DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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 .
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 3 and 5-17 are 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.
Regarding Claim 3:
The claim states “the filter casing acts as a substrate, and is a net, mat, rope, or cord”. It is not clear how a “casing” can be a mat, rope, or cord. The term “casing” implies an internal space that can be filled (encased).
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim uses the term “especially”. This term renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required or not.
Regarding Claim 6:
The claim refers to “the filtrated water”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim uses the term “especially”. This term renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required or not.
Regarding Claim 9:
The claim refers to “the water circuit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claim 10:
The claim refers to “the flow of water” and ”the water flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations within the claims.
Regarding Claim 13:
The claim refers to “the water reservoir”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
The claim refers to “the original water source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims.
Regarding Claims 15-17:
Claims 15, 16, and 17 are use claims. The claims are directed to the use of the filter according to claim 1, however no method steps are provided within the claims.
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim refers to “the net” and “the water flow”. There is insuffient antecedent basis for these limitation within the claims.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsheikh (WO 2011/089077) in view of Koehler et al (DE 102006041405, Cited in IDS, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1:
Elsheikh teaches the filter for filtering water, which contains nutrients, characterized in that the filter comprises (a) a filter casing (growth chamber), and(b) biomass comprising living brown algae individual(s) connected to said filter casing or closed inside said filter casing, wherein the filter casing allows water to flow through the filter while keeping the living brown algae individual(s) in the filter casing, or the filter casing acts as a substrate on which the brown algae individual(s) is/are growing and the water flow allows the water to be filtrated to be contacted with the living brown algae individual(s) growing on the filter casing (accommodate attachment for algae) (see pg. 1 lines 20-29, pg. 2 lines 15-20)).
Elsheikh does not teach the living brown algae individual(s) are macroalgae selected from the genus Fucus. Elsheikh further teaches that the type of algae can be selected based on the type of water being cleaned (see pg. 2 lines 25-27).
Koehler teaches algae for a filter, wherein the algae is macroalgae selected from the genus Fucus (bladderwrack) (see pg. 6 5th paragraph).
Elsheikh and Koehler are analogous inventions in the use of algae for treating nutrients in water. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select an algae from the genus Fucus, as disclosed by Koehler, for the algae in the filter of Elsheikh because it is the simple substitution of one known algae able to treat water with another known algae able to treat water, obviously resulting in the removal of nutrients from the water, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Elsheikh, as modified, teaches the filter according to claim 1, characterized in that the filter casing is a box or tube (filter 1) through which water to be filtrated can flow, and which contains biomass comprising living brown algae individual(s) inside said filter casing (see Elsheikh pg. 7 lines 21-27).
Regarding Claim 3:
Elsheikh, as modified, filter according to claim 1, characterized in that the filter casing acts as a substrate, and it is a net, mat (Velcro tape), rope, or cord on which the brown algae individual(s) are growing (see Elsheikh pg. 7 lines 21-27).
Regarding Claim 4:
Elsheikh, as modified, teaches the filter according to claim 1, characterized in that the filter further comprises a lamp (see Elsheikh pg. 3 lines 30-33), which can provide light in the wavelengths that drive photosynthesis for the living brown algae individual(s) in the filter.
Regarding Claim 5:
Elsheikh, as modified, teaches the filter according to claim 4, characterized in that the lamp provides light in the wavelengths within the visible range, especially wavelengths within 400 to 700 nanometers (nm). The wavelength is a process limitation dependent on the operation of the lamp. Process limitations only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same function. As Elsheikh teaches that the wavelength can be selected dependent on the type of algae the wavelength can be in the visible range (see Elsheikh pg. 4 lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 15:
Elsheikh, as modified, teaches the use of the filter according to claim 1 in connection with a marine aquarium (aquaria), fish farm, or other fish pool, wherein the water circuit can be closed or open (see pg. 1, lines 3-6).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (USPN 6,723,243) in view of Koehler et al (DE 102006041405, Cited in IDS, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 6:
Jensen teaches the process for filtering water, which contains nutrients, characterized in that the process comprises the following steps, (a) providing a filter casing containing biomass comprising living brown algae individual(s) (periphyton bed with algal colony 24) (see col. 4 lines 6-9 and 50) (b) guiding the water, which contains nutrients, from a water source to the filter so that the water to be filtrated is contacted with the living brown algae individual(s) contained in the filter casing(water is carried via transfer pipe 21) (see col. 4 lines 6-10), (c) guiding the filtrated water, away from the filter (treated water is then collected into a transfer pipe system 26) (see col. 4 lines 10-11), and wherein (d) oxidizer (ozone) is added to the water to be filtrated before guiding the water to the filter (contacted with ozone in chamber 20) (see col. 4 lines 1-5).
Jensen does not teach the living brown algae individual(s) are macroalgae selected from the genus Fucus.
Koehler teaches algae for a filter, wherein the algae is macroalgae selected from the genus Fucus (bladderwrack) (see pg. 6 5th paragraph).
Jensen and Koehler are analogous inventions in the use of algae for treating nutrients in water. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select an algae from the genus Fucus, as disclosed by Koehler, for the algae in the filter of Jensen because it is the simple substitution of one known algae able to treat water with another known algae able to treat water, obviously resulting in the removal of nutrients from the water, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious
when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 7:
Jensen, as modified, teaches the process according to claim 6, characterized in that the process further comprises providing light (sunlight) for the living brown algae individual(s) in the filter, wherein the light is in the wavelengths that drive photosynthesis (see col. 4 lines 43-45).
Regarding Claim 9:
Jensen, as modified, teaches the process according to claim 6.
Jensen does not explicitly teach that the water to be filtrated is water from a marine aquarium, fish farm, or other fish pool, wherein the water circuit can be closed or open. Jensen further teaches that it is known to use filters of this kind in aquaria (see Jensen col. 1 line 59-61).
Koehler teaches water to be filtered is water from a marine aquarium, fish farm, or other fish pool, wherein the water circuit can be closed or open (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Jensen, as modified, to treat water form a fish pool, as disclosed by Koehler because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate sources of water to treat with the known method. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 10:
Jensen teaches process according to claim 6, characterized in that the flow of water which is guided to the filter is restricted to allow regulation of the water flow to the filter (water is provided by pumps 15-17, therefore the flow is restricted and regulation is allowed) (see Jensen col. 4 lines 1-2).
Regarding Claim 13:
Jensen teaches the process according to claim 6, characterized in that the filtrated water is guided back to the water reservoir, which contained the original water source containing nutrients (returned to waterway 27) (see Jenson col. 4 lines 10-13).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (USPN 6,723,243) in view of Koehler et al (DE 102006041405, Cited in IDS, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Elsheikh (WO 2011/089077).
Regarding Claim 8:
Jensen, as modified, teaches the process according to claim 7.
Jensen does not teach that the light is provided with a lamp capable of providing light in the wavelengths within the visible range, especially wavelengths within 400 to 700 nanometers (nm). Jensen further teaches that light is provided within the visible range (sunlight).
Elsheikh teaches an algae filter comprising a lamp for providing light (see pg. 3 lines 30-33).
Jensen, as modified, and Elsheikh are analogous inventions in the art of algae filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to add the lamp of Elsheikh to the filter casing of Jensen because light aids in the growth of algae (see Elsheikh pg. 4, lines 1-5) and because it is the simple addition of a known feature to a known method, obviously resulting in light within the visible range, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (USPN 6,723,243) in view of Koehler et al (DE 102006041405, Cited in IDS, English machine translation provided) as applied to claims 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Schuster (DE 102005037947, Cited in IDS, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 11:
Jensen, as modified, teaches the process according to claim 10.
Jensen does not teach that the water flow to the filter is adjusted based on the concentration of nutrients in the water.
Schuster teaches adjusting the flow of water to an algae filter based on the concentration of nutrients (when algae performance is low less water is transferred, performance is based on the concentration of nutrients therefore flow is based on the concentration of nutrients) (see pg. 2, 9th paragraph).
Jensen, as modified, and Schuster are analogous inventions in the art of treating water with algae filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the flow of Jensen based on the concentration of nutrients, as disclosed by Schuster, because algae performance can change dependent on light intensity (see Schuster pg. 2, 9th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 14:
Jensen, as modified, teaches the process according to claim 6, characterized in that the filter casing is a closed vessel comprising water inlets (inlet end 23) and outlets (outlet end 25) (see Jensen fig. 1, col. 4 lines 6-10).
Jensen does not teach exposure time during which the water containing nutrients is contacted with the living brown algae individual(s), is adjusted based on the amount of nutrients and the mass of living brown algae individual(s) in the filter.
Schuster teaches a method of treating water with an algae filter, wherein exposure time (flow of water) during which the water containing nutrients is contacted with the living brown algae individual(s), is adjusted based on the amount of nutrients and the mass of living brown algae individual(s) in the filter (based on the performance of the macroalgae which is dependent on the nutrients and the amount of algae) (see pg. 2, 9th paragraph). The claims do not limit the way in which exposure time is adjusted or how is it “based on” the amount if nutrients or mass of living algae.
Jensen, as modified, and Schuster are analogous inventions in the art of treating water with algae filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the exposure time of Jensen based on the concentration of nutrients and mass of algae, as disclosed by Schuster, because algae performance can change dependent on light intensity (see Schuster pg. 2, 9th paragraph).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (USPN 6,723,243) in view of Koehler et al (DE 102006041405, Cited in IDS, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pagand et al, the article “The use of high rate algal ponds for the treatment of marine effluents from a recirculating fish rearing system” (cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 12:
Jensen teaches the process according to claim 6.
Jensen does not teach that the flow of water containing nutrients is guided to a dilution pool before it is guided to the filter and contacted with the living brown algae individual(s), and wherein pure water is added to dilution pool for adjusting the concentration of the nutrients.
Pagand teaches a method of treating water with an algae filter, wherein the flow of water containing nutrients is guided to a dilution pool (pumping tank 5) before it is guided to the filter and contacted with the living brown algae individual(s), and wherein pure water (replacement water) is added to dilution pool for adjusting the concentration of the nutrients (see pg. 3, fig. 1).
Jensen and Pagand are analogous inventions in the art of treating water with algae. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the biofilter of Pagand with the system of Jensen, such that the water flow is guided into a dilution pool and pure water is added because the method of Jensen is applicable to aquaria and aquatic ecosystems (see Jensen col. 1 lines 60- col. 2 line 5) and because Pagand teaches that algae based treatment can be effective enough to return water to marine aquaculture (see Pagand pg. 10: Conclusion). Further it would have been obvious to replace the treatment of Pagand with the treatment of Jensen because it is the simple substitution of one known water treatment method with another known water treatment method, obviously resulting in water with reduced nutrient concentrations, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsheikh (WO 2011/089077) in view of Koehler et al (DE 102006041405, Cited in IDS, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Schuster (DE 102005037947, Cited in IDS, English machine translation provided) and Vagle (NO 20171778).
Regarding Claim 16:
Elsheikh, as modified, teaches the use according to claim 15.
Elsheikh does not teach wherein the use of the filter is in connection with an open water fish farm, wherein the filter is located on the fringe of the fish pool either inside or outside the net of the fish pool, and wherein the water flow through the filter is at least partly achieved by natural surface current.
Schuster teaches an algae water filter, wherein the water flow through the filter is at least partly achieved by natural surface current (filter is floating in a natural body of water, overflow is used for the outlet of the water) (see pg. 2, last paragraph, pg. 3, 4th paragraph).
Elsheikh, as modified, and Schuster are analogous inventions in the art of the use of algae filters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to use the filter of Elsheikh in open water wherein the water flow through the filter is at least partly achieved by natural surface current, as disclosed by Schuster, because Elsheikh teaches that the system can be used to treat water from different sources (see Elsheikh pg. 1 lines 1-6) and through routine experimentation on skilled in the art would have found appropriate locations for a known treatment device. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Vagle teaches an open water fish farm with a fish pool (semi-submersible fish farm) (see Abstract).
Elsheikh, as modified, and Vagle are analogous inventions in the art of aquaria. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the filter of Elsheikh, as modified, with the fish pool of Vagle, such that the filter is located outside the net because the filter of Elsheikh can be used to treat water from fish rearing sources (aquaria) and it is the simple combination of a known treatment device with a known source of wastewater, obviously resulting in the water being treated with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Further Vagle teaches that waste from the fish pool requires treatment (see Vagle pg. 8 lines 12-16).
Regarding Claim 17:
Elsheikh, as modified, teaches the use according to claim 16, wherein the use of the filter is in connection with an open water fish farm.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein two or more filters are located outside the fish pool as separate filter units surrounding the fish pool. However it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add an additional filter surrounding the fish pool because it is a mere duplication of parts without changing the respective function, obviously resulting in additional treatment of the waste with an expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights