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 indirectly 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the same as cited in the parent cases 14/069932, 15/647005, & 17/524111, which applicant also cited on form PTO-1449.
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