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 .
Priority
This application claims benefit of priority to Provisional Application 63/173,262 filed on 04/09/2021, Provisional Application 63/173,255 filed on 04/09/2021, Provisional Application 63/173,247 filed on 04/09/2021, Provisional Application 63/173,243 filed on 04/09/2021 and Provisional Application 63/282,546 filed on 11/23/2021.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 04/08/2022 are accepted by the Examiner.
Amendment and Claim Status
In the reply filed on 10/09/2025, Applicant canceled claims 7, 14 and 34, amended claims 1-6, 11-13 and 19-33 and added new claims 37-38. Claims 26-27 and 30 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-33 and 35-38 are currently pending.
Claims 26-27 and 30 are withdrawn from examination.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-25, 28-29, 31-33 and 35-38 are under examination.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 USC § 112(b) of previously examined claims 5-6, 11, 13, 19 and 32-33 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 35 USC § 102(a)(2) rejections of previously examined claims 11-12, 16-18, 23-25 and 28 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Maintained Rejection (with modification due to claim amendment)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 29, 31-33 and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 20170218404 A1, 08/03/2017) (IDS Reference of 11/06/2024) in view of Mihalcea et al. (WO 2019157507 A1, 08/15/2019) (IDS Reference of 07/05/2024).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, 29, 35 and 37-38, Simpson et al. disclose:
“An integrated process for the production of at least one product from a gaseous substrate comprising renewable hydrogen, the process comprising: i) receiving a first gaseous substrate comprising renewable hydrogen, and a second gaseous substrate comprising CO2; ii) passing a first portion of hydrogen and a first portion of CO2 to a reverse water gas shift reactor operated under conditions to produce an exit stream comprising CO; iii) blending a second portion of hydrogen, a second portion of CO2 and the exit stream comprising CO to provide a C1-containing substrate; iv) passing the C1-containing substrate to a bioreactor containing a culture of one or more C1 fixing bacterium; and v) fermenting the C1-containing substrate to produce at least one fermentation product” (Claim 17 of Simpson et al.).
Simpson et al. further disclose the fermentation products are recovered from the fermentation, reading on a fermentation product stream, broth via conduit and an exit gas comprising CO2 and unreacted CO, reading on a bioreactor tail gas stream, exits the bioreactor as an exit gas (Paragraph [0036]). The CO2 produced by the fermentation process can be recycled to the CO2 electrolyzer and converted to CO substrate for fermentation (Paragraph [0054]).
Simpson et al. do not disclose compressing the bioreactor tail gas stream or passing a portion of the compressed bioreactor tail gas stream to a gas component removal unit.
However, Mihalcea et al. disclose methods for improving carbon conversion efficiency whereby gas from an industrial process undergoes treatment and conversion and the carbon dioxide produced by the carbon monoxide consuming process is recycled to increase yield (Paragraph [0001]). Further, wherein the CO-consuming process is a fermentation process utilizing the culture of a carboxydotrophic microorganism (Paragraph [0026]). The process is a fermentation process for the production of ethanol (Paragraph [0028]). Mihalcea et al. further disclose:
“passing a CO2-comprising gaseous substrate from an industrial process to a first removal module for removal of at least one constituent from the CO2-comprising gaseous substrate to produce a first CO2-treated gas stream, passing the first CO2-treated gas stream to a CO2 electrolysis module for conversion of at least a portion of the first CO2-treated gas stream to produce a CO-enriched stream and a first O2-enriched stream, and passing at least a portion of the CO-enriched stream to a CO-consuming process” (Paragraph [0007]).
Further, the CO2-comprising gaseous substrate is first passed to a pressure module to pressurize the CO2-comprising gas stream before being passed to the removal module (Paragraph [0008]). The CO-consuming process may be a gas fermentation process in a bioreactor comprising a culture of at least one C1-fixing microorganism where the culture is fermented to produce one or more fermentation products and a post-fermentation gaseous substrate (Paragraph [0096]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C). As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have compressed the bioreactor tail gas and passed the compressed gas to a gas component removal unit in the method of Simpson et al. motivated by the desire to improve carbon conversion efficiency as taught by Mihalcea et al. as it amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way.
Regarding the amendments to instant claims 1 and 29 whereby the limitations of previously pending claims 7 and 34 have been introduced, Simpson et al. disclose a fermentation substrate comprising H2:CO:CO2 ratio of 10:3.5:1 (Paragraph [0113]). The fermentation substrate reads on the CO enriched stream as it was disclosed the CO stream is what is passed to the CO-consuming process, which is fermentation.
Simpson et al. do not disclose an exact molar ratio from those listed in claim 7.
Generally, differences in concentration, including ratio as ratio is a comparison of concentrations, or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). See also, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine all operable and optimal concentrations/ratios, of the claimed components within the CO enriched exit stream because the claimed components are an art-recognized result-effective variable having fermentation ability as disclosed by the prior art above. Therefore, the claimed components would have been routinely and predictably optimized in the fermentation art. Although the prior art does not teach the claimed ratios, since the claimed components are known to have an effect on fermentation as discussed by the prior art above, it would have been conventional and within the skill level of an ordinary artisan to identify and modify the percentages and amounts of the claimed components to optimize production of the fermentation product.
Regarding claims 4 and 31, Simpson et al. do not disclose compressing a portion of the first or second gaseous stream.
However, as discussed above regarding claim 1, Mihalcea et al. disclose the CO2 gaseous substrate from the industrial process is passed to a pressure module to produce a pressurized CO2 comprising gas stream (Paragraph [0008]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C). As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have compressed CO2 stream, reading on a second gaseous stream, in the method of Simpson et al. motivated by the desire to improve carbon conversion efficiency as taught by Mihalcea et al. as it amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way.
Regarding claims 5 and 32, Simpson et al. do not disclose controlling a compressed tail gas with a control value. As it is unclear when this step occurs, see 112b above, any use of a control valve reads on this limitation.
Mihalcea et al. disclose using a valve to control to create the optimum pressure of the gas (Paragraph [0062]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C). As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a valve to control the gas in the method of Simpson et al. motivated by the desire to create the optimum pressure of the gas as taught by Mihalcea et al. as it amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way.
Regarding claims 6 and 33, Simpson et al. disclose:
…where a substantial amount of carbon is being diverted to CO2, it is desirable to pass the CO2 either back to the industrial process or alternatively to send the CO2 to a reverse water gas shift reactor. In accordance with the present invention, when a CO2 electrolyzer is present, the CO2 tail gas can be recycled to the electrolyzer for reduction to CO and O2…“ (Paragraph [0094]).
While Simpson et al. do not explicitly disclose recycling to the bioreactor, it would be expected that is where the CO would be recycled to as it was previously disclosed the CO was blended into a C1-containing substrate and the C1-containing substrate was passed to the bioreactor.
Regarding claims 9 and 36, Simpson et al. disclose the fermentation product is selected from a group including ethanol (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 10, Simpson et al. disclose the microorganism is selected from Clostridium autoethanogenum, Clostridium ljungdahlii and Clostridium ragsdalei (Paragraph [0076]).
Claims 11-13, 15-20, 23-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable over Mihalcea et al. (WO 2019157507 A1, 08/15/2019) (IDS Reference of 07/05/2024) in view of Simpson et al. (US 20170218404 A1, 08/03/2017) (IDS Reference of 11/06/2024).
Regarding claims 11 and 28, Mihalcea et al. disclose a process for improving carbon conversion efficiency, which entails:
“passing a CO2-comprising gaseous substrate from an industrial process to a first removal module for removal of at least one constituent from the CO2-comprising gaseous substrate to produce a first CO2-treated gas stream, passing the first CO2-treated gas stream to a CO2 electrolysis module for conversion of at least a portion of the first CO2-treated gas stream to produce a CO-enriched stream and a first O2-enriched stream, and passing at least a portion of the CO-enriched stream to a CO-consuming process” (Paragraph [0007]).
Additionally, the CO2-comprising gaseous substrate from the industrial process further comprises H2 (Paragraph [0021]). Further, the CO2-comprising gaseous substrate is first passed to a pressure module to pressurize the CO2-comprising gas stream before being passed to the removal module (Paragraph [0008]). The CO-consuming process may be a gas fermentation process in a bioreactor comprising a culture of at least one C1-fixing microorganism where the culture is fermented to produce one or more fermentation products and a post-fermentation gaseous substrate (Paragraph [0096]). The post-CO-consuming process gaseous substrate is passed via conduit to the same removal module that receives CO2-comprising gas from the industrial process (Paragraph [0097]).
Regarding the amendment to instant claim 11 whereby the limitations of previously pending claim 14 have been introduced, Mihalcea et al. do not disclose wherein the CO enriched exit stream comprises hydrogen and CO2 in a specific ratio.
However, Mihalcea et al. do disclose the substrate composition can be improved to provide a desired or optimum ratio of H2:CO:CO2, wherein the desired ratio is dependent upon the desired fermentation product (Paragraph [0068]).
Generally, differences in concentration, including ratio as ratio is a comparison of concentrations, or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). See also, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine all operable and optimal concentrations, ratios, of the claimed component (i.e., CO enriched exit stream) because the claimed component is an art-recognized result-effective variable having fermentation ability as disclosed by the prior art above. Therefore, the claimed component would have been routinely and predictably optimized in the fermentation art. Although the prior art does not teach the amount claimed, since the claimed component is known to have an effect on fermentation as discussed by the prior art above, it would have been conventional and within the skill level of an ordinary artisan to identify and modify the percentages and amounts of the claimed component motivated by the desire to promote the creation of the desired fermentation product.
Regarding claim 12, Mihalcea et al. disclose passing a portion of the CO2-comprising gaseous substrate to a concentration module to produce a CO2-concentrated stream and a CO2-lean stream (Paragraph [0011]). Further, passing the CO2-lean stream comprising CO and/or H2 to the CO-consuming process (Paragraph [0013]). As discussed above, the CO-consuming process is gas fermentation. Thus, passing the CO2-lean stream to the CO-consuming process and passing the CO-enriched stream to the CO-consuming process would effectively combine the two streams in the bioreactor.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Mihalcea et al. do not disclose the CO2 to CO conversion system is a reverse water gas shift unit or explicitly state the generated CO effluent is recycled to the bioreactor.
However, Simpson et al. disclose a process for utilizing CO2 and H2 to improve efficiency of a fermentation process (Abstract). Simpson et al. further disclose the use of a reverse water-gas shift process (RWGS) to produce CO from CO2 and H2 (Paragraph [0062]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C). As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the reverse water gas shift process in the method of Mihalcea et al. motivated by the desire to effectively convert CO2 to CO as taught by Simpson et al. as it amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way.
Additionally, it would be expected that is where the CO would be recycled to as it was previously disclosed the CO is passed to a CO-consuming process, wherein that CO-consuming process is gas fermentation in a bioreactor. Thus, this disclosure meets the limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Mihalcea et al. disclose the first removal module is selected from a hydrolysis module, an acid gas removal module, a deoxygenation module, a catalytic hydrogenation module, a particulate removal module, a chloride removal module, a tar removal module and a hydrogen cyanide polishing module (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 17, Mihalcea et al. disclose the fermentation product is ethanol (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 18, Mihalcea et al. disclose a water substrate is fed via a conduit to an H2 electrolysis module for a conversion of the water substrate and an H2-enriched stream is passed to the CO-consuming process via conduit (Paragraph [0113)].
Regarding claim 19, Mihalcea et al. disclose gas is fed to the CO2 electrolysis module for conversion and is then passed to the CO-consuming process, in some instances the has contains CO and/or H2 (Paragraph [0108]). Further, a pressure swing adsorption technology is used to remove H2 from a gas stream (Paragraph [0054]). Additionally, H2 can be blended with a C1-comprising gaseous substrate to supply additional feedstock and improve substrate composition (Paragraph [0057]).
Mihalcea et al. do not explicitly disclose recycling the separated hydrogen to combine with the tail gas.
However, it would have been expected the hydrogen would be combined with the tail gas to be recycled back into the process as the entire process is drawn to recycling and improving efficiency and it is known the tail gas would comprise CO2 and the addition of H2 would provide the reactants needed to undergo CO2 electrolysis and resupply CO for the CO-consuming process.
Regarding claim 20, Mihalcea et al. do not explicitly disclose compressing the remainder of the CO enriched exit steam after removing the hydrogen.
However, as discussed above, Mihalcea et al. do disclose the CO-enriched stream is passed to a pressure module to pressurize it before it is passed to the CO-consuming process, and it would be expected that the CO enriched steam after removing the hydrogen would be pressurized in the same way.
Regarding claim 23, Mihalcea et al. disclose the process further comprises passing a water substrate to an H2 electrolysis module to produce an H2-enriched stream and passing the stream to the CO-consuming process (Claim 9).
Regarding claim 24, as discussed above, Mihalcea et al. disclose passing the H2-enriched steam to the CO-consuming process and passing the CO-enriched exit stream to the bioreactor. As a mixer is not defined, a mixer can be anything that mixes, including a bioreactor. Thus, both the H2-enriched stream and the CO-enriched exit stream being in the bioreactor together reads on this limitation.
Regarding claim 25, Mihalcea et al. disclose the H2:CO molar ratio of the CO enriched exit stream may be greater than 3:1 (Paragraph [0041]).
Claims 11-13, 15-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihalcea et al. (WO 2019157507 A1, 08/15/2019) (IDS Reference of 07/05/2024) in view of Simpson et al. (US 20170218404 A1, 08/03/2017) (IDS Reference of 11/06/2024) and further in view of in view of Schultz et al. (US 20130210096 A1, 08/15/2013) (IDS Reference of 07/05/2024).
The teachings of Mihalcea et al. and Simpson et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 21, Mihalcea et al. does not disclose the tail gas comprising methane, passing the tail gas to a methane conversion unit and then combining the effluent with the tail gas stream.
However, Schultz et al. disclose a method for producing hydrocarbons comprising providing CO to a bioreactor containing a culture of microorganisms and fermenting the culture to produce a hydrocarbon (Abstract). Schultz et al. further disclose a large number of microorganisms metabolize CO to various end products like CO2, H2, methane, n-butanol, acetate and ethanol (Paragraph [0007]). Additionally, a step of steam reforming, reading on a methane conversion, which converts CH4 + H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] CO + 3H2 (Paragraph [0040]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C). As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the steam reforming process in the method of Mihalcea et al. as it would be expected that the bioreactor tail gas would contain methane motivated by the desire to effectively convert CH4 + H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] CO + 3H2 as taught by Schultz et al. as it amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. One would want to convert CH4 + H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] CO + 3H2 and combine the effluent with the bioreactor tail gas to further the recycling process and provide additional feedstock to the CO-consuming process, fermentation.
Regarding claim 22, Mihalcea et al. does not disclose generating an oxygen stream to pass to the methane conversion unit.
However, Schultz et al. disclose the amount of CO produced during combustion can be adjusted by the amount of O2 added. If O2 is increased, more CO2 will be produced, but if less O2 is added, more CO will be produced (Paragraph [0214]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C). As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have generated an oxygen stream to pass to the methane conversion unit in the method of Mihalcea et al. motivated by the desire to produce the desired end product, either CO or CO2, as taught by Schultz et al. as it amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way.
USC § 103 – Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued the claimed molar ratios are not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and are not arrived at through routine experimentation that is conventional and within the skill level of an ordinary artisan. Applicant contends the claims ranges require integration and consideration of both the bioreactor and the CO2 to CO conversion system and arriving at the claimed ratios across an integrated process where a great number of variables across two different processing units must be taken into consideration. Applicant makes this same argument regarding the claimed molar ratios not being routine experimentation in regard to all independent claims, including claims 1, 11 and 29 (Pages 13-16).
It is still the Examiner’s position, as discussed above, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine all operable and optimal concentrations/ratios, of the claimed components within the CO enriched exit stream because the claimed components are art-recognized result-effective variables having fermentation ability. One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that multiple systems, including the bioreactor, the CO2 to CO conversion system and the like, would be involved in such a process. The prior art discussed above specifically discloses the substrate composition can be improved to provide a desired or optimum ratio of H2:CO:CO2, wherein the desired ratio is dependent upon the desired fermentation product. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware the substrate composition can be fine tuned to be specific for the desired fermentation product and would, through routine experimentation, be able to arrive at the claimed ratios motivated by the desire to provide the optimal substrate composition for the desired fermentation product. Thus, the Examiner maintains the claimed ratios would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and would readily be arrived at through routine experimentation that is conventional and within the skill level of an ordinary artisan.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-25, 28, 31-33 and 35-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. US 10808263 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to a process for producing one or more fermentation products comprising a similar process to the instant claims. Claim 1 of ‘263 recites:
“1. A process for producing one or more fermentation products, the process comprising;
a. providing a CO-rich C1-containing gaseous substrate to an inoculation reactor comprising a liquid nutrient medium containing a culture of one or more C1-fixing microorganism;
b. fermenting the CO-rich C1-containing gaseous substrate to produce an inoculum;
c. passing at least a portion of the inoculum to a bioreactor system, the bioreactor system comprising at least one bioreactor containing a culture of one or more C1-fixing microorganism in a liquid nutrient medium;
d. passing an H2 rich C1-containing gaseous substrate to the bioreactor system; and
e. fermenting the H2 rich C1-containing gaseous substrate to produce at least one fermentation product.”
Thus, the teachings read on and make obvious the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-25, 28, 31-33 and 35-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11466295 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to a process for producing one or more fermentation products comprising a similar process to the instant claims. Claim 1 of ‘295 recites:
“1. A process comprising:
a. producing a syngas comprising CO and H2;
b. passing the syngas to a hydrogen separation process to produce a CO-rich gaseous substrate and an H2 rich gaseous substrate;
c. passing the CO-rich gaseous substrate to an inoculation reactor comprising a culture of at least one C1-fixing microorganism in a liquid nutrient medium;
d. fermenting the CO-rich gaseous substrate to produce an inoculum;
e. passing at least a portion of the inoculum to a bioreactor system, the bioreactor system comprising at least one bioreactor containing a culture of the at least one C1-fixing microorganism of step (c) in a liquid nutrient medium;
f. passing the H2 rich gaseous substrate to the at least one bioreactor of step (e); and
g. fermenting the H2 rich gaseous substrate to produce at least one fermentation product.”
Thus, the teachings read on and make obvious the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-25, 28, 31-33 and 35-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12269005 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to a process for producing one or more fermentation products comprising a similar process to the instant claims. Claim 1 of ‘005 recites:
“1. A process for providing a feedstock, comprising:
a) providing a stream comprising methane to a methane reforming process to produce a first gaseous stream comprising H2, CO, and CO2;
b) passing the first gaseous stream to a water gas shift (WGS) process to produce a second gaseous stream comprising a reduced amount of CO and an increased amount of H2 and CO2;
c) passing the first second gaseous stream to a hydrogen separation zone to produce a hydrogen enriched stream and a third gaseous stream comprising CO, CO2 and a reduced amount of H2;
d) passing the third gaseous stream to a reverse water gas shift process to produce a fourth gaseous stream having an increased amount of CO such that the H2 and CO are present in the fourth gaseous stream at a H2:CO molar ratio of 4:1 or less; and
e) passing the third fourth gaseous stream to a gas fermentation unit.”
Thus, the teachings read on and make obvious the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-25, 28, 31-33 and 35-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21 of copending Application No. 17/658,609 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to a process for producing one or more fermentation products comprising a similar process to the instant claims. Claim 1 of ‘609 recites:
1. A method for continuously controlling a ratio of input gases provided to a bioreactor of a continuous gas fermentation process comprising:
a. providing a gas fermentation process comprising
i. a first gaseous stream comprising H2 from a H2 source;
ii. a second gaseous stream comprising CO2 from an industrial or syngas process;
iii. a CO2 to CO conversion zone in fluid communication with the second gaseous stream and optionally the first gaseous stream, and having a CO enriched effluent comprising CO and CO2;
iv. at least one bioreactor having at least one C-1 fixing bacterium for gas fermentation in a nutrient solution, the bioreactor having an product stream comprising at least one product, an outlet gas stream comprising H2, CO2, and inert components, a headspace comprising H2, CO2, and inert components, or both, the bioreactor in fluid communication with the CO enriched effluent, optionally the first gaseous stream, optionally the second gaseous stream, or any combination thereof.”
Thus, the teachings read on and make obvious the claimed invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Additionally, it appears that the claims of co-pending Applications 17/658,566, 17/658,594, 17/658,575 and 19/084986 either ‘anticipate’ or ‘render obvious’ at least instant claim 1.
Double Patenting – Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s statement regarding common ownership of the current application and the cited references above and Applicant’s offer of submitting a statutory disclaimer upon resolution of all other rejections. All of the previously made rejections are maintained. Therefore, the double patenting rejections remain as well.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-25, 28-29, 31-33 and 35-38 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
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 ASHLEY T WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-0683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/A.T.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653