DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application Claims 5, 11-14 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The examination of the instant application has been assigned to a different Examiner in Group Art Unit 1652. A preliminary amendment cancelling claims 1-4, 6-10, and addition of claims 11-14 as submitted in a communication filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of Group II, claim 5, drawn to a process for producing a single cell protein, as submitted in a communication filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). New claims 11-14 are directed to the elected invention. Claims 5 and 11-14 are at issue and are being examined herein. Priority Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to DENMARK PA 2020 00816 filed on 07/07/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. This is the US national application which entered the national stage from PCT/EP2021/068582 filed on 07/06/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/6/2023 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to due to the recitation of “ a gaseous hydrogen gas (H2) ”. Since the term already states “hydrogen gas”, the term should be amended to recite “providing hydrogen gas (H 2 )”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is objected to due to the presence of a hyphen between “C1” and “compound” in step (c). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or Second Paragraph (pre-AIA) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 5, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5 (claims 11-14 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “mixing the hydrogen gas from step (a) with a carbon source, e.g., gaseous carbon source such as carbon monoxide….or a combination thereof, proving a C1 compound” for the following reasons. The term “e.g., gaseous carbon source such as carbon monoxide..” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In addition, the term “C1 compound” is unclear because one cannot determine what kind of compound is a C1 compound. If the term refers to a compound with a single carbon atom, the claim should be amended accordingly. For examination purposes, no patentable weight will be given to the term “e.g., gaseous carbon source such as carbon monoxide …combination thereof” and the term “C1 compound” will be interpreted as “compound having one carbon atom”. Correction is required. Claim 13 is indefinite in the recitation of “..process according to any one of claims 5, wherein the gaseous carbon source is obtained from a carbon capture process…” for the following reasons. There is only one claim 5, therefore it is unclear as to what the meaning of the term “any one of claims 5” is. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that claim 13 depends from claim 5. Correction is required. Claim 14 is indefinite in the recitation of “… process according to any one of claims 5, wherein CO 2 generated the fermentation process is recirculated” for the following reasons. There is only one claim 5, therefore it is unclear as to what the meaning of the term “any one of claims 5” is. In addition, the term “wherein CO 2 generated the fermentation process is recirculated” is completely unclear and confusing. Is the fermentation process recirculated? Does CO 2 generate the fermentation process? For examination purposes, it will be assumed that claim 14 is a duplicate of claim 5 as interpreted above. Correction is required. When amending the claims, applicant is advised to carefully review all examined claims and make the necessary changes to ensure proper antecedent basis and dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA) 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 5, 11, 13-1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al. (WO 2018/132379, published 7/19/2018; cited in the IDS) . Claims 5, 11, 13-1 4 are directed in part to a process for producing single cell protein, wherein said method comprises providing hydrogen gas and a gas carbon source to obtain a mixture that comprises a compound with 1 carbon atom, adding this mixture to a loop reactor that comprises a microorganism that can metabolize the compound with 1 carbon atom, fermenting said microorganism to produce a biomass material and isolating said biomass material to obtain single cell protein. Please note that the source of hydrogen used in the process is deemed a product-by-process limitation which does not further limit the structure of hydrogen. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or Second Paragraph (pre-AIA) for claim interpretation. Nguyen et al. teach a process for the production of biomass by culturing microorganisms in a loop reactor fed with a gas (Abstract). Nguyen et al. teach that their process can use one or more gases, including hydrogen, and compounds that comprise one carbon atom, and/or oxygen, and that these gases can be transferred individually to the loop reactor (page 30, lines 4-6; page 37, line 19-page 38, line 4). Nguyen et al. teach adding carbon monoxide and hydrogen at different flow rates to the loop reactor (page 38, line 30-page 39, line 8). Nguyen et al. teach that the microorganisms cultured are able to ferment gaseous feedstocks including compounds that have 1 carbon atom (page 8, lines 21-29 ; page 23, lines 1-26 ), as well as microorganisms that are capable of metabolizing compounds that have 1 carbon atom found in syngas (page 9, lines 16-25 ; page 23, line 27-page 24, line 6 ). Nguyen et al. teach that syngas is a mixture that includes carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and can also include methane and CO 2 . (page 25, lines 16-20). Nguyen et al. teach that the process results in the production of natural products including single-cell protein (page 33, lines 23-27). Nguyen et al. teach that the biomass is removed and deliver to a separation subsystem where it can be processed to obtain the desirable product from the biomass (page 39, lines 17-25). Therefore, the process of Nguyen et al. anticipate the instant claims as written/interpreted. 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA) 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 of this title, 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. 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 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. 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 5, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (Biotechnology and Bioengineering 114(2):344-354, 2017; cited in the IDS) in view of Brunner et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0369303 published 12/22/2016 ; cited in the IDS ) and further in view of Kato et al. (Energy 30:2580-2595, 2005). Petersen et al. teach a method for the production of single cell protein from Methylococcus capsulatus by fermenting Methylococcus capsulatus in a loop reactor (Abstract). Petersen et al. teach that Methylococcus capsulatus requires methane (CH 4 ) and oxygen (page 344, left column, formula 1). Petersen et al. teach that to use M. capsulatus in commercial state production of single cell protein, the bioreactor needs to be capable of handling a large oxygen and methane gas fraction while providing a high gas to liquid mass transfer coefficient (page 344, left column, Introduction). Petersen et al. teach that the U-loop fermenter handles the process requirement for a large volumetric gas fraction quite well (page 353, le3ft column, Conclusion). Peterson et al. do not teach generation of H 2 and oxygen from water electrolysis and the use of said oxygen in the fermentation of Methylococcus capsulatus, or the addition of H 2 . Brunner et al. teach the generation of methane from culturing methanogenic microorganisms in a loop reactor from H 2 and CO 2 (Abstract; page 2, paragraph [019] , page 3, paragraphs [030]-[033] ) . Brunner et al. teach an apparatus with an outlet from which the methane could be obtained (114) , separate lines to feed the gas substrates or as a gas mixture by means of one line to the nozzle (page 6, paragraph s [0136] -[0137] , Figure 1) , thus teaching mixing of H 2 and CO 2 . Brunner et al. do not teach production of single cell protein. Kato et al. teach the production of hydrogen and oxygen from water electrolysis (page 2581, first full paragraph) and that hydrogen and oxygen produced by this electrolysis can be used in different applications (page 2581, Figure 1) . Kato et al. teach that to avoid fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, hydrogen should be produced from renewable energy resources (Abstract). Kato et al. do not teach the production of single cell protein. Claims 5, 11-14 are directed in part to a process for producing single cell protein, wherein said method comprises providing hydrogen gas and a gas carbon source to obtain a compound with 1 carbon atom, adding the compound with 1 carbon atom to a loop reactor that comprises a microorganism that can metabolize the compound with 1 carbon atom, fermenting said microorganism to produce a biomass material and isolating said biomass material to obtain single cell protein, wherein said process requires producing the hydrogen gas by water electrolysis, and adding the oxygen produced from said hydrolysis to the fermentation of said microorganism. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or Second Paragraph (pre-AIA) for claim interpretation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the methane required in the method of Petersen et al. by using the method of Brunner et al. , and use the method of Kato et al. to produce the hydrogen required to produce methane and the oxygen required in the method of Petersen et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to use the method of Brunner et al. to produce the methane required in the method of Petersen et al. for the benefit of (i) producing methane when needed without having to use storage tanks and (ii) using a biological method that requires lower temperature and pressure compared to the chemical method to generate methane (Brunner et al. , page 1, paragraph [002]). A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to use water electrolysis al. to produce (a) the hydrogen required to produce methane, and (b) the oxygen required to culture Methylococcus capsulatus because Kato et al. teach that water electrolysis is a method to produce hydrogen and oxygen that uses renewable resources, thus being environmentally friendly. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at producing the methane required by the method of Petersen et al. because Brunner et al. teach the successful production of methane by mixing hydrogen and carbon dioxide such that methanogenic bacteria produces methane. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at producing hydrogen and oxygen by water electrolysis because Kato et al. teach that water electrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim s 5, 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/724,258 (same inventors, same assignee) . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. Claims 5, 11-14 of the instant application are directed in part to a process for producing single cell protein, wherein said method comprises providing hydrogen gas and a gas carbon source to obtain a compound with 1 carbon atom, adding the compound with 1 carbon atom to a loop reactor that comprises a microorganism that can metabolize the compound with 1 carbon atom, fermenting said microorganism to produce a biomass material and isolating said biomass material to obtain single cell protein, wherein said process requires producing the hydrogen gas by water electrolysis, and adding the oxygen produced from said hydrolysis to the fermentation of said microorganism. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or Second Paragraph (pre-AIA) for claim interpretation. Claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/724,258 are directed in part to (A) a method for producing a single cell protein comprising the steps of: (a) providing gaseous hydrogen; (b) mixing the hydrogen gas from step (a) with a carbon source, to provide a C1 compound; (c) adding or passing the C1 compound provided in step (b) to a loop reactor comprising one or more microorganisms capable of metabolizing the C1 compound providing an inoculated fermentation medium; (d) allowing the inoculated fermentation medium to ferment, in a fermentation process, and converting the C1 compound into a biomass material; and (e) isolating the biomass material provided in step (c) and providing the single cell protein, wherein the carbon source is gaseous carbon monoxide (CO); gaseous carbon dioxide; or a combination hereof, wherein the hydrogen is provided by water electrolysis, and (B) a process for providing a first reaction product by a first fermentation process conducted in a first loop reactor, the method comprising the steps of: (i) adding an inoculum comprising one or more methanogenic microorganism to the first loop reactor providing a first inoculated fermentation medium; (ii) adding a gaseous hydrogen to the first inoculated fermentation medium; (iii) adding a first carbon source to the first inoculated fermentation medium; (iv) allowing the first fermentation medium to ferment, providing the first reaction product; and (v) isolating the first reaction product provided in step (iv), wherein the first carbon source is gaseous carbon monoxide; gaseous carbon dioxide; or a combination hereof, wherein the first reaction product provided in step (v) is a single cell protein; and wherein the hydrogen is provided by water electrolysis. Therefore, the invention of claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/724,258 anticipates the invention of claims 5, 11-14 of the instant application as written/interpreted. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claim is in condition for allowance. 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. Applicant is advised that any Internet email communication by the Examiner has to be authorized by Applicant in written form . See MPEP § 502.03 (II). Without a written authorization by Applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Sample written authorization language can be found in MPEP § 502.03 (II). An Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications form (SB/439) can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/ forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, which can be electronically filed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DELIA M RAMIREZ , Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert B. Mondesi, can be reached at (408) 918-7584 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. /DELIA M RAMIREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652 DR April 1, 2026