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 .
Support for the amendments is within the instant application specification.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 3/2/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 1-9, 11-14 are pending
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/22/2024 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 9/22/2023 have been fully considered and are not deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
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, 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 is maintained. The rejection has been modified to add new claim 14.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 (claims 2-9, 11-14 dependent thereof) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term "substantially” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is broad or limited. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III A. Appropriate correction specifying the amount of solid substance (microorganisms) is suggested.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 5 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s in summary contend that the term ‘substantially’ is defined in the specification.
Applicant remarks are found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Applicant has not thoroughly defined the term ‘substantially’ in the instant application claims and specification. Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art could not substantiate the degree at which ‘substantially’ is applied to the invention. Furthermore, the support shown by the Applicant does not provide a “quantitative or measurable” definition for determining the amount of solid substance retained by the filter. The support shown lacks this essential requirement to conclude how one of skill in the art can come to a conclusion as to what is “substantially retained at the filter”. In addition, Examiner contends that para 0040 of the specification does not provide meaningful context to the terminology in which it would overcome the rejection as the term is not thoroughly defined. It is recommended that Applicant amend the claim to add limitations to the term ‘substantially.’
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 1-9, 11-14 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 claim 14 and to further elucidate the teachings within Datta.
As amended, claims 1-9, 11-14 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 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 separates the discharge fluid into a first liquid-phase stream and a second liquid-phase stream, the first liquid-phase stream comprises the organic substance and substantially all of a solid substance retained by the filter, the second liquid-phase stream comprises the organic substance and substantially none of the solid substance relative to the first liquid-phase stream, 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.
With respect to claim 1, 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). Examiner is interpreting ethanol and acetic acid as 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). 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). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that said liquid would necessarily 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. Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the first liquid-phase stream is the liquid within the purification zone as 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. Absent evidence otherwise, 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 #), 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. 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). Absent evidence otherwise, 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 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). Absent evidence otherwise, 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 third liquid inlet (fig. 1 #56), and a distillation column (fig. 1 #38), wherein the third liquid inlet (fig. 1 #56) is connected to the third liquid outlet (fig. 1 #58) of the separation section via a third liquid line (fig. 1 #56).
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 claims 4-5, Datta teaches before entering the distillation column the dilute ethanol stream may undergo purification in a purification zone (fig.1 #40) for the removal of biological materials and other dissolved matter (column 7, lines 50-53). The purification zone may use any suitable means such as filtration or ultra-filtration to recover these materials (column 7, lines 53-54). Additionally, Datta teaches a distillation column (fig 1. #38) that comprises a third liquid inlet (fig 1. #58) that supplies the second liquid and a vapor inlet (fig 1. #70) below the third liquid inlet. Given that Datta teaches a distillation column that supplies the second liquid and vapor inlet, absent evidence otherwise, it is the examiner’s position that Datta would necessarily teach ‘supplies the vapor as the liquid component vaporized in the evaporation section’ since said distillation column is connected to the first gas outlet of the evaporation section via a gas line (fig 1. #70). 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 grown 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 11, Datta teaches a device wherein the membrane pore size utilized for separation is 0.04 µm (column 10, lines 61).
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).
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Datta anticipate claims 1-9, 11-14.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 5 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s in summary contend that Claim 1 recites a size-based, liquid- solid filtration in which the microorganisms are physically retained in the sold substance separated by a filter and two distinct liquid-phase streams are produced that differ in a microorganism content. Applicant contends that Datta does not disclose such a structure or operation. Applicant contends that the specification of the present application makes clear that the filter has a pore diameter appropriately set in accordance with the size of the microorganism, such that the microorganism are retained and prevented from passing into the second liquid-phase stream (paragraphs [0040] and [0041] of the specification). Datta contains no disclosure of a filter whose pore diameter is selected based on microorganism size, nor any disclosure of retaining the microorganism by size exclusion to produce a cell-rich liquid and a cell-depleted liquid, as recited in Claim 1. Applicant contends that the rejection's reliance on Datta's optional "purification zone" that may use filtration or ultrafiltration does not remedy this deficiency. Applicant contends that Claim 1 also recites that the solid substance comprises the microorganism retained by the filter. Datta does not disclose any separation step in which the microorganism itself constitutes the retained solid substance in a filtration process. While microorganisms are present in Datta's bioreactor (cols. 2 and 6 of Datta), there is no teaching that they are separated from the broth by a size-based filtration with a filter having a certain pore size to produce a microorganism-rich liquid-phase stream (i.e., the first liquid-phase stream including substantially all the solid substance) and a microorganism-depleted liquid-phase stream (i.e., the second liquid-phase stream after the filtration).
Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive. Examiner contends that Datta explicitly teaches before entering the distillation column the dilute ethanol stream may undergo purification in a purification Zone #40 for the removal of biological materials and other dissolved matter (column 7, lines 50-54). The purification Zone may use any suitable means such as filtration or ultra-filtration to recover these materials (column 7, lines 54-56). The recitation ‘may’ does not negate the fact that Datta teaches the removal of biological materials via filtration. 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).
Applicant contends that Datta does not disclose or suggest such a filter as separating the discharge fluid from the bioreactor into two liquid-phase streams that differ in a microorganism content, nor does Datta describe retaining substantially all the microorganism in one stream while producing a second liquid-phase stream containing substantially none of the microorganism cells relative to that in the first liquid-phase stream.
Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive. Examiner contends that Datta teaches the purification zone (fig.1 #40) filters the culture via filtration or ultrafiltration (column 7, lines 50-56). 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). The depleted liquid is then recycled into the bioreactor via #74 and #76 of fig 1. Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the first liquid-phase stream is the liquid within the purification zone as 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.
Applicant contends that Datta does not disclose evaporating an organic-substance-containing liquid from a microorganism-rich liquid that has been produced by liquid-phase filtration. Instead, Datta handles vapor streams generated by flashing and stripping operations (see cols. 7-10 of Datta).
Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive. Examiner contends that Datta teaches the liquid vaporization of the first liquid-phase stream (fig. 1 #42). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that said liquid would necessarily be evaporation as the liquid-phase stream is changed from a liquid state into a gas or vapor through heating (fig. 1 #42, #44).
Conclusion
Status of claims
Claims 1-9, 11-14 are pending
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11-14 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
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