CTNF 17/774,463 CTNF 78285 DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE Status of the Application 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The examiner of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to David Steadman whose contact information is listed below. Claims 21-28, 30-32, and 34-40 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed June 16, 2025, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims. Applicant’s remarks filed June 16, 2025 in response to the non-final rejection filed March 14, 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 29 and 33 are canceled by applicant’s amendment filed June 16, 2025 and objections and rejections previously applied to these claims are withdrawn. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Restriction/Election In response to a requirement for restriction/election filed October 1, 2024, applicant elected with traverse the invention of Group I, pending claims 21-28 and 30-32, in the response filed November 27, 2024. The requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL in the Office action filed March 14, 2025. Upon further consideration, withdrawn claims 36, 37, 39, and 40 are rejoined with the claims of elected Group I and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the rejoinder of claims 36, 37, 39, and 40 with the claims of elected Group I, the restriction requirement between Group I and claims 36, 37, 39, and 40 as set forth in the Office action filed October 1, 2024 is withdrawn. Claims 34, 35, and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 21-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are being examined on the merits. Claim Objections The objections to claims 22-28 and 30-32 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims. Claims 36, 37, 39, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 36 and 39 are objected to for reciting “temperature of below 8°C” and in the interest of improving claim form and consistency, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite “temperature below 8°C.” Claims 36 and 39 are also objected to for reciting “(meth) acrylonitrile” and “(meth-) acrylonitrile” and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that “(meth) acrylonitrile” in step (e) be amended to recite “(meth-) acrylonitrile.” Claims 37 and 40 are objected to for reciting “A method” and in the interest of improving claim form and consistency, it is suggested that the noted phrase be amended to recite “The method.” Claims 37 and 40 are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The rejection of claims 22, 23, 26-28, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims. Claims 36, 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 36 (claim 37 dependent therefrom) and 39 (claim 40 dependent therefrom) are indefinite in the recitation of “preferably at least 15° C” because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase “preferably” is part of the claimed invention. Description of preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 37 and 40 are indefinite in the recitation of “incorporates one or more of the features of claim 22” because it is unclear from claims 37 and 40 as to the “one or more of the features of claim 22” that is/are intended as being incorporated into the method of claims 37 and 40. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The rejection of claims 21-25, 28, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masato et al. (WO 2012/096361 A1; cited on the IDS filed May 16, 2022; hereafter “Masato”) in view of Armitage et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,434,969 B2; cited on Form PTO-892 filed March 14, 2025; hereafter “Armitage”), and the rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masato in view of Armitage as applied to claims 21-25, 28, and 30-32 above, and further in view of Langlotz et al. (WO 2017/167803 A1; cited on the IDS filed May 16, 2022; hereafter “Langlotz”) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s convincing arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the cited prior art according to the obviousness rationales set forth in the previous Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armitage in view of Stempfer et al. (U.S. 2006/0269990 A1; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Stempfer”), Clark et al. (U.S. 20110003355 A1; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Clark”), and Langlotz . As amended, claims 21-23, 25-28, and 30-32 are drawn to a method of storing a biocatalyst, which biocatalyst is capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide, wherein the biocatalyst is a biocatalyst having nitrile hydratase activity, comprising the steps: (a) providing an aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst, which is capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide, which aqueous suspension is an aqueous fermentation broth; (b) sequentially in either order or simultaneously (b1) concentrating the aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w); and (b2) reducing the temperature of the aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst to a temperature below 8° C, thereby forming a concentrated aqueous suspension; and (c) maintaining the concentrated aqueous suspension of step (b) at a temperature below 8° C. Claims 36-37 are drawn to a method of storing a biocatalyst, which biocatalyst is capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide, wherein the biocatalyst is a biocatalyst having nitrile hydratase activity, comprising the steps: (a) providing an aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst, which is capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide, which aqueous suspension is an aqueous fermentation broth; (b) sequentially in either order or simultaneously (b1) concentrating the aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w); and (b2) reducing the temperature of the aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst to a temperature below 8° C, thereby forming a concentrated aqueous suspension; and (c) maintaining the concentrated aqueous suspension of step (b) at a temperature below 8° C; (d) providing a ready to use aqueous composition from the aqueous suspension of step (c) by (i) increasing the temperature of the concentrated aqueous biocatalyst composition to a temperature of at least 8° C., preferably at least 15° C.; and (ii) diluting the concentration of the aqueous biocatalyst composition to a concentration of below 3% (w/w); in which (i) and (ii) are conducted simultaneously or sequentially in either order; (e) contacting (meth) acrylonitrile in an aqueous medium with the ready to use aqueous biocatalyst composition; and (f) conducting the conversion reaction of (meth-) acrylonitrile to produce the aqueous (meth-) acrylamide solution. Claims 39-40 are drawn to a method of storing a biocatalyst, which biocatalyst is capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide, wherein the biocatalyst is a biocatalyst having nitrile hydratase activity, comprising the steps: (a) providing an aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst, which is capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide, which aqueous suspension is an aqueous fermentation broth; (b) sequentially in either order or simultaneously (b1) concentrating the aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w); and (b2) reducing the temperature of the aqueous suspension comprising the biocatalyst to a temperature below 8° C, thereby forming a concentrated aqueous suspension; and (c) maintaining the concentrated aqueous suspension of step (b) at a temperature below 8° C; (d) providing a ready to use aqueous composition from the aqueous suspension of step (c) by (i) increasing the temperature of the concentrated aqueous biocatalyst composition to a temperature of at least 8° C., preferably at least 15° C.; and (ii) diluting the concentration of the aqueous biocatalyst composition to a concentration of below 3% (w/w); in which (i) and (ii) are conducted simultaneously or sequentially in either order; (e) contacting (meth) acrylonitrile in an aqueous medium with the ready to use aqueous biocatalyst composition; (f) conducting the conversion reaction of (meth-) acrylonitrile to produce the aqueous (meth-) acrylamide solution; and (g) polymerising the aqueous (meth-) acrylamide solution obtained in step (g) to polyacrylamide. Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, the method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 , the method of Armitage includes step iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to prepare the cell paste of Armitage by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because Armitage taught the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 , Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding claims 30-32 , Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage). Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 , the method of Armitage includes step iv) contacting the nitrile with the microorganism in an aqueous medium and thereby converting the nitrile to the amide (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 , Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the method of claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armitage in view of Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claim s 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . Claim 24 is drawn to the method according to claim 21 in which the concentration step (b) comprises separating the biocatalyst as biocatalyst solids from the aqueous medium of the aqueous suspension followed by resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). The relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Armitage to wash the biocatalyst and store the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the method of claim 24 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Claim Rejections - Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. The rejection of claims 21-25 and 28-33 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,227,621 B2 in view of Masato and Armitage, the rejection of claims 26-27 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,227,621B2 in view of Masato and Armitage as applied to claims 21-25 and 28-33 above, and further in view of Langlotz, the rejection of claims 21-25 and 28-33 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,655,152 B2 in view of Masato and Armitage, the rejection of claims 26-27 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,655,152 B2 in view of Masato and Armitage as applied to claims 21-25 and 28-33 above, and further in view of Langlotz, the rejection of claims 21-25 and 28-33 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,739,167 B2 in view of Masato and Armitage, the rejection of claims 26-27 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,739,167 B2 in view of Masato and Armitage as applied to claims 21-25 and 28-33 above, and further in view of Langlotz, the rejection of claims 21-25 and 28-33 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,629,205 B2 in view of Masato and Armitage, the rejection of claims 26-27 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,629,205 B2 in view of Masato and Armitage as applied to claims 21-25 and 28-33 above, and further in view of Langlotz, the rejection of claims 21-25 and 28-33 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,434,969 B2 in view of Masato, and the rejection of claims 26-27 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,434,969 B2 in view of Masato as applied to claims 21-25 and 28-33 above, and further in view of Langlotz are withdrawn in view of applicant’s convincing arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the claims of the patent with the cited prior art according to the obviousness rationales set forth in the previous Office action. U.S. Patent No. 9,434,969 B2 08-36 AIA Claim s 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,434,969 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow . Regarding instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a method of producing an amide from the corresponding nitrile comprising the following steps, i) providing a microorganism of the genus Rhodococcus capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, iii) storing the microorganism, iv) contacting the nitrile with the microorganism in an aqueous medium and thereby converting the nitrile to the amide, wherein the microorganism is retained in the growth medium and the microorganism is not recovered from the original fermentation medium and stored without further downstream processing steps at a temperature above the freezing point to 25° C. as non-actively growing free cells in the growth medium that comprises water and urea or a urea derivative. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (b) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application and does not recite step (d) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, and does not recite step (g) of claim 39 of this application. Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because Armitage taught the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , claim 4 of the patent recites the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164. Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of claim 1 of the patent includes step iv) contacting the nitrile with the microorganism in an aqueous medium and thereby converting the nitrile to the amide. Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,434,969 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claims of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claims of the patent do not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 10,227,621 B2 08-36 AIA Claim s 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,227,621 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow . Regarding instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a method for preparing an aqueous acrylamide solution, the method comprising: (a) adding acrylonitrile, water, and a biocatalyst capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide to a reactor to obtain a composition for bioconversion; (b) performing a bioconversion of the acrylonitrile to acrylamide in the reactor; and (c) adding further acrylonitrile such that a content of acrylonitrile during the bioconversion is maintained at 0.3 w/w % or more, relative to the total weight of the composition in the reactor, for 10 minutes to 48 hours, wherein the adding of further acrylonitrile comprises: (i) maintaining an acrylonitrile content in a first range, which is from 1.2 w/w % to 6 w/w % relative to the total weight of the composition in the reactor, for a first period of time, which is from 30 minutes to 4 hours; (ii) decreasing the acrylonitrile content from the first range to a second range, which is from 0.3 w/w % to 1.2 w/w % relative to the total weight of the composition in the reactor; and (iii) maintaining an acrylonitrile content in the second range for a second period of time, which is from 30 minutes to 24 hours. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (a), (b), and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (b) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, does not recite step (d) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, and does not recite step (g) of claim 39 of this application. Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because Armitage taught the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , claim 14 of the patent recites the biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous . Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of claim 1, step (a) of the patent recites adding acrylonitrile, water, and a biocatalyst capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide to a reactor to obtain a composition for bioconversion. Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,227,621 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claims of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claims of the patent do not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 10,655,152 B2 08-36 AIA Claim s 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,655,152 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow . Regarding instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a method for producing an amide compound from a nitrile compound, the method comprising: contacting the nitrile compound with a microorganism producing a nitrile hydratase (NHase) and an amidase, wherein the microorganism has been previously pre-treated by drying before the contacting with the nitrile compound, wherein a ratio of a NHase activity to an amidase activity of the microorganism is increased, when compared to a reference microorganism, which is not pre-treated by drying before being contacted with the nitrile compound, wherein the microorganism is selected from the group consisting of Rhodococcus rhodochrous, Rhodococcus pyridinovorans, Rhodococcus erythropolis, Rhodococcus equi, Rhodococcus ruber , and Rhodococcus opacus, the amide compound is at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylamide, methacrylamide, acetamide, and nicotinamide, the nitrile compound is at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile, methacrylonitrile, acetonitrile, and 3-cyanopyridine, and wherein the drying has been conducted by spray drying, freeze-drying, heat drying, air drying, vacuum drying, fluidized-bed drying, spray granulation, or a combination thereof. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (b) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, does not recite step (d) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, and does not recite step (g) of claim 39 of this application. Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because Armitage taught the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , claim 1 of the patent recites (in relevant part) the microorganism is Rhodococcus rhodochrous . Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of claim 1 of the patent recites producing an amide compound from a nitrile compound comprising the step of contacting the nitrile compound with a microorganism. Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,665,152 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claim of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claim of the patent does not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 11,384,177 B2 08-36 AIA Claims 2 1-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are re jected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 o f U.S. Patent No. 11, 384,177 B2 (patent) in view of Ar mitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow. Re garding instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a process for producing an aqueous polyacrylamide solution which comprises polymerizing an aqueous solution comprising at least acrylamide thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel and dissolving said aqueous polyacrylamide gel in water, characterized in that the process comprises at least the following steps: [1] Preparing an aqueous monomer solution at a location A comprising at least water, 5% to 45% by weight—relating to the total of all components of the aqueous monomer solution—of water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers, wherein said water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers comprise at least acrylamide obtained by hydrolyzing acrylonitrile in water in the presence of a biocatalyst capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide, at least one stabilizer for the prevention of polymer degradation selected from the group of non-polymerizable stabilizers selected from the group of sulfur compounds, sterically hindered amines, N-oxides, inorganic compounds comprising at least two nitrogen atoms, nitroso compounds, aromatic hydroxyl compounds and ketones, wherein the amount of such non-polymerizable stabilizers is from 0.1% to 2.0% by weight relating to the total of all monomers in the aqueous monomer solution, and polymerizable stabilizers comprising at least a monoethylenically unsaturated group and a stabilizing moiety capable for the prevention of polymer degradation, wherein the amount of such polymerizable stabilizers is from 0.01% to 2.0% by weight, relating to the total of all monomers in the aqueous monomer solution, [2] Inerting and radically polymerizing at a location A the aqueous monomer solution prepared in step [1] in the presence of suitable initiators for radical polymerization under adiabatic conditions, wherein the polymerization is performed in a transportable polymerization unit having a volume of 1 m 3 to 40 m 3 , the aqueous monomer solution has a temperature T 1 not exceeding 30° C. before the onset of polymerization, and the temperature of the polymerization mixture raises in course of polymerization-due to the polymerization heat generated- to a temperature T 2 of at least 45° C., thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel having a temperature T 2 which is hold in the transportable polymerization unit, [3] transporting the transportable polymerization unit filled with the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from location A to a different location B, [4] removing the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from the transportable polymerization unit at the location B, [5] comminuting and dissolving the aqueous polyacrylamide gel in an aqueous liquid at the location B, thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide solution. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (a), (b), and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application and does not recite steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application. Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because One would have been motivated to do so because the claim of the patent uses an aqueous acrylamide solution, Armitage taught a method for preparing an polyacrylamide solution using a biocatalyst including a storage step where the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage). Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of Armitage includes step iv) contacting the nitrile with the microorganism in an aqueous medium and thereby converting the nitrile to the amide (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,384,177 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claim of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claim of the patent does not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 11,629,205 B2 08-36 AIA Claims 21-23, 2 5-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are reject ed on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. P a tent No. 11,629,2 05 B2 (patent) in view of Armita ge, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow. Regard ing instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a process for producing an aqueous polyacrylamide solution comprising polymerizing an aqueous solution comprising at least acrylamide thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel and dissolving said aqueous polyacrylamide gel in water, characterized in that the process is conducted in a modular, relocatable plant and the process comprises at least the following steps: [1] Preparing—in a relocatable monomer make-up unit—an aqueous monomer solution comprising at least water and 5% to 45% by weight—relating to the total of all components of the aqueous monomer solution—of water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers, wherein said water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers comprise at least acrylamide, [2] Inerting and radically polymerizing the aqueous monomer solution prepared in step [1] in the presence of suitable initiators for radical polymerization under adiabatic conditions, wherein the polymerization is performed in a relocatable polymerization unit having a volume of 1 m 3 to 100 m 3 , the aqueous monomer solution before the onset of polymerization has a temperature T 1 not exceeding 30° C., and the temperature of the polymerization mixture raises in course of polymerization—due to the polymerization heat generated—to a temperature T 2 of at least 45° C., thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel having a temperature T 2 which is held in the relocatable polymerization unit, [3] removing the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from the relocatable polymerization unit, [4] comminuting the aqueous polyacrylamide gel by conveying the aqueous polyacrylamide gel through at least one relocatable comminuting unit, thereby obtaining aqueous polyacrylamide gel pieces, and [5] dissolving the aqueous polyacrylamide gel pieces in an aqueous liquid in a relocatable dissolution unit, thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide solution. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (a), (b), and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application and does not recite steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application. Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because One would have been motivated to do so because the claim of the patent uses an aqueous acrylamide solution, Armitage taught a method for preparing an polyacrylamide solution using a biocatalyst including a storage step where the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage). Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of Armitage includes step iv) contacting the nitrile with the microorganism in an aqueous medium and thereby converting the nitrile to the amide (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,629,205 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claim of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claim of the patent does not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 11,634,515 B2 08-36 AIA Claims 2 1-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are re jected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 o f U.S. Patent No. 11, 634,515 B2 (patent) in view of Ar mitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow. Re garding instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a process for producing an aqueous polyacrylamide solution comprising polymerizing an aqueous solution comprising at least acrylamide thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel and dissolving said aqueous polyacrylamide gel in water, characterized in that the process comprises at least the following steps: [1] Radically polymerizing an aqueous monomer solution in the presence of suitable initiators for radical polymerization under adiabatic conditions at a location A, wherein the aqueous monomer solution comprises at least water and 5% to 45% by weight—relating to the total of all components of the aqueous monomer solution—of water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers at a location A, wherein said water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers comprise at least acrylamide, and the polymerization is performed in a transportable polymerization unit P comprising a cylindrical upper part, a conical part at its lower end, feeds for the aqueous monomer solution, a closable bottom opening, and means allowing to deploy the polymerization unit P in a vertical manner, thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel which is hold in the transportable polymerization unit, [2] transporting the transportable polymerization unit filled with the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from location A to a different location B, [3] removing the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from the transportable polymerization unit through the closable bottom opening at the location B, and [4] dissolving the aqueous polyacrylamide gel in an aqueous liquid at the location B, thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide solution. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (a), (b), and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application and does not recite steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application. Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because One would have been motivated to do so because the claim of the patent uses an aqueous acrylamide solution, Armitage taught a method for preparing an polyacrylamide solution using a biocatalyst including a storage step where the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage). Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of Armitage includes step iv) contacting the nitrile with the microorganism in an aqueous medium and thereby converting the nitrile to the amide (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,634,515 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claim of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claim of the patent does not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 11,634,516 B2 08-36 AIA Claims 21-2 3, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are reje cted on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U. S . Patent No. 11,63 4,516 B2 (patent) in vi ew of Armi tage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow. Rega rding instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a process for producing an aqueous polyacrylamide solution comprising polymerizing an aqueous solution comprising at least acrylamide thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel and dissolving said aqueous polyacrylamide gel in water, characterized in that the process comprises at least the following steps: [1] preparing an aqueous monomer solution comprising at least water and 5% to 45% by weight—relating to the total of all components of the aqueous monomer solution—of water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers at a location A, wherein said water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers comprise at least acrylamide, [2] inerting and radically polymerizing the aqueous monomer solution prepared in step [1] in the presence of suitable initiators for radical polymerization under adiabatic conditions at a location A, wherein the polymerization is performed in a transportable polymerization unit having a volume of 1 m 3 to 40 m 3 , the aqueous monomer solution has a temperature T 1 not exceeding 30° C. before the onset of polymerization, and the temperature of the polymerization mixture raises in course of polymerization—due to the polymerization heat generated—to a temperature T 2 of at least 45° C., thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel having a temperature T 2 which is held in the transportable polymerization unit, [3] transporting the transportable polymerization unit filled with the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from location A to a different location B, [4] removing the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from the transportable polymerization unit at the location B, [5] comminuting and dissolving the aqueous polyacrylamide gel in an aqueous liquid at the location B, thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide solution. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (a), (b), and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application and does not recite steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application. Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because One would have been motivated to do so because the claim of the patent uses an aqueous acrylamide solution, Armitage taught a method for preparing an polyacrylamide solution using a biocatalyst including a storage step where the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage). Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of Armitage includes step iv) contacting the nitrile with the microorganism in an aqueous medium and thereby converting the nitrile to the amide (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,634,516 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claim of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claim of the patent does not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 11,643,491 B2 08-36 AIA Claim s 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,643,491 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow . Regarding instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a process for producing an aqueous polyacrylamide concentrate by polymerizing an aqueous solution comprising at least acrylamide thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel and mixing said aqueous polyacrylamide gel with an aqueous liquid, characterized in that the process comprises at least the following steps: [1]Radically polymerizing an aqueous monomer solution in the presence of suitable initiators for radical polymerization under adiabatic conditions in a polymerization unit at a location A, wherein the aqueous monomer solution comprises at least water and 15% to 50% by weight-relating to the total of all components of the aqueous monomer solution-of water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers at a location A, wherein said water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers comprise at least acrylamide, thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel which is hold in the polymerization unit, [2]removing the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from the polymerization unit at the location A, [3] comminuting the aqueous polyacrylamide gel and mixing it with an aqueous liquid at the location A, thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide concentrate having a concentration of 1.0 to 14.9% by weight of polyacrylamides, relating to the total of all components of the aqueous polyacrylamide concentrate, [4] transporting the aqueous polyacrylamide concentrate in a transport unit having a volume from 1 m 3 to 40 m 3 by transport means selected from the group of trucks, railcars or ships from location A to a different location B, and [5]removing the aqueous polyacrylamide concentrate from the transport unit at the location B. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (a), (b), and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application and does not recite steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application. Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because One would have been motivated to do so because the claim of the patent uses an aqueous acrylamide solution, Armitage taught a method for preparing an polyacrylamide solution using a biocatalyst including a storage step where the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage). Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of Armitage includes step iv) contacting the nitrile with the microorganism in an aqueous medium and thereby converting the nitrile to the amide (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,643,491 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claim of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claim of the patent does not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 11,739,167 B2 08-36 AIA Claims 21- 23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are rej ected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U .S. Patent No. 11,7 39,167 B2 (patent) in v iew of Arm itage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for reasons that follow. Reg arding instant claims 21, 36, and 39, claim 1 of the patent recites a process for producing an aqueous polyacrylamide solution comprising polymerizing an aqueous solution comprising at least acrylamide thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel and dissolving said aqueous polyacrylamide gel in water, characterized in that the process comprises at least the following steps: [1] preparing an aqueous monomer solution comprising at least water and 5% to 45% by weight—relating to the total of all components of the aqueous monomer solution—of water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers at a location A, wherein said water-soluble, monoethylenically unsaturated monomers comprise at least acrylamide, [2] inerting and radically polymerizing the aqueous monomer solution prepared in step [1] in the presence of suitable initiators for radical polymerization under adiabatic conditions at a location A, wherein the polymerization is performed in a polymerization unit having a volume of 1 m 3 to 40 m 3 , the aqueous monomer solution has a temperature T 1 not exceeding 30° C. before the onset of polymerization, and the temperature of the polymerization mixture raises in course of polymerization—due to the polymerization heat generated- to a temperature T 2 of at least 45° C., thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide gel having a temperature T 2 , [3] transferring the aqueous polyacrylamide gel to a transport unit and transporting the aqueous polyacrylamide gel from location A to a different location B, [4] dissolving the aqueous polyacrylamide gel in an aqueous liquid at the location B, thereby obtaining an aqueous polyacrylamide solution. Claim 1 of the patent does not recite steps (a), (b), and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application and does not recite steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application. Regarding step (a) of claims 21, 36, and 39, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, and ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Regarding step (b1) of claims 21, 36, and 39 and claims 25-26 of this application, Armitage is related to a method for the manufacture of amides from the corresponding nitrile using a biocatalyst that is a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase enzyme (column 1, lines 8-11). The method of Armitage includes steps i) providing a microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst, ii) culturing the microorganism in a growth medium, and iii) storing the microorganism (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 1-3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 6) teach culturing Rhodococcus rhodochrous in a culture medium at 30 o C (Example 1) or 28 o C (Examples 2 and 3). Armitage teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells, this may be in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium (Abstract and column 4, lines 9-25). Examples 2 and 3 of Armitage (beginning at column 8, line 25) teach harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture. While Armitage teaches harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation following cell culture and teaches the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Armitage does not teach concentrating the fermentation medium comprising the microorganism to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w) as recited in claim 21, step (b1) and disk stack separation as recited in claim 26. Stempfer is cited for its description of centrifugation of a fermentation broth, which uses, e.g., a disk stack separator, resulting in a wet cell paste (paragraph [0072]). According to Stempfer, the extent of concentration may vary from partially reducing the volume for just a small percentage to the maximum possible, which may be determined by the desired final consistency in terms of percent wet weight (paragraph [0072]). Stempfer teaches centrifugation of bacterial cells using a disk separator to obtain a cell paste (paragraph [0089]). Clark is cited for its teaching that cells and insoluble solids can be removed from a fermentation broth by a disc stack centrifuge and the output of a disk stack centrifuge include an underflow stream containing about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]). Langlotz is cited for its teaching of the separation of a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator (p. 2, first full paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph). In view of the combined teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by preparing a cell paste by disc stack centrifugation and concentrating the microorganism in the fermentation medium to a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). One would have been motivated to do so because the claim of the patent uses an aqueous acrylamide solution, Armitage taught a method for preparing an polyacrylamide solution using a biocatalyst including a storage step where the stored microorganism may be as whole microbial cells in the form of a cell paste recovered from a fermentation medium, Stempfer taught centrifugation of a fermentation broth by a disk stack separator results in a cell paste, and Clark taught disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids. Although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). One would have expected success because Armitage taught harvesting cells from a culture broth by centrifugation and Langlotz taught separating a microbial biocatalyst that produces nitrile hydratase from an aqueous solution by centrifugation carried out by a disc stack separator. Regarding steps (b2) and (c) of claims 21, 36, and 39 of this application, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 22-23, 37, and 40 , as stated above, Clark teaches disk stack centrifuge concentrates cells to about 5% to about 50% solids (paragraph [0061]) and although Clark does not specifically teach a concentration of at least 3%, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 27 , Langlotz teaches a specific settling area for the separation of the biocatalyst by a disc stack separator is 19.67 m 2 /h/l or more (p. 25, bottom) and although Langlotz does not expressly teach a specific settling area of 118.0 m 2 /h/l or less, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding instant claim 28 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the biocatalyst may conveniently be stored at temperatures above its freezing point and preferably the biocatalyst is stored at a temperature between 4 o C and 30 o C and more preferably between 5 o C and 25 o C (paragraph bridging columns 6-7) and Example 3 of Armitage specifically describes a storage temperature of 4 o C (column 9, Table 3). Regarding instant claims 30-32 , Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage). Regarding steps (d), (e), and (f) of claims 36 and 39 of this application, the method of claim 1, step (a) of the patent recites adding acrylonitrile, water, and a biocatalyst capable of converting acrylonitrile to acrylamide to a reactor to obtain a composition for bioconversion. Armitage exemplifies the nitrile as acrylonitrile and the amide as acrylamide (column 7, lines 55-57). Armitage does not provide details regarding the hydration reaction to convert the nitrile to the amide, however, Langlotz teaches conditions of a biocatalyst hydration reaction to convert a nitrile to an amide, which include biocatalyst in the range of 50 to 30,000 ppm by weight (p. 21, first paragraph) and a temperature of preferably 10 to 40°C (p. 21, second paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cell paste of biocatalyst stored at 4 o C according to Armitage contacted with nitrile in an aqueous medium at a temperature of 10 to 40°C as taught by Langlotz would dilute the concentration of the biocatalyst to a concentration of below 3% (w/w) and would increase the temperature of the biocatalyst from 4 o C to a temperature of 10 to 40°C. Regarding step (g) of claim 39 of this application, Langlotz teaches a method for producing polyacrylamide from an aqueous acrylamide solution prepared by a biocatalyst (claim 1 of Langlotz). Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,739,167 B2 (patent) in view of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 above, and further in view of Masato. Reference is made to a machine language translation of Masato (cited on the attached Form PTO-892) . The claim of the patent and relevant teachings of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz as applied to claims 21-23, 25-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are set forth above. Regarding instant claim 24 , as stated above, Armitage teaches the microorganism capable of producing a nitrile hydratase biocatalyst is Rhodococcus rhodochrous NCIMB 41164 (claim 4 of Armitage), and Armitage further teaches the nitrile hydratase activity of the biocatalyst increases by storing the biocatalyst in a storage medium (column 5, lines 53-59), noting that the storage medium can be water, physiological saline solution, a suitable buffer solution such as phosphate buffer or any similar buffer, or a growth medium (column 4, lines 42-46). The claim of the patent does not recite and the combination of Armitage, Stempfer, Clark, and Langlotz does not teach resuspension in an aqueous medium at a concentration of at least 3% (w/w). Masato is related to a method for storing microbial cells having nitrile hydratase activity (translation at p. 1, Abstract). Masato teaches preparation of a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension after culture by collecting the cells by centrifugation, washing the cells with a 0.1% aqueous solution, adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a cell suspension (10% by mass in terms of dry cells), and storing the bacterial suspension (p. 5, 5 th full paragraph). In view of the additional teachings of Masato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method of claim 1 of the patent by washing the biocatalyst and storing the cells as a 10% cell suspension. One would have been motivated and would have been expected success to do so because Armitage taught storing a Rhodococcus rhodochros biocatalyst in a storage medium to increase nitrile hydratase activity and Masato taught a method for preparing a storage Rhodococcus rhodochros cell suspension including steps of washing cells with an aqueous buffer and adding the aqueous solution to the washed cells to obtain a 10% cell suspension. Therefore, the claims of this application are unpatentable over the claims of the patent. Conclusion Status of the claims: Claims 21-28, 30-32, and 34-40 are pending. Claims 34, 35, and 38 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 21-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected. No claim is in condition for allowance. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J STEADMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM. 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 N. RAO can be reached on 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. /David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 2 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 3 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 4 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 5 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 6 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 7 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 8 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 9 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 10 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 11 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 12 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 13 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 14 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 15 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 16 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 17 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 18 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 19 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 20 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 21 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 22 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 23 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 24 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 25 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 26 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 27 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 28 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 29 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 30 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 31 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 32 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 33 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 34 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 35 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 36 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 37 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 38 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 39 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 40 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 41 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 42 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 43 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 44 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 45 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 46 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 47 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 48 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 49 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 50 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 51 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 52 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 53 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 54 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 55 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 56 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 57 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 58 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 59 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 60 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 61 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 62 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 63 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 64 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 65 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 66 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 67 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 68 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 69 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 70 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 71 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 72 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 73 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 74 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 75 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 76 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 77 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 78 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 79 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 80 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 81 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 82 Art Unit: 1656 Application/Control Number: 17/774,463 Page 83 Art Unit: 1656
Prosecution Insights