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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Manner of Making Amendments to Patent Applications
The status identifier for claim 14 should be “(Currently Amended)” and not “(Previously Presented)”. See 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c) and MPEP 714(II)(C)(A). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objection is withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 10, the Examiner believes that the term “electrochemical CO2 reduction unit” means that a process other than a microbiological electrochemical reaction is being used. Otherwise, Tran would still read on this term under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because of Tran’s paragraph [0007].
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner believes that the term “variance” means the difference between two values in this context, but it may also refer to the statistical concept of calculating variance, which is based on the concept of a standard deviation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 recites:
“The system according to claim 10, further comprising a computer implemented system for a fermentation simulation tool for simulating a fermentation method, said computer implemented system comprising at least one processor, a user interface, a control system interface configured to adjust one or more process parameters of the fermentation method, a memory comprising computer readable medium storing instructions for simulating the fermentation method, wherein the instructions for simulating the fermentation method configure the processor for:
(vi) selecting at least one process parameter of the fermentation method, for which current measured values are determined during the course of the fermentation method;
(vii) comparing a respective current measured value of the at least one selected process parameter of the fermentation method with a corresponding estimated value of a model parameter estimated by a process model for the at least one process parameter,
(viii) comparing a variance between the respective current measured value and the corresponding estimated value for the at least one selected process parameter with a predetermined threshold value; and
(ix) changing the at least one defined model parameter employed in the process model when the predetermined threshold value is exceeded by the variance: wherein (vii) to (ix) with a respective changed model parameter are executed until the variance is placed below the predetermined threshold value.”
Claim 15 recites:
“wherein in cases that, after a predetermined number of repetitions of steps (vii) to (ix), the predetermined threshold value is met by the variance, the fermentation method is discontinued and a warning is generated as an output on the user interface.”
The above limitations are an abstract idea without significantly more as the structure of the claim limitation recites only components of a computer and a limitation of the mind:
a computer implemented system
at least one processor
a user interface
a control system interface
a memory comprising computer readable medium
That is, except for the computer components, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim 10 and dependent claims 14-15 only recite the additional elements of those in the system of the parent claim, independent claim 10 such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the system of parent claim 10 are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when expressed at this level of generality, as evidenced by Tran (US 20130065282) (previously cited) (for the preamble of dependent claims 14-15) or modified Tran (for the body of dependent claims 14-15). The claims are not patent eligible.
The limitations as explained above, are not patent eligible. This is for the following reasons, as listed from claim 14, limitation-by-limitation with an explanation for rejection for each limitation:
The system according to claim 10 – The invention contains a system that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by Tran.
further comprising a computer implemented system – The invention is a generic computer component.
for a fermentation simulation tool for simulating a fermentation method – The invention is a mathematical concept.
said computer implemented system comprising at least one processor, a user interface, a control system interface configured to adjust one or more process parameters of the fermentation method, a memory comprising computer readable medium storing instructions – The invention contains generic computer components.
instructions for simulating the fermentation method – The invention contains mere instructions, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
wherein the instructions for simulating the fermentation method configure – The invention contains mere instructions, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
the processor – The invention contains a generic computer component.
for: (vi) selecting at least one process parameter of the fermentation method, for which current measured values are determined during a course of the fermentation method – This is a mental step as well as mere data gathering.
(vii) comparing a respective current measured value of the at least one selected process parameter of the fermentation method with a corresponding estimated value of a model parameter estimated by a process model for the at least one process parameter – The invention contains a mental step that contains mathematical and computational concepts.
(viii) comparing a variance between the respective current measured value and the corresponding estimated value for the at least one selected process parameter with a predetermined threshold value; and – The invention contains a mental step that has mathematical and computational concepts.
(ix) changing the at least one defined model parameter employed in the process model when the predetermined threshold value is exceeded by the variance: wherein (vii) to (ix) with a respective changed model parameter are executed until the variance is placed below the predetermined threshold value. – The invention contains a mental step that has mathematical and computational concepts.
The limitations as explained above, are not patent eligible. This is for the following reasons, as listed from claim 15, limitation-by-limitation with an explanation for rejection for each limitation:
The system according to claim 14 – The invention contains a system that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by modified Tran.
wherein in cases that, after a predetermined number of repetitions of steps (vii) to (ix) – The invention contains mere instructions, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
the predetermined threshold value is met by the variance, – The invention contains a mental step that has mathematical and computational concepts.
the fermentation method is discontinued and a warning is generated as an output – The invention contains mere instructions, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
on the user interface. – The invention contains a generic computer component.
Relevant topics in the MPEP include multiple sections under § 2106.05.
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 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.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20130065282) (previously cited) in view of Sivasankar (US 20120228147) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Tran discloses a system for cultivating a microorganism (abstract) capable of utilizing an organic feedstock (paragraphs [0020]-[0021] and [0039]) said system comprising one or more bioreactors for cultivating said microorganism (paragraphs [0020]-[0021] and [0039]), a CO2 capturing unit for capturing CO2 from the one or more bioreactors (paragraph [0041] “at least a portion of the stream exiting the secondary bioreactor is recycled to a primary reactor”), a CO2 reduction unit for reducing the CO2 to an organic feedstock (paragraphs [0018]-[0019]), and one or more conduits to introduce the organic feedstock into the one or more bioreactors (paragraph [0020]).
Tran does not disclose an electrochemical CO2 reduction unit, as interpreted by the Examiner above.
Regarding the limitation “an electrochemical CO2 reduction unit”, Sivasankar discloses this limitation (abstract and paragraph [0006]).
In the analogous art of system and processes for reducing carbon dioxide into formic acid and/or industrial chemicals (acid), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tran with the electrochemical CO2 reduction unit of Sivasankar in order to convert carbon dioxide emissions into fuels and industrial chemicals (Sivasankar, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, Tran discloses an electrolysis unit for electrolysis of water (paragraph [0084]) and a conduit to introduce H2 (Fig. 1, element 103) from the electrolysis unit (paragraph [0084]) to the CO2 reduction unit (paragraph [0019]).
Tran does not disclose the electrochemical CO2 reduction unit, as interpreted by the Examiner above.
Regarding the limitation “the electrochemical CO2 reduction unit”, Sivasankar discloses this limitation (abstract and paragraph [0006]).
In the analogous art of system and processes for reducing carbon dioxide into formic acid and/or industrial chemicals (acid), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tran with the electrochemical CO2 reduction unit of Sivasankar in order to convert carbon dioxide emissions into fuels and industrial chemicals (Sivasankar, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Tran discloses one or more conduits for introducing H2 (Fig. 1, element 103) into the one or more bioreactors (paragraphs [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding the limitation “and/or O2”, the limitation is claimed in the alternative. No further rejection is necessary at this time.
Regarding claim 13, Tran discloses one or more inlets for introducing substrate (paragraph [0125] and Fig. 1, elements 102 and 103) into the one or more bioreactors (paragraph [0125]-[0126]) and one or more outlets (paragraphs [0125] and [0127]) for product formed (paragraph [0127] “remove the biomass for lipid extraction”) in the one or more bioreactors (paragraph [0125]-[0126]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20130065282) (previously cited) and Sivasankar (US 20120228147) (previously cited) as applied to claim 10, in view of Bluck (US 20120310413) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Tran does not disclose: a computer implemented system for a fermentation simulation tool for simulating a fermentation method, said computer implemented system comprising at least one processor, a user interface, a control system interface configured to adjust one or more process parameters of the fermentation method, a memory comprising computer readable medium storing instructions for simulating the fermentation method, wherein the instructions for simulating the fermentation method configure the processor for:
(vi) selecting at least one process parameter of the fermentation method, for which current measured values are determined during a course of the fermentation method;
(vii) comparing a respective current measured value of the at least one selected process parameter of the fermentation method with a corresponding estimated value of a model parameter estimated by a process model for the at least one process parameter,
(viii) comparing a variance between the respective current measured value and the corresponding estimated value for the at least one selected process parameter with a predetermined threshold value; and
(ix) changing the at least one defined model parameter employed in the process model when the predetermined threshold value is exceeded by the variance: wherein (vii) to (ix) with a respective changed model parameter are executed until the variance is placed below the predetermined threshold value.
Bluck discloses:
a computer implemented system (paragraph [0007]) for a fermentation simulation tool (paragraph [0007]) for simulating a fermentation method (paragraph [0007]), said computer implemented system comprising at least one processor (paragraph [0007], a user interface (paragraph [0007]), a control system interface (paragraph [0006]) configured to adjust one or more process parameters of the fermentation method (paragraph [0006]), a memory (paragraph [0007]) comprising computer readable medium (paragraph [0007]) storing instructions (paragraph [0007] “simulation tool”) for simulating the fermentation method (paragraph [0007]), wherein the instructions for simulating the fermentation method (paragraph [0007]) configure the processor for (paragraph [0007]):
(vi) selecting at least one process parameter of the fermentation method (paragraph [0018] “operating parameter”), for which current measured values are determined during the course of the fermentation method (paragraph [0038] “periodic intervals”);
(vii) comparing a respective current measured value (paragraph [0038]) of the at least one selected process parameter of the fermentation method (paragraph [0018]) with a corresponding estimated value of a model parameter estimated by a process model (paragraph [0038]) for the at least one process parameter (paragraph [0038]),
(viii) comparing a variance between the respective current measured value and the corresponding estimated value for the at least one selected process parameter with a predetermined threshold value (paragraph [0038] “compared to the concentrations and/or values predicted by the first principles model. Any discrepancies may be accounted for” and paragraph [0043]); and
(ix) changing the at least one defined model parameter employed in the process model when the predetermined threshold value is exceeded by the variance (paragraph [0038] “by adjusting the equations and/or rate constants used in the equations … tuning the model through the use of feedback” and paragraph [0047]): wherein (vii) to (ix) with a respective changed model parameter are executed until the variance is placed below a predetermined threshold value (paragraphs [0006], [0038], and [0054] “feedback, which may be provided on a periodic basis and/or aperiodic basis, may allow for improved accuracy of the model” and paragraph [0047] “tuning” the parameters over time for a more accurate model).
In the analogous art of simulated fermentation processes, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bioreactor system of modified Tran with the simulated fermentation process of Bluck in order to increase quality control for the sake of decreasing the variability in product output between each fermentation run (Bluck, paragraph [0004]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20130065282) (previously cited) in view of Sivasankar (US 20120228147) (previously cited) and Bluck (US 20120310413) (previously cited) as applied to claim 14, further in view of Joksch (US 20180082011) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Tran does not disclose wherein in cases that, after a predetermined number of repetitions of (vii) to (ix), the predetermined threshold value is met by the variance, the fermentation method is discontinued and a warning is generated as output on the user interface.
Joksch discloses wherein in cases that, after a predetermined number of repetitions of (vii) to (ix), the predetermined threshold value is met by the variance, the fermentation method is discontinued and a warning is generated as output on the user interface (abstract and paragraph [0015]).
In the analogous art of monitoring bioprocesses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Tran with the monitoring of bioprocesses of Joksch in order to provide a method for monitoring bioprocesses, in which a prediction quality of a process model employed to predict a bioprocess can be easily evaluated and increased and detected variances between the process model and the course of the bioprocess can be evaluated accordingly in terms of quality (Joksch, paragraph [0009]).
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Atiyeh (US 20200157580) (newly cited) – This invention is a system and method of biocatalytic conversion for the production of alcohols, ketones, and organic acids.
Hickey (US 20150132810) (newly cited) – This invention is an integrated process of anaerobically bioconverting hydrogen and carbon oxides from syngas to oxygenated organic compounds.
Simpson (US 20100105115) (newly cited) – This invention is a two-reactor alcohol production process.
Benkwitz (US 20150337343) (newly cited) – This invention has an embodiment with two fermenters.
Walther (US 20100330633) (newly cited) – This invention is an integrated system and process for bioproduct production.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections over claims 14-15, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons described above. Regarding the parent claim 10, these limitations are considered well-known and conventional in the prior art, and therefore do not constitute “significantly more” to overcome the rejection. Regarding the body of the claims, these limitations are abstract ideas that are directed to generic computer components. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Applicant arguments, pgs. 8 and 9 of 13, a circular (similar to a recycle stream) system is allegedly claimed. Tran also has a recycle loop that provides at least a portion of the stream exiting the secondary bioreactor to a primary bioreactor (paragraph [0041]). Because a portion of the carbon dioxide reagent and other nutrient components that were unused are present in secondary bioreactor’s exit stream (paragraph [0074]), the exit stream would feed back carbon dioxide to the primary reactor to some degree, reducing the cost of nutrient feed. Additionally, carbon dioxide can be either in gaseous form or in dissolved form in an aqueous solution, so a fluid exit stream would support carbon dioxide being recycled back to the primary reactor (paragraph [0105]).
Regarding the Applicant arguments on pg. 9 of 13 about the electrochemical reduction unit, it is clear that Tran’s microbes can capture carbon dioxide from either the ambient gases or from aqueous solutions and ferment the carbon dioxide into various products (paragraph [0072]). Although this action is microbial, it does not preclude the modification of Tran with an additional electrochemical CO2 reduction unit from Sivasankar.
Regarding the Applicant arguments on pg. 10 of 13 about the electrochemical reduction unit of Sivasankar, the system of Sivasankar can produce formic acid from carbon dioxide and water (paragraph [0022]). This fulfills the limitation of “an electrochemical CO2 reduction unit for reducing the CO2 to an organic feedstock” of claim 10. Motivation for this combination is already given:
In the analogous art of system and processes for reducing carbon dioxide into formic acid and/or industrial chemicals (acid), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tran with the electrochemical CO2 reduction unit of Sivasankar in order to convert carbon dioxide emissions into fuels and industrial chemicals (Sivasankar, paragraph [0005]).
-- Office Action, rejection to claim 10
Also, if further motivation is deemed necessary, Sivasankar shows that their electrochemical CO2 reduction unit can be used for the mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions and conversion of renewable energy into a chemical form that can be stored for later use (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Applicant arguments, pg. 10 of 13, the recited claim 10 is not the claim 10 claimed in the claim set from 09/30/2025. Arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current claim 10 (for instance, sugar is not claimed).
Regarding Applicant arguments, pg. 10 of 13, the use of the term “electrochemical CO2 reduction unit” is fulfilled by Sivasankar’s invention. The electrochemical CO2 reduction unit could work side-by-side or in addition to the microbial bioreactor present in Tran. Both the bioreactor and the electrochemical CO2 reduction unit would be fed CO2 and would produce products; Sivasankar’s invention would produce formic acid (Sivasankar, paragraph [0022]), and Tran’s microbes would produce acetate (Tran, paragraph [0072]) as organic feedstocks. Modified Tran would then pass these products onto the secondary bioreactor for further processing by yeast (Tran, paragraph [0020]). Additionally, the remaining CO2 from the secondary bioreactor would be fed back into the primary bioreactor as a recycle loop, as mentioned above.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807, and whose fax number is 571-273-8464. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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 Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799