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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. NO20210868, filed on July 5, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In line 6 of the abstract “said” is recited. This legal phraseology should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
In page 3 line 5 of the specification a hyperlink is present.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11 are object to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 of claims 2-11 recite “Production equipment according to claim …”. This leads to improper antecedent basis back to the independent claim. It is suggested to instead recite “The production equipment according to claim …”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 recites “different types of filter”, this typo, in order to aid in clarity and understanding of the reader, is recommended to be corrected. The current recitation is confusing as “filter” should be plural however it appears as if it was intended to have a recitation with the meaning of each disk has a single filter and there are different types of said filter.
Lines 12-13 recite “so that you get less CO2 - bubbles that mix more easily in the liquid.” This phraseology is confusing and unnecessary in conveying and claiming any structure relevant to the device at hand. It is suggested by the examiner to omit it completely and instead include the explanation or point intended within the specification.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “discs” where previously in claim 5 line 2 and claim 6 line 1 “disks” is recited. It is recommended that for ease of understanding and consistency that the same spelling of the component be used in claim 7 as is used in the previous two claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, both claim 12 and claim 16 recite “Production facility” while claims 13, 14 and 15, all on their respective line 1, recite “Production plant”. It is recommended for the ease of understanding and consistency to recite the component or device with the same consistent nomenclature throughout the claim set.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
on line 8 of claim 13 it is recited, "or alternatively 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.
The following 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:
“cooling and or heating means” in claim 6 line 10. While functional language is not explicitly used to modify the “means” the understanding is that the “means” is for heating and/or cooling which are the functions. For examination purposes “means” will be interpreted as “discs with cooling and or heating properties” (page 16 line 26) and with a lack of any further context or detailing of the “means the examiner will interpret this as meaning a disk that has heat conducting and/or heat insulating properties.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“bioreactor has at least one space for the proliferation [[(21)]] of…” in claim 1 line 5.
For examination purposes “space” will be interpreted as the pipes, tubes, and/or proliferation volume (component 21) of a reactor as recited in the specification (page 15 lines 4, 6, 9, and 28; page 17 line 29).
“a device [[(23)]] for cultivating, transporting and harvesting” in claim 1 line 7
For examination purposes “device” will be interpreted as a chain conveyor (the assembly of components 22, 26, 27, and 28) inside the proliferation space (claim 2; page 15 lines 6, 8, 11, and 21; page 18 line 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 5 recites the limitation "the chain conveyer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 states its dependence on claim 1, however claim 1 never establishes the inclusion of a chain conveyer in the production equipment and as a result of this there is no antecedent basis for “the chain conveyer”. Claims 6-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim (claim 5).
It was noticed that in the original, not amended claims, claim 5 was dependent on claims 2-4. If claim 5 were to be dependent on the earliest of these claims, claim 2, there would be no need for a lack of antecedence rejection.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "at least one fermentation reactor and or at least one bioreactor" in lines 3-4. Claim 12 claims dependence on claim 1, “production equipment for the production of biological material according to claim 1”, this implies that all components of the production system would have been already established in claim 1. However, this is not the case since claim 1 has absolutely no mention of a fermentation reactor or mention of there being more than one reactor in the system. Even though a fermenter could be considered a type of bioreactor, as stated in claim 11 line 2, the terminology should not be used interchangeably. Claims 13-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim (claim 12).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "production facility comprising production equipment for the production of biological material according to claim l" in lines 1-2. This claim is unclear in what “production equipment” is being discussed. The claim when claiming dependence on claim 1 and bring in the production equipment from claim 1 is required to recite “production facility comprising the production equipment.” This recommended change to the recitation now will positively recite only the production equipment from claim 1 and not production equipment as a generality. Claims 13-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim (claim 12).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the waste gases from the fermentation process are stripped and supplied as food in the bioreactor" in lines 4-5. It is unclear as to why both the fermentation process and the bioreactor are being considered required together when the opposite had been previously stated. Claim 13 claims dependence on claim 12 and claim 12 recites, “at least one fermentation reactor and or at least one bioreactor”, which presents the fermentation reactor and the bioreactor in the alternative of one another, however in claim 13 it appears as if both a fermenter and a bioreactor are required. The limitation of requiring a fermenter and a bioreactor was not understood from claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "photo bioreactor type" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The use of “type” in the recitation mentioned previously is also rejected due to it causing indefiniteness within the claim, see MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
Claims 13 and 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 16 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim (claim 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kampanatsanyakorn (WO2012104667A1) (Cited in the IDS submitted on April 8, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches:
Production equipment for the production of biological material (Kampanatsanyakorn; Abstract; pg. 2 lines 7-12; Fig. 1), comprising:
a bioreactor (Kampanatsanyakorn; Abstract; pg. 2 lines 7-12; Fig. 1) for the cultivation and production of unicellular microorganisms and communities of microorganisms as well as multicellular aquatic plant and animal organisms,
characterized in that the bioreactor has at least one space (Kampanatsanyakorn; Abstract; pg. 2 lines 7-12; Fig. 1, settler (T-3), transparent pipes (TP)) for the proliferation of unicellular microorganisms, communities of microorganisms, multicellular aquatic plants and animals, which space is in communication with a device (Kampanatsanyakorn; pg. 3 line 23 - pg. 4 line 19; Fig. 1, settler (T-3), transparent pipes (TP), base trough (BT), bleed valve (DV); The proliferation space is being drawn to the transparent pipes (TP) in communication with the settler (T-3) and the device for harvesting is drawn to the base trough (BT) at the bottom of the settler which is equipped with a bleed valve (DV) for collection) for cultivating, transporting and harvesting said microorganisms or aquatic organisms.
Regarding claim 4, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Kampanatsanyakorn teaches:
Production equipment according to claim 1,where the bioreactor comprises: branch pipes (Kampanatsanyakorn; pg. 4 lines 13-19, there can be multiples of discharge valves (DV) that feed into a length of alternative transparent pipe (TP) loops) for moving the contents of the bioreactor to outside the proliferation space, which branch pipes can run inside or outside the bioreactor (Kampanatsanyakorn; pg. 4 lines 13-19, there can be multiples of discharge valves (DV) that feed into a length of alternative transparent pipe (TP) loops; The only two option in general are the pipes running inside or outside, so Kampanatsanyakorn by the nature of having branch pipes reads on this limitation.)
Regarding claim 10, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Kampanatsanyakorn teaches:
Production equipment according to claim 1, where the bioreactor is a photo bioreactor (Kampanatsanyakorn; Abstract; pg. 2 lines 7-12; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Kampanatsanyakorn teaches:
Production facility comprising: production equipment for the production of biological material according to claim 1 (Kampanatsanyakorn; Abstract; pg. 2 lines 7-12; Fig. 1), comprehensively at least one fermentation reactor and or at least one bioreactor (Kampanatsanyakorn; Abstract; pg. 2 lines 7-12; Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 13-16, claims 13-16 are drawn to a limitation offered in the alternative (“fermentation reactor and or at least one bioreactor”) in claim 12, such that it is not required by the claim in the presence of the alternative. The choice of the bioreactor as the limitation to be rejected results in the fermentation reactor not being necessary to be covered by the prior art in order for a rejection to be made and thus not required for claims dependent on claim 12. This is the case for all claims 13-16 as they are all directly or indirectly dependent on the alternative limitations presented in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the following limitations relating to the fermentation reactor as recited in claim 13 are not required and is therefore taught by Kampanatsanyakorn:
where the fermentation reactor is supplied with methane, ammonia, minerals and water which form a nutrient medium for the cultivation of bacteria, and where the fermentation process produces carbon dioxide, and the waste gases from the fermentation process are stripped and supplied as food in the bioreactor.
Kampanatsanyakorn teaches a photo bioreactor (Kampanatsanyakorn; Abstract; pg. 2 lines 7-18; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 12. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (MPEP 2114(II)), therefore there is no need to prove that the production plant is able to be used on land. Since, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 12 it teaches: Production plant according to claim 12, where the plant is on land.
Regarding claim 15, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 12. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (MPEP 2114(II)), therefore there is no need to prove that the production plant is able to be used on a floating vessel as the vessel is not structurally claimed or recited.
The limitations regarding the fermentation reactor do not need to be considered as explained previously.
Kampanatsanyakorn teaches: where the bioreactor is mainly located down in the hull. Similar to above, a bioreactor has the ability to be placed somewhere and the use of hull referencing the vessel is only claiming the placement and location or the reactor and in no way effects what is being claimed as the hull is not claimed structurally (MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 16, the vessel and hull are not positively claimed and therefore any limitation on the hull has minimal patentable weight (MPEP § 2115). As a result, claim 16 is rejected in the same manner as claim 15.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (GB2548350A) (Cited in the IDS submitted on April 8, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Palmer teaches:
Production equipment for the production of biological material (Palmer; Abstract; Fig. 1; pg. 1 line 24 - pg. 2 line 7), comprising:
a bioreactor (Palmer; Abstract; Fig. 1; pg. 1 line 24 - pg. 2 line 7) for the cultivation and production of unicellular microorganisms and communities of microorganisms as well as multicellular aquatic plant and animal organisms,
characterized in that the bioreactor has at least one space (Palmer; pg. 12 lines 14-21, interior region (7)) for the proliferation of unicellular microorganisms, communities of microorganisms, multicellular aquatic plants and animals, which space is in communication with a device (Palmer; pg. 12 line 28-33, extraction pipe (17)) for cultivating, transporting and harvesting said microorganisms or aquatic organisms.
Regarding claim 9, Palmer teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Palmer teaches: Production equipment according to claim 1, where the bioreactor is equipped with at least one buoyancy body (Palmer; pg. 2 line 21 - pg. 3 line 2, Figs. 1 & 2, buoyant bladder (33)).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holker (US20070048852A1) (Cited in the IDS submitted on April 8, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Holker teaches:
Production equipment for the production of biological material (Holker; Para. [0025], description of the basic use and construction of the fermentation bioreactor), comprising:
a bioreactor (Holker; Para. [0040], uses a mixed culture of fungi for the fermentation reaction within the bioreactor) for the cultivation and production of unicellular microorganisms and communities of microorganisms as well as multicellular aquatic plant and animal organisms,
characterized in that the bioreactor has at least one space (Holker; Paras. [0102-0103], Fig. 1, fermentation module (10), induction module (12), harvesting module (14), feeding means (16); The fermentation bioreactor is made up of the three modules (12, 14, 16) or the three spaces for the proliferation of the microorganisms) for the proliferation of unicellular microorganisms, communities of microorganisms, multicellular aquatic plants and animals, which space is in communication with a device (Holker; Paras. [0102-0103], [0108], Fig. 1, fermentation module (10), induction module (12), harvesting module (14), conveying screw (24), opening (54); The fermentation bioreactor contains a conveying screw/means within the module space that mixes and moves the reaction mixture along the proliferation volume eventually depositing the fermentation mixture through the opening for collection/harvesting; Para. [0111], Fig. 5, chain conveyer (62) replaces the conveying screw (24) of Fig. 1) for cultivating, transporting and harvesting said microorganisms or aquatic organisms.
Regarding claim 11, Holker teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Holker teaches:
Production equipment according to claim 1, where the bioreactor is a fermenter (Holker; Paras. [0025], [0040], description of the basic use and construction of the fermentation bioreactor; Paras. [0102-0103], [0108], Fig. 1, the detailed description and a figure showing the construction of the fermentation bioreactor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampanatsanyakorn in view of Holker.
Regarding claim 2, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1. Kampanatsanyakorn teaches:
Production equipment according to claim 1, where the device (pg. 3 line 23 - pg. 4 line 19; Fig. 1, settler (T-3), base trough (BT), bleed valve (DV)) for cultivating, transporting and harvesting comprises: a proliferation space that can be a pipe loop (Kampanatsanyakorn; pg. 4 line 1-12, transparent pipes (TP), the pipes are referred to as "salient loops").
Kampanatsanyakorn does not teach a chain conveyer within the proliferation space.
Holker teaches a chain conveyer (Holker; Fig. 1, Para. [0025] lines 19-22; Paras. [0102-0103]). Holker includes the use of a separate embodiment of a chain conveyer (Holker; Fig. 5, Para. [0111]) within the proliferation space (Holker; Fig. 1, Para. [0025], the fermentation volume).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical pipe proliferation space as taught by Kampanatsanyakorn by including a chain conveyer within the proliferation space as taught by Holker. Both Kampanatsanyakorn and Holker are directed to bioreaction systems involving microorganisms. Holker teaches that the benefit of including a conveyer chain within a bioreactor proliferation space or reaction volume allows for the creation of a homogenous mixture while including a time-based component that moves the solid reaction species along the intended path (Holker; Paras. [0012-0013]). This involves applying a known technique (chain conveyer within a tubular proliferation space of a fermenter) to a similar device (a tubular bioreactor) to yield predictable results (a bioreactor that contains a chain conveyer within its tubular sections to aid in the intended reaction).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kampanatsanyakorn (Kampanatsanyakorn in view of Holker) teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 2. Modified Kampanatsanyakorn (Kampanatsanyakorn in view of Holker) teaches: Production equipment according to claim 2, where the proliferation space in the form of a tube loop (Kampanatsanyakorn; pg. 4 line 1-12, transparent pipes (TP), the pipes are referred to as "salient loops") can be open or closed to a larger surrounding volume, e.g. a tank (Kampanatsanyakorn; pg. 3 line 23 - pg. 4 line 19; Fig. 1, settler (T-3), base trough (BT), bleed valve (DV); At the end of the bleed valve it is reasonable for there to be a tank collecting the desired algae components.).
Claim 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampanatsanyakorn in view of Jagan (US20190256293A1).
In regards to claims 2 and 5, as mentioned above that claim 5 has also been rejected due to a 112(b) lack of antecedent basis of the recitation of the “chain conveyer”. This would be solved by making claim 5 dependent on claim 2, as was previously the case prior to the amendments made, where the chain conveyer is introduced into the claim set. Claim 5 is being examined as if it is dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kampanatsanyakorn teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 1.
Kampanatsanyakorn does not teach: where the chain conveyer comprises transport plates in the form of disks.
Jagan teaches transport plates in the form of disks (Jagan; Abstract, disc members (116, 116', 116"), Fig. 1) to be used in a drag chain conveyer (Jagan; Abstract). Jagan further teaches the replaceability of the disks for ease of replacement and cleaning (Jagan; Para. [0007]; Abstract, disc members (116, 116', 116"), Fig. 1, Paras. [0041], [0075], notch (240), link (214); There is a notch that allows for manual chain link release which would also allow for replacement of the discs)
Holker teaches that the benefit of including a conveyer chain within a bioreactor proliferation space or reaction volume allows for the creation of a homogenous mixture while including a time-based component that moves the solid reaction species along the intended path (Holker; Paras. [0012-0013]), as previously mentioned in regard to claim 2. This teaches a reason to add a chain conveyor into the cylindrical pipe proliferation space of Kampanatsanyakorn.
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical pipe proliferation space as taught by Kampanatsanyakorn by including a chain conveyer with a disc assembly chain within the proliferation space as taught by as taught by Jagan. Both Kampanatsanyakorn and Jagan are directed to the bulk transport of material along a pipe or cylindrical space. Jagan teaches that the ease of cleaning and replacing the disks of the linked disk assembly allows for cleanliness (Jagan; Para. [0007]) and Holker teaches that the benefit of including a conveyer chain within a bioreactor proliferation space or reaction volume allows for the creation of a homogenous mixture while including a time-based component that moves the solid reaction species along the intended path (Holker; Paras. [0012-0013]). This involves applying a known technique (disk transport plates within a chain conveyer for transport of materials through a pipe) to a similar device (a pipe proliferation space which transports material via liquid flow) to yield predictable results (a chain conveyer containing disk transport plates to move material through a pipe).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kampanatsanyakorn (Kampanatsanyakorn in view of Jagan) teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 5.
Modified Kampanatsanyakorn (Kampanatsanyakorn in view of Jagan) teaches:
Production equipment according to claim 5, where the disks (Jagan; Abstract, disc members (116, 116', 116"), Fig. 1) are equipped with; segregated volumes (Jagan; Abstract; disc members (116, 116', 116"), Fig. 1; There are inherently segregated volumes between the disc members in a tube/pipe chain conveyer created by the space between each consecutive transport plate), pockets/nets to capture gases, algae
Regarding claim 7, modified Kampanatsanyakorn (Kampanatsanyakorn in view of Jagan) teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated with respect to claim 5.
Modified Kampanatsanyakorn (Kampanatsanyakorn in view of Jagan) teaches:
Production equipment according to claim 5, where the discs are replaceable (Jagan; Abstract, disc members (116, 116', 116"), Fig. 1, Paras. [0041], [0075], notch (240), link (214); There is a notch that allows for manual chain link release which would also allow for replacement of the discs.), so that you can switch between different functions.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 6 as shown above. Further, claim 8 is drawn to further limiting limitations of Claim 6 that are presented in the alternative, such that they are not required by the claim in the presence of other alternatives. Since the other alternative recited in claim 6 has been rejected as discussed previously, claim 8 is rejected in the same way as Claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONAVAN L BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)272-9636. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/D.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights