DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 36-38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O’Regan (WO 2010062724 A2) in view of Gyure (AU 2004229070 A1).
For claim 36, O’Regan teaches a soil enrichment system comprising:
an inlet (not mentioned directly but implied in the specification, for fluid has to come in from an inlet),
a fluid conduit (not mentioned directly but implied in the specification, for fluid has to be carry by conduits; also, some pipes are mentioned in the specification),
a first solids filter (para. 0071,0072,0076,0078,0079),
a water storage tank (para. 0018,0019,0044, 0045,0047,0072,0085-0093),
a sterilization system (524; para. 0087,0095,00100, 00126),
an ozone generator (para. 0066,0067,0081,0083,0091,00126),
a gas diffuser (para. 0018,0019),
a neutralization system (para. 0072,0079,00100, the UV light source),
a bioreactor system (para. 0055,00126), and
a control system (fig. 8a, para. 0042,0045, etc.);
wherein the inlet is coupled to the fluid conduit (all parts are coupled to each other directly or indirectly);
wherein the first solids filter is coupled to the fluid conduit (para. 0071,0072,0076,0078,0079; also, all parts are coupled to each other directly or indirectly);
wherein the water storage tank is coupled to the fluid conduit downstream of the first solids filter and the inlet (fig. 4b, tank 410, tank 426 are downstream from filter 402; fig. 5a, tanks 514,516 are downstream from filter 510);
wherein the sterilization system is coupled to the water storage tank (para. 0087,0095,00100, 00126, all parts are coupled to each other directly or indirectly; also, figs. 4a,4b sterilization 430 is coupled to tank 426; figs. 5a,5b, sterilization 524 is coupled directly to output tank 526);
wherein the sterilization system comprises the ozone generator (para. 0066, 0067,0081,0083,0091,00126);
wherein the sterilization system is configured to deliver ozone gas from the ozone generator to irrigation water in the water storage tank to form sterilized irrigation water (para. 0087,0095,00100, 00126, such is the function of a sterilization system; also, functional recitation to which the sterilization system of O’Regan can and does perform the intended function);
wherein the water storage tank comprises the gas diffuser (para. 0044,0045, 0049-0051,0072,0074,0083,0091; also, para. 0019, the primary chamber of the water treatment system can be considered as a water storage tank and the filter and the diffuser are placed therein as stated);
wherein the gas diffuser is configured to distribute the ozone gas to the irrigation water (para. 0044,0045, 0049-0051,0072,0074,0083,0091);
wherein the neutralization system is positioned downstream from the water storage tank (para. 0072,0079,00100; see also figs. 4a-5b; note that at least para. 00100 states that the UV light can be at where the water exit the system, which would be downstream from any of the tanks);
wherein the neutralization system is configured to remove ozone from the sterilized irrigation water to form neutralized irrigation water (such is the function of a neutralization system, especially within the scope of the functional recitation as claimed; also, para. 0072,0079,00100; and para. 00110,00114 state the process is used for irrigation for plants or the like);
wherein the neutralization system is configured to prevent chemicals used to produce the sterilized irrigation water from killing and/or impeding growth of microbes grown in the bioreactor system (such is the function of a neutralization system, especially within the scope of the functional recitation as claimed; also, para. 0072,0079,00100);
wherein the neutralization system comprises an ultraviolet (UV) light system (para. 0072,0079,00100);
wherein the UV light system is configured to expose the sterilized irrigation water to UV radiation to degrade the ozone (para. 0072,0079,00100, such is the function of a UV light system, especially within the scope of the functional recitation as claimed);
wherein the UV light system is configured as a flow-through system in which the sterilized irrigation water is deozonated as it passes through the UV light system (para. 0072,0079,00100, such is the function of a UV light system, especially within the scope of the functional recitation as claimed);
wherein the bioreactor system is coupled to the neutralization system (para. 0055,00126, all parts are coupled to each other directly or indirectly).
However, O’Regan is silent about wherein the control system is configured to apply a concentration of the ozone gas to irrigation water in a range of approximately 0.2 parts per million (ppm) to approximately 0.5 ppm; wherein the bioreactor system comprises a microalgae growth chamber configured to receive a microalgae inoculant; wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of microalgae culture out of the bioreactor system upon receiving a signal corresponding to a microalgae cell titer sufficiently high for harvest of the microalgae culture; and wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of the neutralized irrigation water to fill the bioreactor system for a subsequent inoculation after the harvest of the microalgae culture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control system of O’Regan be configured to apply a concentration of the ozone gas to irrigation water in a range of approximately 0.2 parts per million (ppm) to approximately 0.5 ppm, depending on how potent the user wishes to disinfect the system with ozone gas, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Gyure teaches a bioreactor comprising a microalgae growth chamber configured to receive a microalgae inoculant (460,940; also, discussed in various pages of the specification); a control system (page 9, line 33) is configured to activate a flow of microalgae culture out of the bioreactor system upon receiving a signal corresponding to a microalgae cell titer sufficiently high for harvest of the microalgae culture (page 73, line 11, page 77, line 16, page 79, line 14; also, functional recitation to which the computer of Gyure can and does perform the intended function); and wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of the neutralized irrigation water to fill the bioreactor system for a subsequent inoculation after the harvest of the microalgae culture (page 9, 32-33, page 15, line 24; page 22, line 25, page 38, lines 25-26, page 39, line 7, etc.; also, functional recitation to which the computer of Gyure can and does perform the intended function). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bioreactor system of O’Regan be comprised of a microalgae growth chamber configured to receive a microalgae inoculant; wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of microalgae culture out of the bioreactor system upon receiving a signal corresponding to a microalgae cell titer sufficiently high for harvest of the microalgae culture; and wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of the neutralized irrigation water to fill the bioreactor system for a subsequent inoculation after the harvest of the microalgae culture as taught by Gyure, for a bioreactor is notoriously well-known to include microalgae and harvesting them for nutrient or consumption and be controlled by the computer for automation.
For claim 37, O’Regan as modified by Gyure teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 36, wherein the harvest of the microalgae culture includes live microalgae (as relied on with Gyure).
For claim 38, O’Regan as modified by Gyure teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 37, wherein the sterilization system further comprises a chlorine generator (para. 0081 of O’Regan).
Claims 39-41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O’Regan as modified by Gyure as applied to claims 36-38 above, and further in view of Kedir et al. (US 10160675 B1).
For claim 39, O’Regan as modified by Gyure teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 38, but is silent about wherein the chlorine generator comprises a chlorine generator cell that produces hypochlorous acid from salt.
Kedir et al. teach a chlorine generator comprises a chlorine generator cell that produces hypochlorous acid from salt (col. 6, lines 20-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chlorine generator of O’Regan as modified by Gyure be comprised a chlorine generator cell that produces hypochlorous acid from salt as taught by Kedir et al. in order to provide a more potent sterilization.
For claim 40, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Kedir et al. teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 39, but is silent about further including a dosing pump; wherein the control system is configured to inject a dose of the hypochlorous acid into the water storage tank. In addition to the above, Kedir et al. further teach a dosing pump (col. 10, line 50-54, col. 13, line 10); and a control system (col. 11, lines 34-44) is configured to inject a dose of the hypochlorous acid into a water storage tank (col. 11, line 30-33, col. 12, line 4, the vessel). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a dosing pump as further taught by Kedir et al. and have the control system of O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Kedir et al. be configured to inject a dose of the hypochlorous acid into the water storage tank, in order to pump the hypochlorous acid into the water storage tank for sterilizing and to have the controller to control such action for an automated system.
For claim 41, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Kedir et al. teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 40, wherein the UV light system is configured to expose the sterilized irrigation water to the UV radiation to remove chlorine (functional recitation to which the UV light system of O’Regan can and does perform the intended function, especially in combination with Kedir’s teaching).
Claim 42 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Kedir et al. as applied to claims 36-41 above, and further in view of Roth (US 5833857 A).
For claim 42, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Kedir et al. teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 41, but is silent about wherein the water storage tank comprises a cone-shaped bottom.
Roth teaches a water storage tank (12) comprises a cone-shaped bottom (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water storage tank of O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Kedir et al. be comprised a cone-shaped bottom as taught by Roth in order to provide better fluid flow of the fluid therein due to the cone-shaped bottom guiding the fluid to flow out better by gravity.
Claim 43 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O’Regan as modified by Gyure, Kedir et al., and Roth as applied to claims 36-42 above, and further in view of Kitamichi et al. (JP 2003112986 A).
For claim 43, O’Regan as modified by Gyure, Kedir et al., and Roth teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 42, but is silent about wherein the water storage tank comprises a light blocking material configured to reduce exposure of the irrigation water to light to impeded growth of unwanted microbes.
Kitamichi et al. teach a tank comprising a light blocking material configured to reduce exposure to light for the fluid therein (translation states: “The liquid fertilizer produced may be stored in a closed water tank that blocks light. The liquid fertilizer will not change for many years if it is stored away from direct sunlight and in the shade or in a dark place. Exposure to direct sunlight for a long time in a transparent container may cause discoloration or discoloration. Although it is due to the activity of microorganisms, it does not cause offensive odor or spoilage, and is stored in a stable method in a closed water tank that blocks light, and then stored in a container as needed for sale.”; and also, “It should be stored in the shade or in a warehouse where it is not exposed to direct sunlight, and a container that blocks light from a transparent tank can be stored for many years without change.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water storage tank of O’Regan as modified by Gyure, Kedir et al., and Roth be comprised a light blocking material as taught by Kitamichi et al. in order to block out light so that the content in the tank will not be spoiled or enhance unwanted microorganism growth.
Claims 44-55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over O’Regan as modified by Gyure as applied to claims 36-37 above, and further in view of Lewis (US 20110232186 A1, as cited on form PTO-1449).
For claim 44, O’Regan as modified by Gyure teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 37, but is silent about wherein the soil enrichment system is a portable soil enrichment system.
Lewis teaches a plant growing or crop production system wherein the equipments are all mounted in a portable container with all the necessary enrichment sources for the plants to grow and be maintained while in transport or the like. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the soil enrichment system of O’Regan as modified by Gyure be a portable soil enrichment system as taught by Lewis in order to provide a mobile system for transport to various locations as desired by the user.
For claim 45, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 44, wherein the portable soil enrichment system is configured to deliver the live microalgae directly onto a target field (as combined with Lewis’s portability teaching, the system of O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis would be able to perform the intended function as claimed).
For claim 46, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 45, wherein the portable soil enrichment system is disposed within a portable housing (100 as relied on with Lewis).
For claim 47, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 46, wherein the portable housing includes environmental controls (para. 0105,0110-.114 of Lewis).
For claim 48, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 47, wherein the environmental controls are configured to regulate an ambient environment within the portable housing (para. 0105,0110-.114 of Lewis).
For claim 49, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 48, wherein the environmental controls include air conditioning (para. 0113 of Lewis, HVAC, A/C, fans, etc.).
For claim 50, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 49, wherein the environmental controls include humidity control systems (para. 0105,0110 of Lewis).
For claim 51, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 50, wherein the portable housing includes doors (50; also, para. 0090) configured to provide an airtight seal to inhibit contamination of the bioreactor system.
For claim 52, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 50, wherein the portable housing is configured to couple to a water source (functional recitation to which the housing of Lewis can and does perform the intended function, see para. 0116).
For claim 53, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 52, wherein the portable housing includes on opening (can be doors 50 of Lewis) for a fluid conduit carrying the microalgae culture.
For claim 54, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 48, wherein the portable housing includes a shipping container (fig. 1 of Lewis).
For claim 55, O’Regan as modified by Gyure and Lewis teaches the soil enrichment system of claim 54, wherein the shipping container is configured to be lifted onto a truck, trailer, and/or train by a forklift or a crane (functional recitation to which the container of Lewis can and does perform the intended function in order to be transported to different locations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the following:
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has not identified a water storage tank in O'Regan that satisfies all of the limitations that claim 36. The mapping relies on different components at different points in the analysis, and it is unclear which component the Examiner contends corresponds to the claimed water storage tank.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant claimed a water storage tank, which any of the listed tanks in O’Regan as pointed out in the paragraphs can be considered as water storage tank because they have water therein. There nothing more to interpret what a water storage tank is except that it is a tank that holds water, which is what applicant claimed.
In addition, the claimed limitation is broad in a sense that applicant merely stated that certain parts are “coupled” to each other but not realizing that, in a system such as that taught by O’Regan, all parts are “coupled” to each other directly or indirectly in order to operate the system.
However, there is no "output tank 526," O'Regan only describes an "output 526" so the Examiner is relying on teachings that do not exist. Moreover, output 526 is distinct from settlement tank 410, aeration tank 426, and the primary chamber of O'Regan paragraph 0019.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because output 526 is a tank because when the fluid is sent to the sterilization 524 and gets sterilized, the system sends the sterilized fluid directly to output 526 as shown in fig. 5a. Now given that the fluid is a liquid, it is clear that output 526 has to be some sort of tank or container to hold the fluid. From understanding para. 0087,0095, it is clear that the fluid is stored in a tank so that further testing can be done again in order to forward the fluid to the municipal sewage system 532 or reused on site 530.
In addition, the examiner also pointed out in the rejection that tank 426 is coupled to sterilization 430 in figs. 4a,4b, which applicant did not argue. Thus, regardless of which scenarios, the sterilization system is coupled to the water storage tank.
The Examiner's mapping of the gas diffuser element presents similar concerns. The Examiner cites O'Regan paragraphs 0018, 0019, 0044, 0045, 0049 through 0051, 0072, 0074, 0083, and 0091 for the gas diffuser (Office Action, pg. 4). Several of these paragraphs have already been cited by the Examiner for other elements of claim 36… The Examiner has not explained how these paragraphs, already relied upon for other claim elements, separately establish the gas diffuser limitation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because, while paragraphs are being pointed out, in reading these paragraphs, one skill in the art would know which element is considered to be a gas diffuser and which element is not. For example, para. 0049 as pointed out by the examiner, clearly stated that “An oxygen utilization rate is so low that a rate of air to be diffused into an aeration tank is low,” (emphasis on the underlined), which means that there is a gas diffuser to pump air into the aeration tank. Thus, it is clear that there is no confusion in the “mapping” of the paragraphs because the paragraph clearly states the claimed subject matter. Another example, para. 0050, word-for-word stated, “A high-efficient activated sludge treatment of waste water containing organic materials can then be carried out by introducing the waste water into an aeration tank, and effecting aeration treatment of the waste water by supplying oxygen (which may be in the form of air, or ozone) to the tank in the presence of activated sludge,” (emphasis on the underlined), which is very clear that there is a gas diffuser in order to pump air or oxygen or ozone into the tank. When a gas diffuser is being claimed, from these paragraphs, one of ordinary skill would not be confused that a bacteria inoculum or any other elements that do not diffuse gas are considered to be a gas diffuser, especially when these paragraphs discuss air, oxygen, ozone, being diffused into the tank by a diffuser (“a rate of air to be diffused into an aeration tank”).
Additionally, as noted above, the Examiner relies on O'Regan paragraph 0019 to support the gas diffuser limitation by stating that "the primary chamber of the water treatment system can be considered as a water storage tank and the filter and the diffuser are placed therein as stated" (Office Action, pg. 4). The primary chamber described in paragraph 0019 is a different component from the settlement tank 410 and aeration tank 426 of FIG. 4B that the Examiner has mapped to the water storage tank for other limitations (Office Action, pg. 4). The Examiner has not explained how a diffuser from this different system description satisfies the limitation that the water storage tank comprises the gas diffuser.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because para. 0019 stated that the aeration tank includes or coupled to a diffuser. Para. 0019 is a general summary of the invention and did not specifically designate any reference number. However, again, one skill in the art would know that the diffuser has to be part of the aeration tank because air/oxygen is diffused into the tank, which is why the tank is called “aeration tank”. It is not part of a different system as alleged by applicant because the system taught in O’Regan, all are one system with various parts making up the system.
Claim 36 recites both a sterilization system and a neutralization system as separate elements. The Examiner has not explained how the disinfector 430 can separately satisfy both the sterilization system and the neutralization system limitations of claim 36.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because para. 0072 stated that the disinfector 430 can be “, for example, an ozonator, an ultra-violet (UV) light source, a heat source, a distillation system, a reverse osmosis system, and/or a chemical treatment processor. The systems can be controlled or regulated by one or more regulators 440 configurable to adjust a parameter in response to a control signal. Furthermore, where more than one disinfector is provided, the disinfector can be activated in series, in parallel or selectively activated in response to a parameter from the tester.” (emphasis on the underlined). It is clear that the disinfector can be more than one element; hence, each element can be considered separately and not both of the same as alleged by applicant.
In addition, the rejection stated that the sterilization system is ref. 524 and the neutralization system is the UV light source. Thus, it is clear that they are not of the same disinfector 430 representing both.
O'Regan paragraph 0079 discusses conventional potable water treatment installations in a background context, stating that such installations "generally comprise a succession of physical/chemical treatment units of the flocculation/decantation/filtration type, complemented by an oxidation unit." This paragraph does not describe a component of the O'Regan system and should not serve as the basis for mapping a neutralization system.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because para. 0079 is no the only paragraph to serve as the basis for mapping a neutralization system. Other paragraphs are also pointed out for teaching of a neutralization system. In addition, in the rejection, the examiner also stated that the neutralization system is the UV light source, so it is clear that there should not be any confusion even though these paragraphs are recited. Furthermore, although the examiner recites certain excerpts from the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “Prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims”. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner has not noted any language in paragraph 00100 describing a system configured to remove ozone from sterilized irrigation water or configured to prevent chemicals from killing or impeding growth of microbes, as the claim recites. The Examiner instead asserts that these functions are inherent, stating "such is the function of a neutralization system" and "such is the function of a UV light system, especially within the scope of the functional recitation as claimed" (Office Action, pg. 5). If the Examiner is taking Official Notice that any UV light system is inherently configured to remove ozone from water, to prevent chemicals from killing or impeding growth of microbes grown in a bioreactor system, and to operate as a flow-through deozonation system, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner provide documentary evidence supporting these assertions, as required under MPEP 2144.03(C).
The examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant claimed that a UV light system is used as the neutralization system and does the function as claimed; thus, O’Regan uses a UV light system also so why O’Regan’s UV light system does not do the same function?
In addition, the whole idea of using a UV light is for sterilization as stated in O’Regan, thus, the UV light can and does perform all the functional recitations as claimed by applicant.
Furthermore, the examiner is not taking official notice as appeared to be interpreted by applicant because official notice has nothing to do with the function of a UV light, which is to sterilize. Official notice is taken when the claimed limitation is notoriously well-known that a reference is not needed to reject the claimed limitation, which is not the case at hand. Here, there is a reference that clearly teaches the same device as applicant, i.e. UV light, thus, the same device does the same functions, especially when O’Regan stated that the UV light is for sterilization.
The Examiner maps the bioreactor system to O'Regan paragraphs 0055 and 00126 (Office Action, pg. 3). O'Regan paragraph 0055 describes the second-stage biological treatment process, the nitrification of wastewater occurring in the aeration tank stage. However, the aeration tank 426 of FIG. 4B has already been mapped by the Examiner to the water storage tank element of claim 3 6, through the Examiner's citation of paragraphs 0085 through 0093 and the explicit identification of tanks 514 and 516 as the water storage tank (Office Action, pgs. 3-4). The Examiner has thus relied on the same component of O'Regan, the aeration tank, to satisfy both the water storage tank element and the bioreactor system element of claim 36.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner did not consider aeration tank 426 as a bioreactor or uses tanks 514,516 as alleged by applicant. Clearly from para. 0055, the paragraph literally stated “bioreactor”, thus, it is unclear as to how applicant interpreted that the examiner use’s aeration tank 426 for various elements? Para. 0055 stated: “The activated sludge can then at least partially recycled into the treatment zones, and/or processed by a bioreactor.” (emphasis on the underlined).
The Examiner concedes that O'Regan does not disclose a bioreactor system comprising a microalgae growth chamber configured to receive a microalgae inoculant, and turns to Gyure for this limitation (Office Action, pg. 6). However, given that the Examiner has not identified a component in O'Regan that constitutes a bioreactor system distinct from the components already mapped to other claim elements, the Examiner has not established where in the O 'Regan system the Gyure bioreactor would be incorporated and how the resulting combination would meet the limitations of claim 36.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because, as stated in the above, the bioreactor is taught in O’Regan. Thus, as combined with Gyure’s teaching, the claimed limitation is taught.
The aeration tank stage precedes the system exit in the O'Regan process. Under the Examiner's own mapping, the neutralization system, placed at the system exit per paragraph 00100, is not in a position consistent with the claim requirement that the neutralization system is configured to prevent chemicals used to produce the sterilized irrigation water from killing and/or impeding growth of microbes grown in the bioreactor system. The component mapped to the bioreactor system and the component mapped to the neutralization system are on opposite ends of the O'Regan process, and the Examiner has not explained how these two components satisfy the functional limitations of the claim.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because there is no position being claimed for the neutralization system and the bioreactor. All that is claimed is “the neutralization system is configured to prevent chemicals used to produce the sterilized irrigation water from killing and/or impeding growth of microbes grown in the bioreactor system”, which is merely stating that the UV light or neutralization system prevents chemicals from killing microbes grown in the bioreactor system. There is no indication of the positions of these two elements as stated by applicant.
In addition, para. 0055 appears to teach the bioreactor occurs somewhere at the beginning of the process because the paragraph stated that after the activated sludge is partially recycled into the treatment zones, and/or processed by a bioreactor, which would read on the functional recitation for the neutralization system because the neutralization system is after the bioreactor so the function of the neutralization system is to prevent the chemicals from killing the microbes that where in the bioreactor. Thus, O’Regan teaches the functional recitation of the neutralization system as claimed.
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's reliance on paragraph 00100 to satisfy the downstream requirement creates an irreconcilable conflict with the Examiner's mapping of the bioreactor system, and that the mapping does not establish a neutralization system in O'Regan that is both downstream from the water storage tank and coupled to the bioreactor system as claim 36 recites.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner pointed out other paragraphs and figs. 4a-5b and not just para. 00100; thus, it is unclear as to why applicant is in confused? Para. 00100 was cited to NOT state the position of the neutralization system but to state that UV light is being used as a neutralization system to sterilize.
As for the “coupled to the bioreactor system” comment, as stated in the above, the parts of the system in O’Regan all work together and are coupled together either directly or indirectly. Thus, the bioreactor is coupled to the neutralization system.
The proposed combination would render O'Regan unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant respectfully submits that O'Regan does not mention algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism anywhere in its disclosure.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because, while O’Regan does not mention
algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism, as stated, Gyure teaches algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism inoculant for use in a bioreactor system. By adding teaching of Gyure does not render O’Regan’s system inoperable or unsatisfactory because it will enhance the system by harvesting algae for other uses in addition to water treatment.
In addition, as stated, bioreactors are notoriously well-known in the art for growing and harvesting algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism, and thus, adding algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism inoculant as taught by Gyure in the bioreactor of O’Regan further add revenue to the system because not only can the user treat water but also harvest algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism for other uses. Thus, one ordinary skill in the art would combine Gyure’s teaching into O’Regan.
Furthermore, incorporating the anaerobic, hydrogen-producing bioreactor of Gyure into O'Regan's aeration-based treatment system, which continuously introduces oxygen, would not only require eliminating or fundamentally altering the aeration components upon which O 'Regan's treatment utility depends, but would also introduce hydrogen gas into an oxygen-rich environment. Hydrogen gas mixed with oxygen is combustible and explosive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine these references in the manner proposed, as doing so would literally destroy the primary reference. A modification that would render the primary reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose cannot support a finding of obviousness. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2143.0l(V).
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Gyure was not relied on for adding hydrogen or any other elements to O’Regan. As stated in the rejection, Gyure was relied on for a microalgae inoculant and not adding any other ingredients to the bioreactor of O’Regan.
Furthermore, O'Regan is a water treatment system whose utility depends on aerobic biological treatment processes. The aeration tanks of O'Regan, which the Examiner has mapped to the water storage tank and bioreactor system elements of claim 36, are central to O'Regan's treatment function. O'Regan paragraph 0091 describes this explicitly, stating that water is transferred to the aeration tank "where the water is aerated (e.g., stirred with a paddle or mixer or aerated via a bubbler)" and that "oxygen or ozone, for example, can be added in the reaction controlling step 522 to provide an additional level of aeration." The deliberate introduction of oxygen into these tanks is not incidental - it drives the aerobic biological degradation of organic pollutants that constitutes the core treatment function of O'Regan. Gyure's bioreactor, by contrast, requires the strict maintenance of anaerobic conditions, specifically, zero dissolved oxygen, for its hydrogen-producing function.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant is arguing more than what Gyure is relied on for. The oxygen falling to zero out of the cowl was not relied on in the rejection nor any other teaching from Gyure. As stated, Gyure teaches a bioreactor comprising a microalgae growth chamber configured to receive a microalgae inoculant (460,940; also, discussed in various pages of the specification); a control system (page 9, line 33) is configured to activate a flow of microalgae culture out of the bioreactor system upon receiving a signal corresponding to a microalgae cell titer sufficiently high for harvest of the microalgae culture (page 73, line 11, page 77, line 16, page 79, line 14; also, functional recitation to which the computer of Gyure can and does perform the intended function); and wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of the neutralized irrigation water to fill the bioreactor system for a subsequent inoculation after the harvest of the microalgae culture (page 9, 32-33, page 15, line 24; page 22, line 25, page 38, lines 25-26, page 39, line 7, etc.; also, functional recitation to which the computer of Gyure can and does perform the intended function). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bioreactor system of O’Regan be comprised of a microalgae growth chamber configured to receive a microalgae inoculant; wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of microalgae culture out of the bioreactor system upon receiving a signal corresponding to a microalgae cell titer sufficiently high for harvest of the microalgae culture; and wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of the neutralized irrigation water to fill the bioreactor system for a subsequent inoculation after the harvest of the microalgae culture as taught by Gyure, for a bioreactor is notoriously well-known to include microalgae and harvesting them for nutrient or consumption and be controlled by the computer for automation.
The Examiner asserts that these passages constitute "functional recitation to which the computer of Gyure can and does perform the intended function" (Office Action, pg. 6). Applicant respectfully submits that the claim recites a control system configured to perform a specific operation upon receiving a specific signal. The existence of a computer in a reference does not constitute a teaching that the computer is configured to perform this specific operation. A reference must teach the claimed configuration, not merely possess hardware that could theoretically be programmed to perform it.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the control system of Gyure does perform the functionally claimed limitation for the control system. As claimed, Gyure’s controller (page 9, line 33) is configured to activate a flow of microalgae culture out of the bioreactor system upon receiving a signal corresponding to a microalgae cell titer sufficiently high for harvest of the microalgae culture (page 73, line 11, page 77, line 16, page 79, line 14; also, functional recitation to which the computer of Gyure can and does perform the intended function); and wherein the control system is configured to activate a flow of the neutralized irrigation water to fill the bioreactor system for a subsequent inoculation after the harvest of the microalgae culture (page 9, 32-33, page 15, line 24; page 22, line 25, page 38, lines 25-26, page 39, line 7, etc.; also, functional recitation to which the computer of Gyure can and does perform the intended function).
Finally, the Examiner's stated motivation for combining O'Regan and Gyure is that "a bioreactor is notoriously well-known to include microalgae and harvesting them for nutrient or consumption and be controlled by the computer for automation" (Office Action, pg. 7). Applicant respectfully submits that this statement does not provide the articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning required to support a finding of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner has not identified what problem in O'Regan would prompt a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Gyure, nor what benefit the combination would provide. The assertion that bioreactors are "notoriously well-known to include microalgae" is a statement of common knowledge made without citation. If the Examiner intends this as Official Notice, Applicant respectfully traverses the assertion and requests that the Examiner provide documentary evidence, as required under MPEP 2144.03(C).
The examiner respectfully disagrees because while O’Regan does not mention
algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism, as stated, Gyure teaches algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism inoculant for use in a bioreactor system. By adding teaching of Gyure does not render O’Regan’s system inoperable or unsatisfactory because it will enhance the system by harvesting algae for other uses in addition to water treatment.
In addition, as stated, bioreactors are notoriously well-known in the art for growing and harvesting algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism, and thus, adding algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism inoculant as taught by Gyure in the bioreactor of O’Regan further add revenue to the system because not only can the user treat water but also harvest algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism for other uses. Thus, one ordinary skill in the art would combine Gyure’s teaching into O’Regan.
Furthermore, the examiner is not taking official notice as appeared to be interpreted by applicant because Official notice is taken only when the claimed limitation is NOT taught by a reference, but so well-known that one does not need to refer to a reference. However, this is not the case because Gyure teaches the limitation as relied on and the limitation is notoriously well-known in bioreactor to inoculate with algae or the like. As a matter of fact, it is so well-known that bioreactor has algae or similar organisms inoculated therein that there is a CPC class/subclass solely for this, A01G 33/00. Thus, what applicant is claiming for algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism inoculant is nothing new in the art and notoriously well-known to be included in a bioreactor.
Moreover, adding algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism inoculant and a controller to cultivate these organism in the system of O’Regan does not make O’Regan’s system inoperable or unsatisfactory because, if anything, it would enhance the system by providing harvesting of the algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism to generate more revenue, since O’Regan already uses a bioreactor in his system so adding algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism therein will not hinder operability of the system. Also, algae, microalgae, or any photosynthetic organism can provide nutrients and improve water quality. See Does algae improve water quality? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights