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 § 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 45-50 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.
For claim 45, the limitation is unclear because the ozone generator was positively claimed in claim 35, thus, the limitation appears to either stating the same or another ozone generator?
All other claims depending on claim 45 are also rejected the same.
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 35,36,38-40,42,44-50 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linden et al. (US 20050061737 A1) in view of El-Shafie (US 20120122164 A1).
For claim 35, Linden et al. teach a system for soil enrichment comprising:
one or more bioreactors,
an ozone generator (para. 0087 mentioned ozone in the system, thus, it is implied that an ozone generator is necessary to produce ozone),
a nutrient feed supply (para. 0055,0071,0122,0238) and
a carbon dioxide source (para. 0091,0135-0137,0180);
wherein the carbon dioxide source is configured to supply carbon dioxide to a lower part of each of the one or more bioreactors (para. 0091,0135,0180, the CO2 is in the whole bioreactor, thus, any part is considered a lower part from the top most part of the bioreactor);
wherein the system is configured to receive water from an on-site water source of a farm (functional recitation to which the system of Linden can and does perform the intended function because it is an aquaculture system, which is considered a farm to raise aquatic plants and animals; also, the on-site water source can be from valve 12b).
However, although Linden et al. teach algae in the system in para. 0155, it is unclear if Linden et al. teach the system is configured to provide live microalgae cells to an effluent of the one or more bioreactors; and wherein the effluent is configured to feed the live microalgae cells to a water flow of an irrigation system.
El-Shafie teaches a system for soil enrichment comprising live microalgae cells (para. 0070) to an effluent of the one or more bioreactors (para. 0175,0180); and wherein the effluent is configured to feed the live microalgae cells to a water flow of an irrigation system (para. 0074,0150,0153,0154,0156). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system of Linden et al. to provide live microalgae cells to an effluent of the one or more bioreactors, and wherein the effluent is configured to feed the live microalgae cells to a water flow of an irrigation system as taught by El-Shafie in order to harvest live microalgae and at the same time use the water from the effluent of the bioreactor to nourish the plants, for the effluent contains valuable nutrients for enhancing plant growth.
For claim 36, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 35, and further comprising one or more monitoring devices (para. 0163 of Linden).
For claim 38, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 36, wherein the one or more monitoring devices are configured to measure nutrient content in the effluent (para. 0163 of Linden, functional recitation to which the sensor of Linden can be configured to measure nutrient or other parameters as desired, for that is what a sensor does). In the event that applicant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation of the claimed limitation and Linden’s teaching, El-Shafie also teaches a sensor to measure nutrient content in the effluent (para. 0091,0175,0203,0238). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the one or more monitoring devices of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie be configured to measure nutrient content in the effluent as further taught by El-Shafie in order to measure nutrient in the system.
For claim 39, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 35, but are silent about wherein the system is configured to support a flow-through capacity of about 0.35-0.7 gallons per minute. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie be configured to support a flow-through capacity of about 0.35-0.7 gallons per minute, depending on the user’s preference to have a mass production system or larger scale system or smaller scale system, 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.
For claim 40, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 39, but are silent about wherein the system is configured to support a field in a range of 200-1000 acres. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie be configured to support a field in a range of 200-1000 acres, depending on the user’s preference to have a mass production system or larger scale system or smaller scale system, 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.
For claim 42, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 35, wherein the system is placed within an enclosure (para. 0072,0093 of Linden, “The system may be built indoors, in industrial production units, warehouses or in greenhouses or placed in the open land terrain, in freshwater-, river-, estuarine or marine systems, according to temperature, humidity and climatologic restrictions and the industrial production units or specific requirements by the species in agri- or aquaculture.”).
For claim 44, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 36, but are silent about wherein the system includes eight bioreactors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have eight bioreactors in the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie, depending on the user’s preference to have a mass production system or larger scale system or smaller scale system, since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
For claim 45, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 36, further including the ozone generator (Linden et al. teach the ozone generator as stated in the above for claim 35).
For claim 46, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 45, further including a pressurized air supply (para. 0152 of Linden).
For claim 47, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 46, but are silent about further including an ultra-violet light system. In addition to the above, El-Shafie teaches his system further including an ultra-violet light system (para. 0087, 0088,0111,0220, etc.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an ultra-violet light system as further taught by El-Shafie in the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie in order to sterilize the system.
For claim 48, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 47, further comprising a water tank (can be refs. 10,12, in Linden); and where in the water tank is configured to receive the water from the on-site water source of the farm (from valve 12b in Linden).
For claim 49, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 48, but are silent about wherein the system is configured to provide about 800,000 live microalgae cells per second at a water flowrate of about 0.35 gallons per minute to the effluent of the one or more bioreactors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie be configured to provide about 800,000 live microalgae cells per second at a water flowrate of about 0.35 gallons per minute to the effluent of the one or more bioreactors, depending on the user’s preference to have a mass production system or larger scale system or smaller scale system, 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.
For claim 50, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 49, but are silent about further comprising a mechanical agitator. In addition to the above, El-Shafie further teaches a mechanical agitator (para. 0088,0111,0176). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a mechanical agitator as further taught by El-Shafie in the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie in order to stir the solution to prevent stagnation and to decompose the chlorine dioxide as stated in El-Shafie.
Claim 37 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie as applied to claims 35,36 above, and further in view of Gyure (US 20090130704 A1).
For claim 37, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 36, but are silent about wherein the one or more monitoring devices are configured to measure a microalgae titer in the effluent.
Gyure teaches a bioreactor comprising one or more monitoring devices are configured to measure a microalgae titer in the effluent (para 0212,0227,0235). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the one or more monitoring devices of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie to measure a microalgae titer in the effluent as taught by Gyure in order to provide monitored data for reaching a target measurement of the microalgae in the system.
Claims 41,43 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Ericsson (US 8569050 B1).
For claim 41, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 35, but are silent about further comprising a flow-imaging device configured to generate images of the live microalgae cells.
Ericsson teaches a bioreactor comprising a flow-imaging device configured to generate images of the live microalgae cells (col. 21, lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a flow-imaging device configured to generate images of the live microalgae cells as taught by Ericsson in the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie in order to monitor the microalgae health and growth rates as stated in Ericsson.
For claim 43, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system of claim 35, but are silent about wherein the one or more bioreactors comprise light-permeable walls.
In addition to the above, Ericsson teaches the bioreactors comprise light-permeable walls (col. 9, lines 59-65, col. 12, lines 41-50, col. 17, lines 33-40, etc.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the one or more bioreactors of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie be comprised of light-permeable walls as taught by Ericsson in order to allow light to enter the bioreactor so as to enhance microalgae growth.
Claims 51-55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Linden et al. (as above) in view of El-Shafie (as above) and Roth (US 5833857 A).
For claim 51, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie teach the system for soil enrichment as described above, thus, please see above. Not described is a trailer, wherein the one or more bioreactors, the ozone generator, the nutrient feed supply, and
the carbon dioxide source are each mounted on the trailer.
Roth teaches a mobile bioreactor wherein all the equipment can be mounted on a trailer (60) for mobility. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a trailer as taught by Roth, wherein the one or more bioreactors, the ozone generator, the nutrient feed supply, and
the carbon dioxide source of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie are each mounted on the trailer in order to allow transport of the system to a desire location and to provide a mobile system.
For claim 52, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie and Roth teach the system of claim 51, but are silent about wherein the system is configured to support a field in a range of 200-1000 acres. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie and Roth be configured to support a field in a range of 200-1000 acres, depending on the user’s preference to have a mass production system or larger scale system or smaller scale system, 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.
For claim 53, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie and Roth teach the system of claim 52, but are silent about wherein the system is configured to support a flow-through capacity of about 0.35-0.7 gallons per minute. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie and Roth be configured to support a flow-through capacity of about 0.35-0.7 gallons per minute, depending on the user’s preference to have a mass production system or larger scale system or smaller scale system, 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.
For claim 54, Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie and Roth teach the system of claim 53, but are silent about wherein the system is configured to provide about 800,000 live microalgae cells per second at a water flowrate of about 0.35 gallons per minute to the effluent of the one or more bioreactors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the system of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie and Roth be configured to provide about 800,000 live microalgae cells per second at a water flowrate of about 0.35 gallons per minute to the effluent of the one or more bioreactors, depending on the user’s preference to have a mass production system or larger scale system or smaller scale system, 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.
For claim 55, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above teaching of Linden et al. as modified by El-Shafie and Roth.
Conclusion
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