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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-3 and 5 are canceled. Claims 14-15 are new.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-15 are pending and under consideration.
The claims are entitled to an effective filing date of 02/12/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 was added in the amendment filed 01/28/2026, but the claim does not include the required “(New)” status identifier. As stated in 37 CFR 1.121, “[i]n the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Interpretation: Claim 1 requires at least two active method steps. The non-limiting intended purpose of the method is “for stabilizing methanogenesis of a biocatalyst despite influx variations of a flow of a feeding gas for bio-methanation and/or variations of an energy supply in the form of a feeding gas”. Note “energy supply” and “feeding gas” are considered interchangeable because the energy supply is required to be in the form of a feeding gas. The first active method step includes at least one of the following: (1) ramping up the flow of the feeding gas for the bio-methanation of the methanogenic Archaea biocatalyst starting from a time of 5 h to 0.5 hour before any form of feeding gas influx variation; and/or (2) stressing the flow of the feeding gas for bio-methanation of the methanogenic Archaea biocatalyst by pulsing via increasing and decreasing the flow of the feeding gas multiple times by a defined amount and by a defined time. According to the instant specification, ramping may comprise a stepwise increase. See page 11 line 1 and 4-5. The second method step requires continuously measuring the methane production or methane content in a product gas.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mets (US 9,428,745, published Aug. 30, 2016) in view of Strübing (Applied Energy, Elsevier, 2018, vol. 232(C), pages 543-554) with evidence from Midas Field Guide (2025).
Regarding claim 1, Mets teaches a methanogenic microorganism, Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus UC 120910 (i.e. methanogenic Archaea), that is adapted to grow and/or survive in conditions which are low in or substantially absent of hydrogen. See column 12 lines 16-19. Mets suggests that the microorganism can be used in an industrial plant for methane production (i.e. bio-methanation plant). See figure 2 and the description in column 37 line 34-35. In example 8, Mets teaches growing M. thermautotrophicus UC 120910 to reach steady-state conditions with hydrogen gas supplied at 0.40 SLPM and carbon dioxide supplied at 1/4th of that rate. See column 66 lines 43-50. Mets teaches terminating, and re-initiating the gas supply to the culture. See columns 67 line 8 and 13-14. Following reactivation of the culture, the culture is maintained for more than 150 days with intermittent starts and stops. The methane productivity is generally consistent throughout the 150 days. See column 67 lines 18 and 21-24. As shown in figure 18A, methane production is measured continuously.
Mets does not teach (1) starting from a time 5 hours to 0.5 hour prior to the influx variations of the flow of the feeding gas for bio-methanation or variations of the energy supply in the form of a feeding gas, ramping up the flow of the feeding gas; and/or (2) starting from a time 5 hours to 0.5 hour prior to the influx variations of the flow of the feeding gas for bio-methanation or variations of the energy supply in the form of a feeding gas, stressing the flow of the feeding gas by multiple pulses, each comprising increasing and decreasing the flow of the feeding gas and/or the energy supply, by a defined amount and time. However, Mets does teach increasing (i.e. ramping up) the flow of a feeding gas, and Mets teaches intermittent starts and stops (i.e. pulse).
Strübing teaches inoculating a reactor with anaerobic sludge. See section 2.2.1 the first paragraph. Strübing teaches a standby procedure (SP) where the gas feed is completely stopped. See section 2.2.2 the first paragraph. For the restart procedure, Strübing teaches applying a step-wise increase of the H2 gas feed. See section 2.2.3 the second paragraph. As shown in figure 1B, the H2 gas feed is increased every 15 min for 90 min (i.e. ramping up step-wise), and then increased every 30 min for 1 hour (i.e. an influx variation in which H2 increases every 30 min rather than 15 min) before the feed is held constant. Strübing teaches re-attaining methane CH4> 96% after reinstating gas feed. See table 2. Strübing suggests that immediately adjusting a gas feed rate back to a reference level can lead to H2 breakthrough. See section 2.2.3 the second paragraph.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1A and 1B of Strübing)]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the restart procedure of Strübing comprising a step-wise increase in H2 gas for the hydrogen gas re-initiation step taught by Mets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have started ramping up the flow of the H-2 gas 90 minutes prior to an H-2 influx variation in which the flow is increased every 30 min rather than every 15 min. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Strübing suggests that increasing the H-2 flow rate too quickly may result in a breakthrough. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Strübing demonstrates re-attaining methane production from an anaerobic sludge culture after stopping the H-2 gas flow to the culture; and
Mets demonstrates culturing M. thermautotrophicus UC 120910 for 150 days with intermittent starts and stops.
Regarding claim 4, in example 7, Mets teaches placing deoxygenated water (i.e. aqueous culture medium) in a fermenter. See column 65 lines 19-20. Mets suggests that the M. thermautotrophicus UC 120910 is inoculated into the reactor. See column 65 lines 33-34. After inoculation, NH4OH (e.g. a metabolic enhancer) is added to maintain the pH. See column 65 line 36. Mets teaches an addition of 2M of NH4OH (i.e. a dose). See column 62 line 40. Mets suggests that the pH can be controlled by adding NH4OH as needed. See column 35 lines 28-30.
Mets and Strübing do not teach loading the aqueous culture medium with a dose of a metabolic enhancer starting from a time between 2 hour and 1 minute prior to the influx variation of the flow of the feeding gas for bio-methanation or variations of the energy supply in the form of a feeding gas; however, Mets does teach loading an aqueous culture medium with a dose of a NH4OH metabolic enhancer, and Strübing teaches an H2 gas influx variation in which the flow is increased every 30 min rather than every 15 min.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to optimize the timing of the NH4OH loading taught by Mets prior to the influx variation taught by Strübing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Mets suggests that NH4OH can be added as needed to maintain pH. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Mets demonstrates loading NH4OH into an aqueous medium. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably added the NH4OH at the beginning of the restart procedure taught by Strübing, such that the NH4OH would have been loaded 90 min before an influx variation. MPEP 2144.05(II) states that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 6-7, in example 7, Mets teaches turning on a gas supply (e.g. a 0 first value) at a desired rate. See column 65 lines 25-27. In example 8, Mets teaches culturing M. thermautrophicus UC120910 as described in example 7. Mets teaches allowing the culture to reach steady-state conditions with hydrogen gas supplied at 0.40 SLPM and carbon dioxide supplied at 1/4th of that rate (e.g. second values). Water production is measured over 43 hours (e.g. a first amount of time). See lines 42-52. Mets teaches terminating (e.g. a 0 third value) the gas supply to the culture. The culture remains dormant without gas or other chemical supply for more than 4 weeks (e.g. a second amount of time). See lines 8-13 of column 67. Mets teaches re-initiating the gas supply. See lines 13-14 of column 67. Mets suggests that the re-initiating of the gas supply entails a carbon feed rate of 36 VVD and hydrogen feed rate of 144 VVD (e.g. fourth values). See lines 63 of column 66 to line 14 of column 67. Mets teaches maintaining the culture for more than 150 days with intermittent starts and stops (e.g. a 0 fifth value). See lines 21-23 of column 67. Moreover, Mets discloses that when supplied with a 2-fold increase in hydrogen supply, e.g. 0.2 L/min to 04. L/min, the microorganisms are capable of exhibiting a 2-fold increase in methane productivity. See column 25 lines 10-14.
In summation, Mets teaches (i) increasing the flow of a hydrogen feeding gas from a 0 first value to a second value of 0.40 SPLM. Mets teaches (ii) maintaining the flow of the hydrogen feeding gas at 0.40 SPLM for a 43-hour first amount of time. Mets teaches (iii) decreasing, i.e. terminating, the flow of the hydrogen feeding gas to a 0 third value, wherein the third 0 value is equal to the first 0 value of hydrogen feeding gas (relevant to instant claim 6). Mets teaches (i) maintaining the flow of the feeding gas at the third 0 value for a 4-week second amount of time. Mets implies that (ii) after maintaining the flow of the hydrogen gas at the 0 third value, the flow of hydrogen feeding gas is increased to a fourth value of 144 VVD (relevant to parts i-ii of instant claim 7). However, Mets does not provide a specific third amount of time at which the hydrogen feeding gas is maintained at a fourth value 144 VVD (relevant to part iii of instant claim 7). Furthermore, Mets teaches intermittent starts and stops (relevant to part iv of instant claim 7), which indicates that Mets teaches decreasing the flow of the hydrogen feeding gas to a fifth 0 value, wherein the fifth value of the feeding gas is equal to the third 0 value of feeding gas flow.
Mets does not teach maintaining the flow of the feeding gas a fourth value (e.g. 144 VVD hydrogen gas) for a third amount of time.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to optimize the time between the starts and the stops of Mets. One would be motivated to optimize the time between the starts and stops between the hydrogen feeding gas supplies because Mets indicates that the amount of hydrogen supply affects methane productivity. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Mets demonstrates culturing M. thermautrophicus UC120910 with intermittent starts and stops of hydrogen feeding gas supply. MPEP 2144.05(II) states that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Mets teaches maintaining a culture of M. thermautrophicus UC120910 for more than 150 days with intermittent starts and stops (e.g. a 0 fifth value). See lines 21-23 of column 67. Mets indicates that when the gas supply is re-initiated the hydrogen feed rate is 144 VVD (e.g. fourth value and sixth value). See lines 63 of column 66 to line 14 of column 67. Mets discloses that when supplied with a 2-fold increase in hydrogen supply, e.g. 0.2 L/min to 04. L/min, the microorganisms are capable of exhibiting a 2-fold increase in methane productivity. See column 25 lines 10-14. Thus, Mets indicates that culture is held at a 0 fifth value for an amount of time; afterwards, the flow of feeding gas is increased to a sixth 144VVD value of hydrogen feeding gas, wherein the sixth value is equal to the fourth value of feeding gas flow.
Mets does not teach i) maintaining the flow of the feeding gas at the fifth value of the feeding gas flow for a fourth amount of time; because Mets does not provide the specific times for each start and stop.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to optimize the time between the starts and the stops of Mets. One would be motivated to optimize the time between the starts and stops between the hydrogen feeding gas supplies because Mets indicates that the amount of hydrogen supply affects methane productivity. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Mets demonstrates culturing M. thermautrophicus UC120910 with intermittent starts and stops of hydrogen feeding gas supply. Moreover, Mets discloses that M. thermautotrophicus strain UC
120910 is capable of maintaining productivity above 95% conversion efficiency for extended periods, even in the presence of interruptions of hydrogen supply. MPEP 2144.05(II) states that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Strübing teaches restarting a culture by applying a step-wise increase of the H2 gas feed. See section 2.2.3 the second paragraph. As shown in figure 1B, the H2 gas feed is increased every 15 min for 90 min (i.e. ramping up step-wise), and then increased every 30 min for 1 hour (i.e. an influx variation in which H2 increases every 30 min rather than 15 min) before the feed is held constant.
Regarding claim 10, Mets teaches Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus UC 120910 (e.g. biocatalyst). See, e.g. lines 3-5 and 33-34 of column 65. According to evidentiary reference Midas, Methanothermobacter are hydrogenotrophic methanogens. See the description section of Midas.
Regarding claim 11, Mets teaches Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus UC 120910 (e.g. biocatalyst). See, e.g. lines 3-5 and 33-34 of column 65. According to evidentiary reference Midas, Methanothermobacter are within the Methanobacteria class. See the MiDAS 5.3 Taxonomy section of Midas.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Mets discloses that Methanothermobacter produce methane. See, e.g. column 2 lines 54-59. In example 7, Mets teaches culturing M. thermautotrophicus in a fermenter. See column 65. As shown in figure 2, Mets indicates that methane is obtained from a fermenter for use in plant operations.
Mets does not explicitly teach a bio-methanation plant that uses a biocatalyst for the production of methane. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to use the fermenter containing the M. thermautotrophicus biocatalyst of Mets as the fermenter from which methane for plant operations is obtained. In the process, the methane produced by M. thermautotrophicus would be used for plant operations. One would be motivated to do so because Mets suggests that the M. thermautotrophicus is capable of capable of maintaining productivity even in the presence of interruptions of hydrogen supply (column 62 lines 24-27). There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Mets demonstrates fermenting M. thermautotrophicus in a fermenter for methane production (figure 18A and example 7 column 65), and Mets illustrates using methane from a fermenter for plant operations in figure 2.
Regarding new claim 14, Mets teaches terminating, and re-initiating the gas supply to the culture. See columns 67 line 8 and 13-14. Following reactivation of the culture, the culture is maintained for more than 150 days with intermittent starts and stops (i.e. pulse). The methane productivity is generally consistent throughout the 150 days. See column 67 lines 18 and 21-24. Mets suggests that the biological reactor may change between the operating state and the dormant state. See column 42 lines 43-44.
Mets does not teach starting from a time 5 hours to 0.5 hour prior to the influx variations of the flow of the feeding gas for bio-methanation or variations of the energy supply in the form of a feeding gas, stressing the flow of the feeding gas by multiple pulses, each comprising increasing and decreasing the flow of the feeding gas and/or the energy supply, by a defined amount and time. Although Mets teaches intermittent starts and stops (i.e. pulse), Mets is silent regarding the define amount and time.
Strübing teaches 2 day, 3 day, 5 day and 6 day operational periods between standby periods (i.e. defined time). See table 1. At the restart phase, the H-2 gas flow is adjusted back to the reference level feed rate of 52.5 m3H2/m3trickle bed/d (i.e. defined amount). See section 2.2.3 the second paragraph. Furthermore, Strübing teaches a restart procedure in which an H2 gas feed is increased every 15 min for 90 min, and then increased every 30 min for 1 hour (i.e. an influx variation) before the feed is held constant.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to optimize the defined amount and time of the start and stop of pulses of Mets in view of Strübing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Strübing teaches re-attaining methane CH4> 96% after reinstating gas feed (table 2). There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Mets demonstrates starting and stopping the culture (i.e. pulsing), and Strübing demonstrates varying H2 influx upon restarting a culture.
New claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mets (US 9,428,745, published Aug. 30, 2016).
Regarding claim 15, Mets teaches a methanogenic microorganism, Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus UC 120910 (i.e. methanogenic Archaea), that is adapted in culture to grow and/or survive in conditions with substantially reduced amounts of carbon dioxide or in conditions which are low or substantially absent of any hydrogen. See column 12 lines 4-19. In example 7, Mets teaches placing deoxygenated water (i.e. aqueous culture medium) in a fermenter (i.e. reactor). See column 65 lines 19-20. Mets indicates that the fermenter is in a methane plant (i.e. a bio-methanation plant). See figure 2. The gas supply is turned on at the desired rate, such as a low rate of 0.20 SLPM of H2 gas and 0.05 SLPM of CO2 gas (i.e. feeding gases). See column 65 lines 25-27. A culture of the M. thermautotrophicus UC 120910 is inoculated. See column 65 lines 33-34. After inoculation, NH4OH (e.g. a metabolic enhancer) is added. See column 65 line 36. Mets teaches an addition of 2M of NH4OH (i.e. a dose). See column 62 line 40. As shown in figure 18A, methane production is measured continuously over a period of over 50 minutes. In example 8, Mets teaches growing M. thermautotrophicus UC 120910 as described in example 7. See column 66 lines 43-47. Next, the gas supply to the culture is terminated. See column 67 line 8. Then, the gas supply is reinitiated (i.e. influx variation of the flow of the feeding gas). See column 67 line 13-14.
Mets does not teach (A) loading a culture medium with one or more metabolic enhancers between 2 hour and 1 minute prior to the influx variation of the energy supply.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to optimize timeframe between the addition of the NH4OH in example 7 of Mets and the re-initiation of gas supply step in example 8 of Mets. One would be prompted to do so because Mets suggests that the culture begins to grow after the NH4OH addition step, and Mets suggests that the culture should reach a steady state before the gas supply termination step. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Mets demonstrates adding NH4OH to the culture of M. thermautotrophicus UC 120910 prior to stopping and re-starting the gas-flow. MPEP 2144.05(II) states that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY C BREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-4:30, F 8:30-1:30 (EDT/EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LOUISE HUMPHREY can be reached at (571)272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/K.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1657