al. discloses that Seabed-anchored carrier arrangement for automated seeding, cultivation and harvesting of macroalgae in the sea (at least in claim 1 of Bakken et al.).
It is to be noted that the claim limitation of “ in a ocean”, it is to be noted that it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the steps of processing macroalgae including the step of harvesting the macroalgae in the specific region of sea where it is available, e.g. in this instance, it is northeast pacific ocean where disclosed macroalgae is native as claimed in claim 1 from which claim 44 depend on, in order to harvest the macroalgae for further use. Also, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to select specific time including the claimed time of fall or spring is known convenient time for harvesting specific macroalgae.
Bakken et al. discloses that Seabed-anchored carrier arrangement for automated seeding, cultivation and harvesting of macroalgae in the sea, comprising one or more carriers (11) suspended in the water and capable of withstanding changing flow directions, and means for attaching the carrier to the anchorage in which - each carrier (11) ) comprises a plate of flexible material selected from the group consisting of a solid, laminated and reinforced material, the surface of the plate (11) being configured to hold sperm and spores, - the plate has openings (12) allowing water flow to pass from one side of the plate to the other, thereby reducing the resistance to waves and current and allowing a stream of nutrients in the water to circulate through the carrier - wherein each carrier (11) floats in the water by its positive buoyancy and / or being provided with buoyancy means (40, 28), and the carrier (11) is connected to the fastening means (19,38,39,41,42) at a point or edge of the plate (at least in claim 1 of Bakken et al.).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. to include the teaching of Bakken et al. to consider the steps of processing including the step of suspending macroalgae in the sea, including a specific area of sea where it is available, in order to harvest the macroalgae for further use.
29. Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Machado et al. (US 2016/0339067 A1) in view of Muller et al. (WO 2021/074807 A1) and further in view of Lucas et al. (AU 2015323611 A1) and further in view of Bakken et al. (DK 2375884 T3) and further in view of Bakken et al. (DK 2375884 T3) as applied to claim 44 and as evidenced by Taylor et al. US 2011/0314723 A1.
30. Regarding claim 45, as discussed above for claim 44 from which claim 45 depends, Bakken et al. discloses the step of suspension in the water to perform processing which includes steps of seeding, cultivation and harvesting of macroalgae in the sea (at least in claim 1 of Bakken et al.). It is evidenced that the epipelagic zone is the water from the surface of the sea down to 200 meters as evidenced by Taylor et al. ([0002]). It is understood that it is the property of claimed macroalgae to be in an environment of epipelagic zone. Therefore, as disclosed macroalgae as disclosed by Machado et al. in view of Muller et al. which meet claimed macroalgae of claim 1 from which ultimately claim 45 depends, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would select epipelagic zone of the ocean for the better growth processing environment during cultivation of the macroalgae.
It is to be noted that the claim limitation of “ in a ocean”, it is to be noted that it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the steps of processing macroalgae including the step of harvesting the macroalgae in the specific region of sea where it is available, e.g. in this instance, it is northeast pacific ocean where disclosed macroalgae is native as claimed in claim 1 from which claim 45 depend on, in order to harvest the macroalgae for further use. Also, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to select specific time including the claimed time of fall or spring is known convenient time for harvesting specific macroalgae.
Conclusion
31. Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor Erik Kashnikow, can be reached on 571-270-3475. 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.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792