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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers (JP2023-081351 – filed 05/17/2023) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 05/14/2024 and 04/17/2025 have been certified and made of record.
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.
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:
“Supply device” in claim 1 – The specification teaches the supply device as including a storage tank (element 32), an outward pipe (element 33), a bidirectional flow pipe (element 44), a liquid delivery device (element 34), a base pipe (element 36), and a supply pipe (element 38) (para. [0024]).
“Liquid delivery device” in claim 1 – The specification teaches the liquid delivery device as constituted by a bidirectional pump (element 40) (para. [0025]);
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (CN105002085A) (using provided MT).
Regarding claim 1, Chang et al. teaches a culturing system (p. 4 of MT) comprising: a culturing tank (See annotated FIG. 1) configured to culture microalgae (p. 4 of MT); a supply device configured to supply a culturing solution to the culturing tank (Note: this claim element was invoked under 112(f): supply device includes storage tank (FIG. 1 – element 4), outward pipe (FIG. 1, pipe exiting the storage tank), bidirectional flow pipe (FIG. 1, pipe connected to bidirectional pump (element 14)), liquid delivery device (invoked under 112(f) – bidirectional pump (element 14)), and base pipe (Annotated FIG. 1 – base pipe connects to Storage tank (element 4) – “the end is connected to the third float valve (element 13) through the suspension storage tank 4” (p. 4)), wherein the culturing tank includes a plurality of accommodation section configured to accommodate the culturing solution (Annotated FIG. 1 – plurality of accommodation section, which accommodate the culturing solution), and the supply device includes a liquid delivery device bidirectional pump (element 14) configured to deliver the culturing solution to the plurality of accommodation sections (the pump delivers culture solution the accommodation section), and supply pipes (Annotated FIG. 1, pipes connecting from base pipe into accommodation sections and connected to float valves), where culturing solution is delivered from the liquid delivery device is delivered to the plurality of accommodation sections, respectively; and
first float valves (Annotated FIG. 1, element 9 and 10);
Chang et al. fails to teach:
First float valves configured to open and close the supply lines – specifically through the valves moving upward in the depth direction.
Regarding limitation I, although Chang et al. explicitly fails to teach that the valves are configured to open and close the supply lines – specifically through the valves moving upward in the depth direction, it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate from the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114 II).
Therefore, the float valves employed Chang et al. would be fully capable of achieving every intended use because Chang et al. teaches that valves (element 9 and 10) are float ball valves (p. 4 of MT), and the placement of the valve at the top enables the floats (ball) to seal the valve with liquid surface of the solution rising in the accommodation sections (Annotated FIG. 1). Thus, the valve would be structurally capable of being configured to open and close the supply lines – specifically through the valves moving upward in the depth direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
519
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chang et al. teaches the culturing system according to claim 1. Chang et al. further teaches a base pipe (See claim 1 rejection) connected to the liquid delivery device (pump – element 14), and the supply pipes branch from the base pipe (See annotated FIG. 1 above) and extend toward the plurality of accommodation sections, respectively (Annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Chang et al. teaches the culturing system according to claim 3. Chang et al. further teaches that the plurality of accommodation sections are arranged from an upstream position to a downstream position a flow direction of the culturing solution in the base pipe (Annotated FIG. 1), and the supply pipes respectively connecting the base pipe and the plurality of accommodation sections branch individually from the upstream position to the downstream position in the flow direction in the base pipe (Annotated FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Chang et al. teaches the culturing system according to claim 1. Chang et al. further teaches that the volumes of the plurality of accommodation sections are substantially the same as each other (See annotated FIG. 1 above from claim 1 rejection), and each of the first floats is disposed at a same position in the depth direction of each of the plurality of accommodation sections (Annotated FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (already referenced) in view of Llamas et al. (EP 2740787 B1) (referenced in 892).
Regarding claim 2, Chang et al. teaches a liquid delivery device (element 14), wherein the pump would be structurally capable of recovering the culturing solution from the plurality of accommodation sections. Chang et al. further teaches a second float valve present (element 13) and piping below accommodation units (See annotated FIG. 1 in claim 1 rejection). Chang et al. fails to teach that the accommodation units are made of a flexible material. Llamas et al. teaches a photobioreactor for culturing photoautotrophic microorganisms (para. [0001]), specifically where enclosure (element 1) is made of flexible polymeric plastic material (such as vinyl polychloride, either high density and low-density polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene, polyvinyl acetate and polyurethane) with low-density polyethylene being particularly suitable due to its low cost (para. [0020]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Llamas et al.’s teaching of a flexible material in Chang et al.’s culturing system because flexible polymer materials – such as low-density polyethylene – are low cost. This method of improving Chang et al.’s culturing system was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on teachings of Llamas et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang et al. and Llamas et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 2.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (already referenced) in view of Frederick et al. (US 20070062883 A1) (referenced in 892).
Regarding claim 5, Chang et al. teaches the culturing system according to claim 1. Chang et al., however, fails to teach processors in the culturing system, wherein the processors execute the instructions to cause the culturing system to stop the liquid delivery device when the one or more processors have determined that all of the plurality of accommodation sections accommodate the predetermined amounts of the culturing solution. Frederick et al. teaches a waste apparatus comprising a tank (element 12), float valve (element 32) in the tank, and control system (element 30) (para. [0022]). Frederick et al. specifically teaches that control system is responsive to the signal from the float when the level of waste W in the tank reaches a pre-determined level. Control system also stops the pump (element 24) when the level of waste reaches this level (para. [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Frederick et al.’s teaching of a controller, pump, and float valve in Chang et al.’s culturing system because using a control system in responsive to the signal of the float enables the pumping operation to be responsive and controlled relative to the tank level. This method of improving Chang et al.’s culturing system was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on teachings of Frederick et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang et al. and Frederick et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, modified Chang et al. teaches the system of claim 5. Furthermore, the combination of references of claim 6 would encompass a structure wherein one or more processors (Frederick et al., Control system – element 30) execute the instructions to cause the culturing system to acquire information on a supply pressure of the culturing solution in the liquid delivery device, and stop the liquid delivery device when the supply pressure increases to a pressure threshold value (para. [0022]). Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (already referenced), Frederick et al. (already referenced) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Zha et al. (US 20100012585 A1) (referenced in 892).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chang et al. teaches the system of claim 5, but fails that the processors execute the instructions to cause the culturing system to stop the liquid delivery device when an actual elapsed time period from when the supply of the culturing solution by the liquid delivery device is started coincides with the required time period. Zha et al. teaches a membrane filtration system containing a feed containing vessel (abstract). Zha et al. specifically teaches a timer control, wherein the time “ means is operable to activate said pump for a predetermined period and said source of feed liquid comprises a feed liquid supply tank and a level detection means is provided in said tank, said level detection means detecting a predetermined level of feed liquid in said tank and said timer means is responsive to detection of said predetermined level of feed liquid to activate said pump for said predetermined period.” (para. [0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Zha et al.’s teaching of a timer control in modified Chang et al.’s culturing system because the timer control enables pump to be activated for a predetermined period. This method of improving modified Chang et al.’s culturing system was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on teachings of Zha et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of modified Chang et al. and Zha et al. to obtain the invention specified in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.F.Y./ Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights