DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 19 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 16 recites, “an agitation device”. This is a double inclusion of the agitation device of claim 1.
Claim 19 depends on claim 5 which is cancelled thus the dependency of 19 is unclear.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected based on their dependency on 16.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Goldberg (US 2022/0195357).
For claim 9, Goldberg discloses a system for growth of aquatic botanical material (abstract and figs.) comprising:
a basin defining a length, a variable depth, a width, and a basin volume, wherein the width has a substantially parabolic cross-sectional shape (100, fig. 1A); and
a plurality environmental adjustment devices configured to adjust one or more environmental characteristics within the basin volume (101, para 0072).
wherein the one or more environmental adjustment devices comprise:
an agitation device (101, para 0072);
a light positioned along the length of the basin, wherein at least one of a brightness of emitted light or a wavelength of the emitted light is adjustable (para 0043); and
a plurality of nutrient inlets positioned along the length of the basin (para 0007, walls are permeable for nutrient flow, i.e. comprise a plurality of nutrient inlets);
one or more sensors operable to detect one or more characteristics of the aquatic botanical material within the basin (para 0043 light sensor, para 0055 other sensors);
a control unit configured to execute logic that causes the control unit to:
detect a condition of the aquatic botanical material within the basin based on a signal from the one or more sensors (para 0043 detect amount of light in cage); and
adjust the one or more environmental characteristics within the basin with the one or more of the plurality of environmental adjustment devices (para 0043, activating the light changes the brightness).
For claim 12, Goldberg discloses method of growing an aquatic botanical material (abstract and figs.), the method comprising:
positioning a growth media within a basin volume of a basin, the basin defining a length, a variable depth, and a width, wherein the width has a substantially parabolic cross-sectional shape (Fig. 1A, 100); and depositing the aquatic botanical material within the basin volume for a growth period (algae deposited for growth).
receiving a signal from one or more sensors, wherein the signal is indicative of a growth condition of the aquatic botanical material (para 0043 light sensor);
determining the growth condition of the aquatic botanical material based on the signal;
adjusting one or more environmental characteristics within the basin volume with one or more a plurality of environmental adjustment devices based on the growth condition of the aquatic botanical material (para 0043 light adjustment),
wherein the one or more environmental adjustment devices comprises:
an agitation device positioned within the basin volume (101, para 0072),
an adjustable lighting device positioned along the length of the basin (para 0043, 0058); or
a plurality of nutrient inlets positioned along the length of the basin (para 0007, walls are permeable for nutrient flow, i.e. comprise a plurality of nutrient inlets).
For claim 19, Goldberg further discloses wherein the agitation device is a sparge line (101, see fig. 1A, best understood depending from claim 9).
For claim 21, Goldberg discloses a system for growth of aquatic botanical material (abstract and figs.) comprising:
a basin defining a length, a variable depth, and a width, wherein the width has a substantially parabolic cross-sectional shape (100, see fig. 1A), the basin comprising a substrate of earth defining the basin volume (at least substrates of earth within seawater defining the interior of the basin or the floor of the pond itself in which the basin is placed);
an agitation device (101, para 0072) located at a vertex of the substantially parabolic cross sectional shape and configured to produce a first agitation vortex on a first side of the basin and a second agitation vortex on a second side of the basin (see fig. 1A).
For claim 24, Goldberg further disclose wherein the basin comprises clay, sand, or soil defining the basin volume (the pond floor will include these materials, the size of the pond defines the volume of the basin that can be placed therein).
For claim 25, Goldberg further discloses wherein the basin comprises a first end wall and a second end wall, the length being defined by the first end wall and the second end wall (see fig. 1A).
For claim 26, Goldberg further discloses wherein the agitation device includes a sparge line (101).
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over High Enegry Fuels (NPL provided by applicant, hereafter referred to as High) in view of Goldberg and Sherlock (US 18856478).
For claim 21, High discloses a system for growth of aquatic botanical material comprising:
a basin defining a length, a variable depth, and a width, wherein the width has a substantially parabolic cross-sectional shape (see pages 21-29 demonstration project 1 for instance, parabolic array of tanks, see fig. page 21).
an agitation device (page 33-34, demonstration project 7, central aeration line) configured to produce a first agitation vortex on a first side of the basin and a second agitation vortex on a second side of the basin (aeration lines can produce vortexes in this manner).
If for any reason applicant disagrees that High produces two vortexes, Goldberg teaches an agitation line at a vertex of a basin producing two vortexes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the system of High produce two vortexes, as taught by Goldberg, to best aerate and agitate the water for optimal growth.
High is silent about the basin defining a substrate of earth defining a volume of the basin.
Sherlock teaches known algae production systems including basins embedded in the ground (Col. 6, lines 13-31) such that the volume of the basin is defined by an earth substrate (Col. 6, lines 13-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the volume of the basin of High defined by earth substrate, as taught by Sherlock, in order to effectively and optimally cultivate algae in a given space.
For claim 24, modified High further teaches wherein the basin comprises clay, sand, or soil defining the basin volume (Col. 6, lines 13-31 of Sherlock).
For claim 25, modified High further teaches wherein the basin comprises a first end wall and a second end wall, the length being defined by the first end wall and the second end wall (pages 33-34 of High).
For claim 26, modified High further teaches wherein the agitation device includes a sparge line (pages 33-34 of High, central aeration line).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg or alternatively High as modified by Goldberg and Sherlock, in further view of Raffael (GB 2501101, provided herein).
For claim 22, Goldberg or modified High is silent about a liner within a basin volume of the basin, wherein the basin comprises a parabolic surface, and the liner is disposed adjacent the parabolic surface or the liner is disposed contiguous with the parabolic surface.
Raffael teaches known algae culture basins including liners disposed adjacent to the surface of the basin (page 8, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the system of Goldberg or modified High include a tank liner adjacent to the parabolic surface, as taught by the liners of Raffael, in order to allow for different colors to manipulate the wavelength ratio experience by the algae (page 8, lines 1-6 of Raffael).
For claim 23, Goldberg or modified High is silent about wherein the basin comprises a first berm along a first longitudinal side of the basin and a second berm positioned along a second longitudinal side of the basin, wherein the first berm and the second berm are raised relative to a surrounding floor.
Raffael teaches known algae culture basins including berms along the sides thereof (see Fig. 1, page 11, lines 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the basin of Goldberg or modified High include berms on the sides thereof, as taught by Raffael, in order to form and reinforce the walls of the basin.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Oyler (US 9003695).
For claims 11, Goldberg further teaches a sparge line (101).
Goldberg is silent about the sparge line releasing carbon dioxide.
Oyler teaches an algae cultivation system including the injection of carbon dioxide (Col. 12, lines 13-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the system of Goldberg release CO2, as taught by Oyler, in order to provide a growth nutrient to the algae (Oyler, Col. 12, lines 13-27).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Zhu Peng et al. “Commercial Cultivation, industrial application, and potential halocarbon biosynthesis pathway of Asparagopsis sp.” (provided by applicant, hereafter referred to as Zhu).
For claim 15, Goldberg is silent about increasing production of bromoform and/or other halogenated materials by the aquatic botanical material by adjusting one or more environmental characteristics within the basin volume.
Zhu teaches algae farming to increase production of bromoform and/or other halogenated materials by the aquatic botanical material by adjusting one or more environmental characteristics within the basin volume (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the system of Goldberg to increase bromoform/halogenated materials, as taught by Zhu, in order to farm those materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 16-18, 20 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9-10, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the airlift system of Goldberg fails to teach inlets for providing nutrients and accordingly Goldberg fails to teach a plurality of nutrient inlets.
In response to applicant’s argument the office notes that upon further review of Goldberg that Goldberg teaches (in para 0007) permeable walls which enable “free flow of water, gas and nutrients from the waterbody into the growing cage”. The openings in the wall itself constitute a plurality of nutrient inlets. The claims (9 and 12) as written only require control of one of the plurality of environmental devices, not all of them, accordingly Goldberg at least teaches control of the light source. The claims further do not require the inlet flow to be adjustable.
In order to advance prosecution the office notes that even if the claims more particularly recited control or adjustable nutrient inlets, Licamele et al. (US 8341877) is noted for review, Licamele teaches nutrient inlets (180), agitation device (170) as well as LED lights.
Applicant argued that Goldberg fails to teach a substrate of earth defining the basin volume.
In response to applicant’s argument, it is maintained that Goldberg teaches “the basin comprising a substrate of earth defining a basin volume”.
Firstly, Goldberg teaches seawater (para 0009, 0010, 0027) which contains substrates of earth. Notably seawater contains dissolved minerals and elements that originate from the earth’s crust. The seawater fills the interior of the basin thus defining its volume. The claim does not require the substrate to be exterior to the basin nor does it require a channel in the ground into which a basin is fit. The claim only requires the “comprises” limitation which is an open-ended limitation and does not exclude other elements therefrom. Seawater comprises substrates of earth.
Furthermore, it is noted that the entire system of Goldberg is fitted into a natural lake or river, the floor of a natural lake is earth. The lake defines the volume of the basin, i.e. the basin cannot be bigger than the lake it is in. The claim in no way says the basin is surrounded by earth substrate or that the earth substrate constitutes the walls of the basin.
Finally, the office notes that even if in arguendo the claims were amended to specifically define the walls of the basin as earth substrate, embedded algal basins are known in the art. The office has additionally provided a secondary rejection in view of Sherlock (US 10856478) to reiterate this point.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights