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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of November 22, 2024 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on November 22, 2024. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 13-15 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.
Claim 13 is considered indefinite because if the language is unclear if the strap attaches the top to the head or if the strap connects both the head and the top to the container.
Claim 14 is considered indefinite because the language is unclear as to the meaning of “shaped like”.
Claim 15 is considered indefinite because the claim has not previously set forth that the top of the container has a base or that the base is circular.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huff (USPN 3439449).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Huff (USPN 3439449) teaches a device for transferring floating biomass, the device comprising: a container (container, vessel or tank 10) for holding said floating biomass and fluid (algae and culture water) and comprising at least two orifices (conduits 20, 21), wherein said at least two orifices are horizontally aligned (as seen in the lone Figure) The language “for flowing carrier fluid through at least one of said horizontally aligned orifices to stream at least a portion of a top layer of said floating biomass out of said container and through at least one other of said horizontally aligned orifices, thereby transferring at least one layer portion of said floating biomass from said container out of said container” is considered to be a recitation of the manner in which the device is to be operated. Such recitations do not limit the structure of the device. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the angle between two horizontally aligned orifices, as viewed from above, is between 90-180 degrees. The conduits appear to be 180 degrees apart.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the container comprises a tank (10) and a top (door 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Howell (USPN 5518343).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Huff teaches a head (cover 12) attached between the tank and the top, yet fails to teach the head is a truncated cone shape. Howell (USPN 5518343) teaches a container (housing 22) having a truncated cone shaped head (conical top 28) between the container and a top (pipe 46). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the head in a truncated cone shape as engineering expedient to transition from the diameter of the tank to the diameter of the top.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Howell as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lockhart (USPN 2049847).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Huff teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a strap that attaches the head and the top. Lockhart (USPN 2049847) teaches a strap (clamping ring 6) that attaches a cover (3) to a drum (1). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a strap that attaches the head and the top since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The strap would allow quick removal of the top.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Huff teaches the top (door 16) that is dome shaped (as seen in the Figure), yet fails to teach the top is shaped like a circular dome. Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shape the top like a circular dome as engineering expedient. A circular dome would have similar geometric features to other features of the tank (such as domes 14).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Huff teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a circular base of the top has a diameter of between 20 mm to 80 mm. Huff discloses the container need not have any specific shape or size [Col. 4:39-41]. Further, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed dimensions, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a circular base of the top having a diameter of between 20 mm to 80 mm as engineering expedient. The shape and size would determine the volume of the interior of the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest elevating a fluid level of a fluid in a container to a height of at least one of horizontally aligned orifices and flowing a carrier fluid to stream a top layer of floating biomass through the other orifice, combined with the rest of the claim language. DE 102010026345 B3 teaches elevating a fluid level in a container to cause a top layer of floating biomass to flow over an overflow edge, but fails to teach orifices.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE102010026345 B3 discloses a container having an overflow edge, where the liquid level is increase to move biomass from the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights