DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The finality of the previous office action mailed on 10/24/2025 has been withdrawn and prosecution has been re-open as result of Pre-Appeal Brief Review conference decision 1/23/2026.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 as amended on 8/21/2025 are pending.
Claims 1-12 and 18-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 4/24/2025.
Claims 13-17 as amended on 8/21/2025 are under examination in the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) and US 9,561,958 (Quintero et al).
The cited US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) teaches the use of multiple parallel bioreactor system for continuous gas fermentation (entire document) including parallel series of primary and parallel series of secondary bioreactors connected by a central bleeding line 107 (Figures 1-2; col.3, lines 14025). The gas used for fermentation is a syngas rich in CO with optional hydrogen stream (col. 7, line 47; col. 8, lines 33-37; col. 17, lines 1-12) including CO-containing waste gas from industrial process (col.16, lines 9-11). The system of parallel primary bioreactors and parallel secondary bioreactors are all in a communication through a central bleeding line (107 on figures 1-2). Each bioreactor comprises an inlet conduit for receiving fermentation broth (col. 3, line 43) and outlet conduit for passing out fermentation broth/product (col. 11, line 44). In particular, each bioreactor in a parallel series is controlled by and has individual bleed pump 105 and inoculation valve 106 connected to a central line 107.
The cited US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) explicitly acknowledges that the use of multiple parallel bioreactors connected to one feeding/bleeding central line has advantages over the use of one large or two sequentially linked bioreactors in faster start-up and greater flexibly during operations because it allows for compensation of loss of any given bioreactor in the system (par. bridging col. 9-10).
Thus, as applied to the claimed steps d-h: the cited method comprises steps of operating parallel system of primary bioreactors or at least two or more primary bioreactors:
d) introducing a gaseous substrate (syngas stream with CO and H2) into a first primary bioreactor to promote growth of microorganisms and to produce one or more products (col. 5, lines 35-42)
e) introducing a gaseous substrate (syngas stream with CO and H2) into a second primary bioreactor or into one or more other primary bioreactors with a second medium (a second fermentation fluid coming from first primary bioreactor via central line) to promote microbial growth and products (col. 5, lines 43-47).
In the cited method products produced within the bioreactors are removed to a permeate stream conduit and passed to a recovery zone (col. 11, lines 46-49). The operation of a parallel bioreactor series is a continuous operation and bioreactors are connected via central line, and, thereby, in the cited method:
f) removing the first fermentation fluid from the first primary bioreactor for isolating the product from said first fermentation fluid occurs simultaneously with step e (operation of second other primary bioreactor in the parallel series) and recharging the first primary bioreactor with a “fresh broth” or with “fresh broth and fresh microbe” coming from the central line 107;
g) removing the second fermentation fluid from said the second primary bioreactor for isolating the product from the second fermentation fluid occurs simultaneously with step d and recharging the second primary bioreactor with the fresh broth or with fresh broth and fresh microbe coming from the central bleed line. The cited method explicitly teaches that there is a constant supply of “additional liquid nutrient media” via the central bleed line (col. 10, lines 60). Thus, the bioreactors are supplied with or recharged with “fresh” medium and inoculum within the broadest meaning of the claims.
The operation is continuous, and, thereby,
h) steps d-g are repeated several times as alternating first bioreactor and second bioreactor with each repeat within the broadest reasonable meaning of the claims.
Therefore, the cited method for continuous gas fermentation comprising the use of parallel bioreactors connected by one central line supplying fresh medium and removing fermentation products is considered to be a substantial equivalent of operations of the claim 13-recited steps d) through h).
Further, with regard to claim 13, steps a) though c): The cited US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) acknowledges that CO-rich syngas is produced from several sources including natural gas, industrial waste gas and others (col. 16, lines 7-30). But the reference does not clearly describe preparing syngas from natural gas by partial oxidation.
However, it is known, for example: see US 9,561,958 (Quintero et al), that natural gas (which mostly consists of methane) is emitted (as a gaseous waste emission) during extraction of liquid hydrocarbons, such as oils, from grounds; that natural gas is/might be converted into liquid state (natural liquid gas or LHG) as intended for ease of transportation; that natural is/might be converted to syngas in close proximity of hydrocarbon processing facilities (see US 9,561,958 at col. 9, lines 30-59) and that natural gas (CH4) is oxidized in partial oxidation chambers (POX) into CO-rich syngas (see US 9,561,958 at abstract and at col. 10, lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide/prepare syngas for syngas fermentation in the method of US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) by partial oxidation of natural gas emitted during hydrocarbon processing with a reasonable expectation of success because it is a well-known and used practice as evidenced by US 9,561,958 (Quintero et al) and because US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) acknowledges natural gas as a source of syngas fermentation.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Thus, the claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
As applied to claims 14-15: The cited US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) clearly acknowledges that CO-rich syngas is/can be sourced or produced from solid municipal waste or biomass (“comminuted solid waste”) and waste emission gas from industrial process; for example: see col. 17, line 5; see col.16, lines 9-11.
As applied to claims 16: The method of the cited US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) comprises applications of a cell recycle system (col. 11, line 51).
As applied to claim 17: although the cited US 9,988,598 (Collet et al) does not explicitly describe a recovery of products from lysed microbes. However, if a specific desired product is intracellular microbial bacterial product, then it would be obvious for one of skill in the art to lyse microbial cells to isolate the intracellular product.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Thus, the claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA AFREMOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8.30am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Vera Afremova
April 20, 2026
/VERA AFREMOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights