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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/15/26 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-29 are pending, of which claims 17-22 were previously withdrawn.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn due to the amendment.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-29 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Inventions of claims 1-24 and claims 25-29 are related products. The inventions are distinct if (A) the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive (i.e., a claim to the final product does not read on the intermediate, and vice versa); (B) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants; and (C) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. See MPEP § 802.01 & 806.05(j). In this case the invention of claims 1-24 and that of 25-29 are mutually exclusive, are not obvious variants, and are not capable of use together as they have materially different designs. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-24 does not require the microorganism reaction unit comprising the two chambers, sheet like carrier, first and second supplies and discharges and their specified locations as required by the invention of claims 25-29. Likewise, the invention of claims 25-29 does not require the single gas phase reaction chamber, carrier which is installed in the chamber or which constitutes at least a part of a wall of the chamber, the carrier being moisture permeable or water absorbent as required by the invention of claims 1-24.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/16/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: moisture supply system in claim 1, 8-9, 13-15, 23 -24; mechanism which collects a product in claim 4, rotation mechanism in claim 12 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DATTA (US 2014/0227751).
Regarding claim 1, 6, DATTA discloses a bioreactor assembly (microorganism reaction system) comprising:
a bioreactor vessel 535 (reaction chamber) comprising a gas supply conduit 530 connected to a vessel port (gas supply section) which delivers a substrate with a continuous feed (flow can either be continuously), from outside of the bioreactor (supplies gaseous substrate from outside) (Fig 6, 0200-206);
a tubular membrane element 532, 512 (carrier, carrier is a thin membrane) which is installed in the vessel 535, (0203, Fig 6), the membrane element allows liquid permeation through (moisture permeable) (0199), but is positioned such that there is a gas contacting side 510 on an outer portion of the tube which is not immersed in the liquid that flows through the center of the hollow tube (Fig 5), wherein a microorganism 514 is contained in a bio-pore 516 on the outside of the membrane element (immobilized to the carrier), such that the microorganism is in direct contact with the gas phase on the gas contacting side 510 of the membrane (0199, Fig 5-6); the microorganisms are retained in bio-pores as the pore size of the skin 520 are much smaller than the width of the microorganisms, so that the skin 520 occludes the inner end of bio-pores 516 and prevents the microorganisms from passing through skin to the liquid contacting surface 522, therefore the microorganisms remain on the gas contacting side 510 of the membrane (microorganism cells are immobilized to a surface of the carrier) (0199, see Fig 5 below where cells 514 are only on gas contacting surface 510 and not on the liquid side of 522).
and a feed gas exit line 534 (gas discharge section) connected to the vessel 535.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, moisture supply system has been interpreted under 35 USC 112f as stated above to be a water phase chamber or liquid reservoir (spec 0054) and/or supply channel (0035) and functional equivalents thereof.
DATTA discloses fermentation liquid (moisture) is supplied from outside of the bioreactor vessel 535 via a conduit 538 (supply channel) from a mixing chamber 548 (liquid reservoir) to a chamber 537 (water phase chamber) that distributes liquid to the tubular membranes 532 (0203-204, Fig 6).
Regarding claim 4, mechanism which collects a product is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as stated above, to be a port (Spec 0008) and functional equivalents thereof. DATTA discloses a port (mechanism which collects a product) on the top of the vessel connected to a conduit 544 for withdrawal of the liquid to a product recovery facility that recover liquid products of the microorganism (0203-204, Fig 6).
Regarding claim 5, DATTA discloses the gas supply rate is recorded by a flow meter and does not disclose a pump on the gas supply conduit but that the locations of the substrate feed and exit lines provide a downward direction of the bulk gas flow in the bioreactor (configured to passively take in gaseous substrate by diffusion) (Fig 6, 0201).
Regarding claim 7, DATTA discloses the vessel 535 has a chamber 543 which collects the fermentation liquid for withdrawal via conduit 544 (liquid discharge section) (Fig 6, 203-204).
Regarding claim 8, DATTA discloses the fermentation liquid supply is configured to supply the liquid to the carrier under pressure supplied by a pump at a rate recorded by a flow meter, in which an upward flow of liquid through the membrane lumens is established (supply moisture to carrier as a liquid flow) (0203, Fig 5).
Regarding claim 9, DATTA discloses the liquid supply comprises a chamber 537 (water phase chamber) into which liquid flows, the membrane hollow fibers 532 (carriers) are disposed between the chamber 537 and the gas phase in the vessel, wherein the membrane is disposed so that the surface having bio-pores containing microorganisms (immobilized) faces the gas phase side (Fig 5-6, 0199, 0203).
Regarding claim 10, DATTA discloses the vessel comprises a plurality of gas phase sections (spaces in between membrane elements 532) and a plurality of liquid phases within skin 520 of hollow membranes - see 524, in which the device contains a plurality of alternating gas and liquid phases (Fig 6, 0199).
Regarding claim 11, DATTA discloses the membrane element (carrier) 512, 532 is a plurality of membranes in a hollow fiber configuration, e.g. tubular membranes, in which the plurality of hollow fibers are disposed at intervals from each other in an outer vessel (outer tube) to form a columnar unit and the gas phase exists between the outer walls 510 of the tubular members and the inside of the vessel 535 (outer tube) such that the membrane forms a wall separating the gas phase chamber space and the liquid phases (Fig 5, 6, 0199).
Regarding claim 13, DATTA discloses the liquid is distributed from a larger chamber 537 within the vessel to the interior of the tubular membranes 532 via the bottom ends of the lumens to an upper chamber 543, and that this location of chambers is what establishes upward flow of the liquid, which is a capillary phenomenon (0203).
Regarding claim 14, DATTA discloses that water vapor can be supplied to the fermentation vessel (configured to supply moisture in an aerosol or gas state) (0193).
Regarding claim 15, DATTA discloses the moisture in the substrate can form condensate on the membrane (moisture in a gas state is condensed on carrier) (0202).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DATTA (US 2014/0227751 as applied above, in view of TSAI (US 2009/0215163) as supplied by applicant on the IDS dated 11/3/25.
Regarding claim 3, DATTA discloses the membrane element has a bio-layer side containing bio-pores and a hydration layer that controls liquid flow formed as a skin 520 on the inner surface (0199) but does not explicitly disclose the water content of the membrane (carrier) is 1-50% v/v.
However, TSAI discloses an asymmetric hollow fiber membrane for use in fermentation of syngas comprising a highly porous bio-layer for retaining the microorganisms within its pores and one or more less porous hydration layers for controlling the supply of water to and from the bio-layer (0014-16), in which either layer can comprise several layers (0038), in which the hydration layer must have restricted liquid permeability with respect to the biolayer, in most cases the hydration layer will comprise a higher density material, and the hydration layer has a thickness of from 0.5-10 um (0041-42) and thickness of the biolayer range from 50-500um (0040), the number of layers of each material and their thicknesses would determine the water content of the membrane such that a combination of layers and thicknesses in the ranges disclosed would result in a water content of the membrane of 1-50%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hollow fiber membranes of DATTA to include the construction and thickness of layers resulting in the claimed water content of the carrier as disclosed by TSAI because the hydration layer having restricted liquid permeability controls the flow of liquid across the membrane to prevent excessive fermentation liquid from migrating into the bio-layer during normal operation of the system and interfering with contact between the gas and microorganisms (0041).
Claim(s) 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DATTA (US 2014/0227751 as applied above, in view of PETRECCA (US 2003/0054546).
Regarding claim 12, 16, rotation mechanism is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as stated above, to be a rod or plate that can rotate around an axis (0008, 0049) and functional equivalents thereof. DATTA does not explicitly disclose a rotation mechanism connected to the carrier. However, PETRECCA discloses a biocatalyst chamber for fermentation in which cells are immobilized (cell is immobilized to the carrier) in a chamber formed between disks 203, 204 (plate) that are connected to a rod 208 that rotates around an axis connected to one end to a motor drive pulley (power source) and in which a fluid is provided through input tubes (gas supply)(Fig 60, 0253-260). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of DATTA to include the rotation mechanism as taught by PETRECCA because metabolic waste products will be continually removed from the cellular environments by the liquid process flow, arrays are continually presented with fresh, optimal liquid nutrient input and since these arrays are continually drained by the continuance of the process flow, the chemical composition of the cellular environment will be completely invariant in time (0274-276).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DATTA (US 2014/0227751) as applied above in view of KAZUHIRO (JP H07322874) as supplied by applicant on the IDS dated 3/16/26.
Regarding claim 23, moisture supply system has been interpreted under 35 USC 112f as stated above to be a water phase chamber or liquid reservoir (spec 0054) and/or supply channel (0035) and functional equivalents thereof.
DATTA discloses fermentation liquid (moisture) is supplied from outside of the bioreactor vessel 535 via a conduit 538 (supply channel) from a mixing chamber 548 (liquid reservoir) to a chamber 537 (water phase chamber) that distributes liquid to the tubular membranes 532 (0203-204, Fig 6) but does not explicitly disclose the moisture supply system is for intermittent supply of moisture.
However, KAZUHIRO discloses membrane surface liquid culture in which a liquid culture medium chamber S2 on one side of a porous membrane has a liquid culture medium circulating line 19/20 (supply channel) that removes and refeeds, respectively, the liquid culture into the chamber with a preparing tank 2 in the line (moisture supply system)(p.1 CONSTITUTION section) in which the circulation may be performed intermittently [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the liquid supply of DATTA to include the circulation being intermittent as taught by KZUHIRO because it allows for selecting the ideal flow rate for the given fermentation without wasting additional fluid or energy for circulation when the cells do not require it.
Regarding claim 24, moisture supply system has been interpreted under 35 USC 112f as stated above to be a water phase chamber or liquid reservoir (spec 0054) and/or supply channel (0035) and functional equivalents thereof.
DATTA discloses a bioreactor assembly (microorganism reaction system) comprising:
a bioreactor vessel 535 (reaction chamber) comprising a gas supply conduit 530 connected to a vessel port (gas supply section) which delivers a substrate with a continuous feed (flow can either be continuously), from outside of the bioreactor (supplies gaseous substrate from outside) (Fig 6, 0200-206);
a tubular membrane element 532, 512 (carrier, carrier is a thin membrane) which is installed in the vessel 535, (0203, Fig 6), the membrane element allows liquid permeation through (moisture permeable) (0199), but is positioned such that there is a gas contacting side 510 on an outer portion of the tube which is not immersed in the liquid that flows through the center of the hollow tube (Fig 5), wherein a microorganism 514 is contained in a bio-pore 516 on the outside of the membrane element (immobilized to the carrier), such that the microorganism is in direct contact with the gas phase on the gas contacting side 510 of the membrane (0199, Fig 5-6); the microorganisms are retained in bio-pores as the pore size of the skin 520 are much smaller than the width of the microorganisms, so that the skin 520 occludes the inner end of bio-pores 516 and prevents the microorganisms from passing through skin to the liquid contacting surface 522, therefore the microorganisms remain on the gas contacting side 510 of the membrane (microorganism cells are immobilized to a surface of the carrier) (0199, see Fig 5 below where cells 514 are only on gas contacting surface 510 and not on the liquid side of 522).
and a feed gas exit line 534 (gas discharge section) connected to the vessel 535.
DATTA discloses fermentation liquid (moisture) is supplied from outside of the bioreactor vessel 535 via a conduit 538 (supply channel) from a mixing chamber 548 (liquid reservoir) to a chamber 537 (water phase chamber) that distributes liquid to the tubular membranes 532 (0203-204, Fig 6) but does not explicitly disclose the moisture supply system is for intermittent supply of moisture.
However, KAZUHIRO discloses membrane surface liquid culture in which a liquid culture medium chamber S2 on one side of a porous membrane has a liquid culture medium circulating line 19/20 (supply channel) that removes and refeeds, respectively, the liquid culture into the chamber with a preparing tank 2 in the line (moisture supply system)(p.1 CONSTITUTION section) in which the circulation may be performed intermittently [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the liquid supply of DATTA to include the circulation being intermittent as taught by KZUHIRO because it allows for selecting the ideal flow rate for the given fermentation without wasting additional fluid or energy for circulation when the cells do not require it.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not disclose the microorganisms immobilized to a surface of the carrier exposed to the gas phase, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in Fig 5 of DATTA below, the microorganisms 514 are located on the gas (A) contacting side of the membrane 512. DATTA further discloses “The surfaces of bio-layer 518 that contact the microorganisms” which meets the amended limitation of at least a part of the microorganisms cells are immobilized to a surface of the carrier that is exposed to the gas phase, such that least a part of the microorganism is in direct contact with a gas phase (Fig 5, 0199).
In response to applicants’ argument regarding the instant specification Example 6, it is disclosed in DATTA that the microorganisms are kept from migrating to the liquid contacting side of the membrane by the skin 520 which “pores are much smaller than the width of the microorganisms” [0199]. Therefore, it is clear that the microorganisms of DATTA are kept on the surface of the carrier exposed to the gas phase and not located in the liquid phase as in the less desirable configuration disclosed in Example 6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIELLE B HENKEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5505. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 11-7 EST, Alt. Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIELLE B HENKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights