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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Treeck et al. (DE 10149356 A1 – hereafter ‘356 and reference will be made to the enclosed translation).
‘356 discloses a method for establishing a colony of macrophytic organisms on a sea shore, lake or lagoon floor (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 1:
“A method for electrochemical nutrient delivery in water”: ‘356 discloses providing nutrients to aquatic habitats by electrochemical means (page 3, first paragraph).
“deploying first and second electrodes within a water-based matrix”: ‘356 discloses deploying a first electrode (electrode 6) and a second electrode (electrode 4; Fig. 2) that are disposed in water, i.e. a water-based matrix (page 3, fifth paragraph; page 4, third paragraph).
“establishing a specified potential difference between the first and second electrodes”: ‘356 discloses establishing a potential difference between the two electrodes (page 4, third paragraph).
“the first electrode defining an anode in an electrochemical cell, and the second electrode defining a cathode in the electrochemical cell, with the water-based matrix providing an electrolyte for the cell”: ‘356 discloses that the first electrode is an anode (anode 6) and the second electrode is a cathode (cathode 4; Fig. 2; page 4, third paragraph). These electrodes are within water (page 3, fifth paragraph).
“at least one of the first and second electrodes comprise an inorganic nutrient”: ‘356 discloses that the second electrode includes an inorganic nutrient such as iron (page 3, second paragraph).
“the establishing of the potential difference comprises eliciting delivery of the inorganic nutrient via controlled electrochemical nutrient delivery (CEND) in a water-based matrix, including the inorganic nutrient.”: ‘356 discloses that a potential differences is established between the two electrodes which allows for the delivery of iron to the plants (page 2, second paragraph).
For claim 2, ‘356 discloses that the polarity of the two electrodes can be switched so that the cathode can become the anode and therefore the first electrode (page 3, second paragraph). This allows for the delivery of iron ions to the plants.
For claim 3, ‘356 discloses that the polarity of the two electrodes can be switched so that the cathode can become the anode and therefore the first electrode (page 3, second paragraph). This allows for the delivery of iron ions to the plants. The new anode would be covered with a plurality of the nutrients.
For claims 4 and 5, the nutrient is a metallic species such as iron (page 3, second paragraph).
For claim 13, ‘356 discloses controlling the delivery of the nutrient based on the material used by the anode (page 3, second paragraph).
For claim 14, the material for the electrode is being interpreted as an alloy (page 3, second paragraph).
For claim 18, ‘356 disclose reversing the polarity after a certain time (page 4, second full paragraph) which is being interpreted as establishing specified potential difference via a time-varying potential.
Therefore, ‘356 meets the limitations of claims 1-5, 13, 14 and 18.
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 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.
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.
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treeck et al. (DE 10149356 A1 – hereafter ‘356 and reference will be made to the enclosed translation) in view of Wang et al. (CN 114195266 A – hereafter ‘266 with reference made to the enclosed translation).
‘356 discloses a method for establishing a colony of macrophytic organisms on a sea shore, lake or lagoon floor (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 20:
“A system”: ‘356 discloses providing nutrients to aquatic habitats by electrochemical means (page 3, first paragraph).
“a first and second electrodes configured for use in a marine environment”: ‘356 discloses deploying a first electrode (electrode 6) and a second electrode (electrode 4; Fig. 2) that are disposed in water, i.e. a water-based matrix (page 3, fifth paragraph; page 4, third paragraph).
“the first electrode defining an anode in an electrochemical cell, and the second electrode defining a cathode in the electrochemical cell, with the water-based matrix providing an electrolyte for the cell”: ‘356 discloses that the first electrode is an anode (anode 6) and the second electrode is a cathode (cathode 4; Fig. 2; page 4, third paragraph). These electrodes are within water (page 3, fifth paragraph).
“an excitation source electrically coupled with the first and second electrodes”: ‘356 discloses that the electrodes are connected to a DC power supply (page 4, second full paragraph).
“at least one of the first and second electrodes comprise an inorganic nutrient”: ‘356 discloses that the second electrode includes an inorganic nutrient such as iron (page 3, second paragraph).
For claim 20, ‘356 differs from the instant claim regarding a control circuit.
‘266 discloses a system for the denitrification of an artificial wetland (Abstract) that for claim 20 includes a computer that is connected to the electrodes and controls the potential applied to the electrodes and monitors the electrodes in real-time (page 3, fifth paragraph). This would result in the nutrient being delivered to the plants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one for ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the computer of ‘266 within ‘356 in order to automate the control of the system. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been to provide a visual presentation of the real-time monitoring data (page 7, seventh paragraph).
For claim 21, ‘356 discloses that the anode has a linear configuration (page 4, second full paragraph).
For claim 22, ‘356 discloses that the cathode is a mesh (page 4, second full paragraph) that includes portions that would read on a square ring.
For claim 23, the anode is being interpreted as a rod (Fig. 1c; page 4, second full paragraph).
For claims 24 and 25, the anode (after reversing the polarity of the system) is covered with a metallic species such as iron (page 3, second paragraph).
For claim 26, ‘356 discloses that the electrodes are installed in a marine environment such as sea water (page 2, eight paragraph).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treeck et al. (DE 10149356 A1 – hereafter ‘356 and reference will be made to the enclosed translation) in view of Knipe et al. (US 2019/0309242 A1 – hereafter ‘242).
‘356 differs with the instant claims regarding the use of renewable energy sources.
‘242 discloses an electromethanogenic reactor (Abstract) that for claims 16 and 17 includes using renewable energy sources such as solar cells ([0038]) that are used to produces low cost electricity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the renewable energy sources of ‘242 within ‘356 in order to provide a source of power that is abundant and inexpensive during peak hours ([0079]). The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to provide a low cost power source ([0038]).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treeck et al. (DE 10149356 A1 – hereafter ‘356 and reference will be made to the enclosed translation) in view of Wang et al. (CN 114195266 A – hereafter ‘266 with reference made to the enclosed translation) and in further view of Knipe et al. (US 2019/0309242 A1 – hereafter ‘242).
Modified ‘356 differs from the limitations of claims 29 and 30 with regards to the renewable energy source.
‘242 discloses an electromethanogenic reactor (Abstract) that for claims 29 and 30 includes using renewable energy sources such as solar cells ([0038]) that are used to produces low cost electricity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing date to include the renewable energy sources of ‘242 within modified ‘356 in order to provide a source of power that is abundant and inexpensive during peak hours ([0079]). The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to provide a low cost power source ([0038]).
For claim 31, the energy source of modified ‘356 is fully capable of establishing a specified potential between the first and second electrodes using the renewable energy source without requiring the source of energy other than the renewable energy source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12, 15, 19 and 26-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claim 6, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the first electrode includes the step of changing an oxidation sate of the metallic species to elicit the electrochemical delivery.
Claim 7 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 6.
For claim 8, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the step where the method includes monitoring an indication of growth of a photoautotroph in the water-based matrix; and in response to the monitoring: controlling a delivery rate of the inorganic nutrient by modulating the specified potential difference; and controlling cumulative nutrient delivery by establishing or adjusting a period of applied potential.
Claim 9 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 8.
For claim 10, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a method where the water-based matrix comprises an open or coastal marine environment including an aquatic reservoir, or other body of water; and controlling delivery of inorganic nutrient via controlled electrochemical nutrient delivery (CEND) is based on a nutrient demand of a photoautotroph population of an ecosystem located in the aquatic reservoir or other body of water and to stimulate growth of or carbon capture via the photoautotroph population.
For claim 11, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a method that includes the step of the water-based matrix is within a flow-controlled hydroponic system or a raceway pond; and delivery of inorganic nutrient via controlled electrochemical nutrient delivery (CEND) is based on a specified target concentration of the inorganic nutrient in the water-based matrix and to stimulate growth of or carbon capture via a photoautotroph population in the water-based matrix.
Claim 12 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 11.
For claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the specified potential difference between the first and second electrode is less than five volts per cell pair.
For claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the step of controlling the time-varying potential at a specified pulse repetition frequency and a specified pulse width to define a program for eliciting delivery of the inorganic nutrient via the CEND.
For claim 27, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest where the marine environment is defined by a growth cell isolated from the growth cells.
Claim 28 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 27.
The closest prior art is Treeck et al. (DE 10149356 A1) which discloses a method for establishing a colony of macrophytic organisms on a sea shore, lake or lagoon floor), but Treeck does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claims 6-12, 15, 19 and 26-27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nicholas et al. (US 2013/0164812 A1) discloses a system for processing biomass feedstocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights