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 .
Applicant does not have support for the following new matter within the instant application claims 1 and 16 ‘’two distinct liquid-phase output streams, each of the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase.’
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 7/20/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 3/20/2026 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-16 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 4, 10-11 are cancelled.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to delete the recitation ‘substantially.’
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Datta et al (US Patent 8,211,679 B2, date published July 3, 2012, cited on PTO-892 filed 11/15/2023) {herein Datta} is withdrawn in view of cancellation of claim 4.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-16 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following new matter is within amended claims dated 7/20/2026: page claim 1, lines 15-16; page 5 claim 16, lines 15-16. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: ’two distinct liquid-phase output streams, each of the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase.’
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicants remarks filed on 7/20/2026 have been fully considered; however, they are rendered moot in view of the new rejection set forth above, which is necessitated by Applicants’ amendment to the claims. Examiner contends that Applicant does not have any support for the newly recited phrase ’two distinct liquid-phase output streams, each of the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase’ within the instant application claims and specification.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Datta et al (US Patent 8,211,679 B2, date published July 3, 2012, cited on PTO-892 filed 11/15/2023) {herein Datta} is maintained. The rejection has been modified in to add new claims 15-16 and cancellation of claims 4, 11.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-15 are drawn to a device for producing an organic substance, the device comprising: a fermenter comprising: a first liquid outlet, a microorganism that grows in the presence of a gas, and a culture broth in which the microorganism is cultured, wherein the fermenter generates an organic substance from the gas by a fermenting action of the microorganism in the fermenter; a separation section comprising: a first liquid inlet, a second liquid outlet, a third liquid outlet, and a filter that performs a liquid-phase filtration of the culture broth to separate the microorganism from the culture broth, wherein the filter has a pore diameter in a range from 0.1 µm to 100 µm, the first liquid inlet is connected to the first liquid outlet of the fermenter via a first liquid line, the separation section receives a discharge fluid comprising the culture broth from the fermenter, and the filter filtrates and separates the discharge fluid into a first liquid- phase stream and a second liquid-phase stream, as two distinct liquid-phase output streams, each of the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase, the first liquid-phase stream comprises the organic substance and the solid substance retained by the filter, the second liquid-phase stream comprises the organic substance and contains less of the solid substance than the solid substance in the first liquid-phase stream because of retention of the microorganism by the filter in the separation of the discharge, and the solid substance comprises the microorganism retained by the filter; an evaporation section comprising: a second liquid inlet, a first gas outlet, and an evaporation boiler or a distillation column, wherein the second liquid inlet is connected to the second liquid outlet of the separation section via a second liquid line, the evaporation section receives the first liquid-phase stream from the separation section and evaporates a liquid component containing the organic substance from the first liquid-phase stream; and a purification section comprising: a third liquid inlet, and a distillation column, wherein the third liquid inlet is connected to the third liquid outlet of the separation section via a third liquid line, the purification section is in fluid communication with the evaporation section, and the purification section receives the second liquid-phase stream from the separation section and a vapor as the liquid component in the first liquid-phase stream vaporized in the evaporation section, and purifies the organic substance from the second liquid-phase stream and the vapor.
Claim 16 is drawn to a device for producing an organic substance, the device comprising: a fermenter comprising: a first liquid outlet, a microorganism that grows in the presence of a gas, and a culture broth in which the microorganism is cultured, wherein the fermenter generates an organic substance from the gas by a fermenting action of the microorganism in the fermenter; a separation section comprising: a first liquid inlet, a second liquid outlet, a third liquid outlet, and a filter that performs a liquid-phase filtration of the culture broth to separate the microorganism from the culture broth, wherein the filter has a pore diameter in a range from 0.1 pm to 100 pm, the first liquid inlet is connected to the first liquid outlet of the fermenter via a first liquid line, the separation section receives a discharge fluid comprising the culture broth from the fermenter, and the filter filtrates and separates the discharge fluid into a first liquid- phase stream and a second liquid-phase stream, as two distinct liquid-phase output streams, each of the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase, the first liquid-phase stream comprises the organic substance and the solid substance retained by the filter, the second liquid-phase stream comprises the organic substance and-contains less of the solid substance than the solid substance in the first liquid-phase stream because of retention of the microorganism by the filter in the separation of the discharge, and the solid substance comprises the microorganism retained by the filter; an evaporation section comprising: a second liquid inlet, a first gas outlet, and an evaporation boiler or a distillation column, wherein the second liquid inlet is connected to the second liquid outlet of the separation section via a second liquid line, the evaporation section receives the first liquid-phase stream from the separation section and evaporates a liquid component containing the organic substance from the first liquid-phase stream; and a purification section comprising: a third liquid inlet, and a distillation column, wherein the third liquid inlet is connected to the third liquid outlet of the separation section via a third liquid line, the purification section is in fluid communication with the evaporation section, and the purification section receives the second liquid-phase stream from the separation section and a vapor as the liquid component in the first liquid-phase stream vaporized in the evaporation section, and purifies the organic substance from the second liquid-phase stream and the vapor, and the distillation column of the purification section comprises the third liquid inlet that supplies the second liquid-phase stream, and a vapor inlet that is provided below the third liquid inlet and supplies the vapor, the vapor inlet being connected to the first gas outlet of the evaporation section via a gas line.
With respect to claims 1, 15-16, Datta teaches a device for the bioconversion of CO and H2/CO2 to acetic acid, ethanol and other well-known products (column 5, lines 20-22), of which ethanol and acetic acid are organic substances. The device is comprised of a bioreactor (fig. 1 #28). Examiner is interpreting a fermenter and bioreactor as being the same since both contain vessels used to cultivate microorganisms. The bioreactor has a first liquid outlet (fig. 1 #30) and microorganisms such as Clostridium carboxidivorans that ferment syngas to ethanol and/or n-butanol (column 5, lines 46-48). Examiner is interpreting the ability of C. carboxidivorans to ferment syngas to ethanol and/or butanol as said microorganism growing in the presence of a gas and generating an organic substance from the syngas by the fermenting action of the microorganism. The fresh fermentation medium components are listed in table 1 (column 11, table 1). Examiner is interpreting the fresh culture medium to be culture broth as it supplies the microorganism with nutrients needed to grow. The purification zone (fig.1 #40) filters the culture via filtration or ultrafiltration (column 7, lines 50-56). It is known by those of ordinary skill in the art that ultrafiltration requires a semi-permeable membrane to function. Therefore, the purification zone taught by Datta would necessarily contain a filter with pore sizes ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 µm. Supporting the Examiner’s position is the evidentiary reference of Veolia that is cited to demonstrate that ultrafiltration is a hollow-fiber membrane with pore sizes ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 microns (page 1, para 3; page 2, para 1, 3). It is the Examiner’s position that said ultrafiltration is that sole separation unit that produces the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream as Datta does not disclose any other first and second liquid phase separation as recited in the instant application claim 15). Some microorganisms are retained in the purification zone, liquid vaporized (fig. 1 #42) and cycled through the stripping column to obtain ethanol (fig. 1 #38). It is the Examiner’s position that the liquid filtered through the purification zone would necessarily be comprised of two distinct liquid-phase output streams, each of the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase as the first liquid-phase stream would be comprised of the organic substance and solid substance retained by the filter as that is the role of a filter to retain solid substances larger than the pore size of the membrane. While the second liquid phase would necessarily contain fewer solid substances than the solid substance of the first liquid phase as it will be comprised of material that is obtained after filtration. Additionally, Datta teaches the microorganisms are retained in the purification zone (column 7, lines 54-56), thereby comprising the organics substance and substantially all of a solid substance, wherein the solid substance is the microorganism. It is the Examiner’s position that said liquid would necessarily be obtained by evaporation as the liquid-phase stream is changed from a liquid state into a gas or vapor through heating (fig. 1 #42, #44). The depleted liquid is then recycled into the bioreactor via #74 and #76 of fig 1. It is the Examiner’s position that the separation section comprises the purification zone as that is where the microorganism is retained thereby forming the first liquid-phase stream. Said separation section is comprised of a first liquid inlet (fig. 1 #41), a second liquid outlet (fig. 1 #42), a third liquid outlet (fig. 1 #32), and a filter that performs a liquid-phase filtration of the culture broth to separate the microorganism from the culture broth (fig. 1 #40). Subsequently, the first liquid-phase stream is transported into the liquid vaporizer (fig.1 #42) and into the stripping column (fig.1 #38) where said column separates the dilute ethanol stream into an overhead vapor stream (fig. 1 #44) and an ethanol depleted bottom stream (fi. 1 #46). It is the Examiner’s position that the liquid vaporizer (fig. 1 #42) and stripping column comprise the evaporation section as Datta teaches the liquid vaporization of the first liquid-phase stream within line #42 of fig. 1. Said evaporation section is comprised of a second liquid inlet (fig. 1 #42), a first gas outlet (fig. 1 #44), and a distillation column (fig. 1 #38). Additionally, it is the Again, Examiner’s position that the liquid-phase stream that is cycled from the purification zone (fig. 1 #40) to the liquid vaporizer (fig.1 #42) to the stripping/distillation column (fig. 1 #38) to the overhead vapor (fig. 1 #44) is the second liquid-phase stream as it comprises the organic substance and substantially none of the solid substance relative to the first liquid-phase stream as the purification zone (fig.1 #40) retains the microorganism (column 7, lines 54-56). It is the Examiner’s position that the purification section is downstream of the evaporation section and is comprised of, in part, a first vapor permeation unit (fig. 1 #54) and a permeate unit (fig. 1 #62). Said purification section is comprised of a third liquid inlet (fig. 1 #56), and a distillation column (fig. 1 #38), wherein the third liquid inlet (fig. 1 #42) is connected to the third liquid outlet (fig. 1 #46) of the separation section via a third liquid inlet (fig. 1 #42) that supplies the second liquid-phase stream. Datta further teaches a vapor inlet (fig. 1 #42) supplies the vapor which is connected to the first gas outlet (fig. 1 #64) of the evaporation section via a gas line (fig. 1 #64).
With respect to claim 2, Datta teaches permeation of a water vapor in unit 62 dehydrates stream 60 to produce a permeate stream with an ethanol concentration in a range of about 10 to 35 wt % and the retentate stream (fig .1 #60) with an ethanol concentration of at least 99 wt % (column 8, lines 65-67 and column 9, lines 1-2). Specifically, a series of vapor permeation membranes retain ethanol as retentate and produce a 99 wt % or higher ethanol product (abstract). Examiner is interpreting dehydration and evaporation as the same since both result in the reduction of water. Furthermore, Examiner is interpreting the ethanol as a residue. Since Datta teaches said ethanol at a concentration of at least 99%, Examiner is interpreting said teaching to be the same as a moisture content of 90% of less of water.
With respect to claim 3, Datta teaches a device wherein the vapor from the evaporation section is produced at 177°C (column 12, line 50).
With respect to claim 5, Datta teaches at higher ethanol concentration, the distillation column operating under vacuum, will normally provide at least 10 stages of separation (column 8, lines 8-10).
With respect to claims 6-7, Datta teaches a device wherein microorganisms such as Clostridium species are able to grow on and convert syngas into ethanol (column 5, lines 21-53).
With respect to claim 8, Datta teaches a device such as a bioreactor with the ability to produce ethanol (column 5, lines 21-22).
With respect to claim 9, Datta teaches a device that generates ethanol from natural gas, reformed gas, peat, petroleum coke, coal, solid waste and land fill gas (column 2, lines 2-3). Examiner is interpreting natural gas, reformed gas, peat, petroleum coke, coal, solid waste and land fill gas as combustible waste as it can be incinerated.
With respect to claim 12, Datta teaches a gas treatment system wherein lignocellulosic biomass generates syngas (also known as synthesis gas, primarily a mix of CO. H. and CO with other components such as CH, N. NHHS and other trace gases) and then fermented utilizing anaerobic microorganisms to produce biofuels such as ethanol, n-butanol or chemicals such as acetic acid, butyric acid (column 1, lines 55-61). Specifically, a bioreactor with a membrane delivers the feed gas containing CO, H, and CO to a feed gas distribution chamber.
With respect to claim 13, Datta teaches a gas treatment system wherein, in accordance with the separation section, ethanol effluent flows through a purifier while the remaining ethanol effluent enters a recirculation loop for its return to the bioreactor (column 12, lines 37-42).
With respect to claim 14, Datta teaches microorganisms are retained in the purification zone via filtration or ultra-filtration (column 7, lines 54-55). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the filter within the purification zone would necessarily have a pore diameter in accordance with a size of the microorganism cells as to inhibit passage of the microorganism cells into the second liquid-phase stream as Datta teaches microorganisms are retained within the purification zone (column 7, lines 54-56).
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Beginning on p. 8 of Applicants’ remarks, Applicants in summary contends that Datta does not disclose a filter that discharges two liquid-phase streams (first and second liquid-phase streams) directly from the filter in liquid phase.
The arguments are not persuasive. Examiner contends that the recitation of ‘each of the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase’ is new matter as there is no prior recitation of the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase within the instant application claims and specification. Nonetheless, Examiner contends that Datta teaches the discharge of the second liquid phase stream directly from the purification zone which contains the filters for ultrafiltration (fig. 1 #40).
Applicant contends that Datta discloses that the purification zone 40 is an optional stage that at most supplies a single stream - not two liquid-phase streams differing in microorganism content - to the distillation column. Applicant contends that nothing in this passage of Datta discloses the purification zone/filter itself discharging two distinct liquid-phase streams, still less two streams both discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase, as recited in Claim 1.
The arguments are not persuasive. Examiner contends that the teaching of the purification zone being optional by Datta does not necessitate the withdrawal of the rejection as Datta still anticipates a purification zone for the bioconversion of CO and H2/CO2 to acetic acid, ethanol and other well-known products (column 5, lines 20-22). Examiner contends that the purification zone (fig.1 #40) filters the culture via filtration or ultrafiltration (column 7, lines 50-56), which is known by those of ordinary skill in the art to be a semi-permeable membrane to function. Examiner contends that the liquid filtered through the purification zone would necessarily be comprised of two distinct liquid-phase output streams, each of the first liquid-phase stream and the second liquid-phase stream being discharged directly from the filter in liquid phase. Especially since Applicant simply defines the first liquid phase being comprised of more organic and solid substance (on the filter) that the second liquid phase (the filtrate). Again, Examiner contends that the first liquid-phase stream would necessarily be comprised of the organic substance and solid substance as it is retained by the filter and that is the role of a filter to retain solid substances larger than the pore size of the membrane. While the second liquid phase would necessarily contain less solid substances than the solid substances of the first liquid phase as it would be comprised of material that is obtained after filtration.
Applicant contends that Datta does not disclose a liquid inlet to the distillation column corresponding to the claimed structure.
The argument is not persuasive. Examiner contends that Datta teaches a distillation column (fig. 1 #38), wherein the third liquid inlet (fig. 1 #42) is connected to the third liquid outlet (fig. 1 #46) of the separation section via a third liquid inlet (fig. 1 #42) that supplies the second liquid-phase stream. Datta further teaches a vapor inlet (fig. 1 #42) supplies the vapor which is connected to the first gas outlet (fig. 1 #64) of the evaporation section via a gas line (fig. 1 #64).
Applicant contends that Datta's disclosed 0.04 um pore size is not disclosed in the context of the claimed filter.
The argument is not persuasive. Examiner contends that the purification zone taught by Datta (fig.1 #40) filters the culture via filtration or ultrafiltration (column 7, lines 50-56). Examiner contends that it is known by those of ordinary skill in the art that ultrafiltration requires a semi-permeable membrane to function. Therefore, the purification zone taught by Datta would necessarily contain a filter with pore sizes ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 µm. Supporting the Examiner’s position is the evidentiary reference of Veolia that is cited to demonstrate that ultrafiltration is a hollow-fiber membrane with pore sizes ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 microns (page 1, para 3; page 2, para 1, 3).
Conclusion
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-16 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 4, 10-11 are cancelled.
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 ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656 (n.r.)
