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. Claim Status Claims 1-14 are pending (claim set as filed on 11/13/2023). Claims 1-14 are currently under examination and were examined on their merits. Priority This application filed on 05/03/2023 claims priority to PCT application no. PCT/EP2021/080236, filed on 11/01/2021, and claims foreign priority to application no. EP 20205654.5, filed on 11/04/2020, and to application no. 20207700.4, filed on 11/16/2020. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/03/2023 has been received and considered. Claim Interpretation Claims 1 and 14 recite optional limitations. Please note that optional language is not required by the claims, and , therefore, any prior art that reads on the required claim limitations will be interpreted to read on the entireties of the instant claims, regardless of whether the prior art recites the optional limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) 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 8 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites “wherein the filling volume of the bioreactor in step a) is larger than 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450 or 500 m 3 during operation and wherein it is adapted to process more than 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 or 50 tons of waste per hour” wherein ‘it’ renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it refers to the filling volume or to the bioreactor. Claim 8 recites “ the biodegradable material ” which is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis because ‘biodegradable material’ is not recited within the claim or in claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Claim 14 recites “the flow rate” which is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis because ‘flow rate’ is not recited within the claim or in claim 1 from which claim 14 depends. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of claim s 7- 8 and 14 , and thus, could not clearly determine how to avoid infringement of the claim s . In the interest of compact prosecution, claim s 8 and 14 are interpreted to the broadest embodiment claimed. 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. 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 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. Claims 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (WO 2019/102364 A1, published on 05/31/2019) , hereinafter ‘Patil’, in view of S ø rensen et al. (WO 2019/201765 A1, published on 10/24/2019), hereinafter ‘ Sørensen ’, as evidenced by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery ( “Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors”, published in April 2016, downloaded from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016- 04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf, pages 1-7), hereinafter ‘EPA’. Patil’s general disclosure relates to “an improved anaerobic digestion system and method for solid organic wastes, soluble organic matter, by-products and residues ” ( see entire document, including paragraph [0021]). Regarding claim 1 , pertaining to the method of waste processing, Patil teaches a method for continuous or batch processing of waste (“ A method (400) for treating orga ni c material in a two-stage anaerobic biochemical reactor configuration with recirculation ”, “ the first reactor and the second reactor may function in batch mode or in the continuous mode ”, “ unique process for biogas generation from solid organic wastes ”; paragraph s [0041] , [0083] ; see claim 14 and Fig. 4 ) comprising : subjecting waste to an enzymatic and microbial treatment in a bioreactor (“hydrolysis and acidogenesis of the pre-treated slurry or the size reduced material, using a predetermined dose of mixture of enzymes and microbes secreted by the set of grown anaerobic microbes in the second reactor”; paragraph [0026] , [00108] , see claim 14 and second text box in Fig. 4 ) . It is noted that Patil’s “second reactor” (108) , also called “plug flow reactor” or “hydrolysis reactor” (for example in paragraphs [00108] or [00109] ; see Fig. 3 ), corresponds to the instant bioreactor. Patil further teaches subjecting the treated waste from step a) to one or more separation step(s ),whereby a bioliquid and a solid fraction is provided (“wherein the hydrolyzed liquid having dissolved organic acids is obtained by passing the hydrolyzed slurry material from the second reactor through one or more material separating techniques to automatically separate unreacted solids” ; paragraphs [0026], [0043] , see claim 14 ); subjecting said bioliquid to downstream processing providing process water (“The plug flow digester receives a hydrolyzed liquid having dissolved organic acids to anaerobically generate biogas by the action of anaerobic microbes present in the plug flow digester” ; “The digestate is passed through a solid liquid separation mechanism and the liquid obtained is partially or completely recycled” ; paragraph s [0026] , [0082]). It is note d that t he instant specifi cation states that “[p] rocess water may comprise water that is recycled from an industrial process” (page 22, lines 11-19 ). As such , the liquid fraction of the digestate produced in Patil’s plug flow digester reads on ‘process water’. Patil further teaches adding the process water obtained from step c) and optionally water from an external water source to the bioreactor in step a) ( “the liquid digestate generated may be selectively and occasionally recycled to an extent of 50 to 80% of the fresh water demand for mixture preparation” , “the second reactor (108) receives fresh water (c'), the recycled digestate from the plug flow digester (120) along with the pre-treated slurry material from the first reactor” ; paragraph [0045] , see claim 8 ) . Regarding claim 2 , pertaining to the downstream processing, Patil teaches wherein the downstream processing in step c) providing said process water is an anaerobic digestion process (“The plug flow digester receives a hydrolyzed liquid having dissolved organic acids to anaerobically generate biogas by the action of anaerobic microbes present in the plug flow digester ”; paragraph [0026] ; see claim 14 ). Regarding claim 3 , pertaining to the downstream processing, Patil teaches wherein the downstream processing in step c) providing said process water is an anaerobic digestion process providing reject water (“The plug flow digester receives a , hydrolyzed liquid having dissolved organic acids to anaerobically generate biogas” , “The digestate is passed through a solid liquid separation mechanism and the liquid obtained is partially or completely recycled”; paragraphs [0026], [0082] , [00104]; see digestate (h) and excess digestate for recycle (n) in Fig. 3 ). Please note the definition of reject water in the instant specification wherein “" [r] eject water" is defined as the liquid fraction obtained after one or more solid-liquid separations of the AD digestate and is accordingly the term applied to denote process water obtained from an AD process ” (specification, page 21, lines 1-3) . Regarding claim 6, pertaining to external water , Patil teaches wherein the external water in step d) is fresh water (“the second reactor (108) receives fresh water (c'), the recycled digestate from the plug flow digester (120) along with the pre-treated slurry material from the first reactor”; see claim 8 and paragraph [0045] ). Please note that the instant specification defines tap water “as any type of fresh water” (instant specification, page 22, lines 19-21). Regarding claim 8, pertaining to waste, Patil teaches “treating organic waste with non-biodegradable impurities in the range of 5-10% of substrate weight ” (paragraph [0074]), and further discloses wherein “ the anaerobic digestion process can be applicable for all types of solid organic wastes, including cooked/uncooked food waste , agricultural wastes including lignocellulosic material, slaughter house waste, municipal organic waste, garden clippings” (paragraph [0099]) . Patil’s “ solid cooked/uncooked food ” reads on ( g ) municipal solid waste wherein biodegradable material in said waste comprises food residues. Please note that t he instant specification refers to "Municipal solid waste" (MSW) as waste fractions which are typically available in a city ” (instant specification, page 23 , line 21 ) . Regarding claim 9 , pertaining to enzymatic and/or microbial treatment, Patil teaches wherein said enzymatic and microbial treatment in step a) is performed by adding enzymes, supplied in form of microbial organisms giving rise to the expression of such enzymes (“ anaerobic treatment and digestion of the pre-treated slurry material received from the first reactor using a pre-determined dose of enzymes secreted by a first set of grown anaerobic microbes in the second reactor , resulting in formation of a hydrolyzed slurry material at a second reactor” , “enzymes, secreted by anaerobic microbes, added with the waste in each batch paragraph ”; paragraphs [0043] , [0098] ). Regarding claim 13 , pertaining to temperature, Patil teaches wherein the treatment in step a) is performed at 32-35 °C (“The material is then added to the enzymatic-microbial hydrolysis … The temperature in the hydrolysis is maintained at 32-35C”; paragraph [0090]), which falls into the instantly recited range s of between 20 °C and 75 °C, and between 30 °C and 70 °C. Additionally, Patil teaches wherein enzymatic / microbial treatment is performed at a pH of 5.5-6.5 (paragraph [0090]), and wherein “[t]he alkalinity of the recycled digestate as the pretreatment medium helps to reduce and at large diminish the need of addition of external neutralizing agents” ( paragraph [0075] on page 16, lines 1 1 -1 3 ) . Patil further discloses “acidogenesis bacteria” (paragraph [0022] on page 6, line 9 ) , and that “ [t] he second reactor can receive the pre-treated slurry material from the first reactor or from the size reduction unit, …, to automatically execute hydrolysis and acidogenesis of the pre-treated slurry or the size reduced material, using a predetermined dose of mixture of enzymes and microbes secreted by the set of grown anaerobic microbes in the second reactor” ( paragraph [ 0026]). Patil teaches wherein “[t]he plug flow digester receives a hydrolyzed liquid having dissolved organic acids to anaerobically generate biogas by the action of anaerobic microbes present in the plug flow digester” (paragraph 0043]). Patil discloses a retention time of between 12-48 hours for domestic food waste in the bioreactor ( “For simpler organic substrates (SOS) such as domestic food waste, primary sludge and food industry waste the retention time of hydrolysis reactor ranges between 12-48 hours”; paragraph [0072]) , and further teaches adding water to a n agro - waste at a water:waste ratio of 1:1 to 3 : 1 before enzymatic and microbial treatment ( “The material was mixed with freshwater in the ratio from 1:1 to 1:3”; see Example 3 on page 25, paragraph [00102]) . Patil does not teach wherein the process water is added continuously or in batches, such that pH in the reactor is between pH 3.5-6 or wherein pH is adjusted to between 3.5 and 6 prior to adding the process water to the bioreactor in step a) ( instant claim 1 ) , wherein the filling volume of the bioreactor in step a) is larger than 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450 or 500 m 3 during operation and wherein it is adapted to process more than 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 or 50 tons of waste per hour ( instant claim 7 ), wherein said enzymatic and/or microbial treatment is performed by adding bacteria capable of producing biochemicals, ethanol, or biogas and/or by bacteria present in the waste ( instant claim 10 ), wherein the treatment in step a) comprises contacting the waste with a live lactic acid bacteria concentration of at least 1.0 x 10 6 , 1.0 x 10 7 , 1.0 x 10 8 or 1.0 x 10 9 CFU/L ( instant claim 11 ), wherein the treatment in step a) comprises adding microorganisms to the waste at a concentration of 1.0 x 10 6 , 1.0 x 10 7 , 1.0 x 10 8 , 1.0 x 10 9 or 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L ( instant claim 12 ), wherein the flow rate of the addition of process water and optionally water from an external source in step d) into the bioreactor in step a) is essentially constant and/or essentially proportional, to the amount of waste, having between 1:1 and 3:1 of water:waste proportion ( instant claim 14 ). Sørensen ’s general disclosure relates to “to qualitative or quantitative determination of chemical compounds or classes of compounds in heterogeneous waste comprising biodegradable and non- biodegradable matter” (see entire document, including abstract). Regarding claim 1 , pertain ing to a method for processing of waste, Sørensen teaches a method for enzymatic and microbial processing of waste ( “process for treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) by use of enzymatic degradation and microbial fermentation taking place in a bioreactor”; page 5, lines 34-35; page 74, lines 5-7; see claim 1). Pertaining to the pH in the bioreactor, Sørensen teaches wherein “the pH is generally from about pH 3 to about pH 7, e.g., about pH 4 to about pH 7 such as pH 3, pH 3.5, pH 4, pH 4.5, pH 5, pH 5.5, pH 6 ” ( page 21, lines 3 -8 ), and further discloses wherein “ [t]he pH may be adjusted in order to discourage methane production by methanogens, for example, by adjusting the pH to less than 6.0, or less than 5.8, or less than 5.6, or less than 5.5” (page 33, lines 15-17). Regarding claim 10 , pertaining to enzymatic and/or microbial treatment, Sørensen teaches wherein said enzymatic and/or microbial treatment is performed by adding bacteria capable of producing biochemicals, ethanol, or biogas (“combined enzymatic and microbial treatment in step a) is performed by adding hydrolytic enzymes, supplied in either native form or in form of microbial organisms giving rise to the accumulation of such enzymes; and by adding standard, cultivated, or manipulated yeast, bacteria, or any other microorganism capable of producing biochemicals, ethanol, or biogas ”; page 18, lines 1-5, see claim 6). In addition, Sørensen discloses wherein “ microbial fermentation using any combination of lactic acid bacteria, or acetate-, ethanol-, formate -, butyrate-, lactate-, pentanoate- or hexanoate- producing microorganisms, "pre-conditions" the bioliquid so as to render it more efficient as a substrate for further processing, such as biomethane production ” (page 4, lines 18-22). Regarding claim s 11, pertaining to the treatment in step a), Sørensen teaches contacting the waste with a live lactic acid bacteria concentration of at least 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L (“ contacting the waste with a live lactic acid bacteria concentration of at least 1.0 x10 ^ 10 CFU/L” ; page 23, lines 11-12, see claim 9). Regarding claim 12, pertaining to the treatment in step a), Sørensen teaches adding microorganisms to the waste at a concentration of at least 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L (“contacting the waste with a live lactic acid bacteria concentration of at least 1.0 x10 ^ 10 CFU/L”; page 23, lines 11-12, see claim 9). Additionally, Sørensen teaches a waste batch size of 15-20 m 3 or 40-6000 m 3 (page 9, lines 29 -33). It is further noted that 40 to 6000 m 3 of food waste has a weight of about 11 to 1 650 tons , based on 1 m 3 of food waste having a weight of about 0. 275 tons, as evidenced by EPA (“Standard Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors … Food waste … Volume … cubic yard …Estimated Weight ( lbs ) … 463 lbs ”; see line 36 in the t able presented on page 3). Sørensen further discloses adjusting the pH to discourage methane production by methanogens (page 33, line 15). While Patil does not teach wherein the process water is added continuously or in batches, such that pH in the reactor is between pH 3.5-6 or wherein pH is adjusted to between 3.5 and 6 prior to adding the process water to the bioreactor in step a) ( instant claim 1 ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Patil’s method with Patil’s teachings on using process water for neutralizing and thus adjusting the pH , and further with Sorenson’s teachings on pH values of pH 3.5, pH 4, pH 4.5, pH 5, pH 5.5, and pH 6 during microbial/enzyme treatment of waste , to have created a waste treatment method, wherein the process water is added continuously or in batches, such that the pH in the reactor is between pH 3.5-6 or wherein pH is adjusted to between 3.5 and 6 prior to adding the process water to the bioreactor in step a). One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide optimal pH for maximal hydrolysis of waste and acidogenesis in the bioreactor , while discouraging methane production by methanogens ( Sørensen , page 33, line 15) . A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Patil’s method with Sørensen ’s teachings since both references are directed to microbial/enzymatic treatment of waste. While modified Patil does not teach wherein the flow rate of the addition of process water and water from an external source in step d) into the bioreactor in step a) is essentially constant and/or essentially proportional, to the amount of waste, having between 1:1 and 3:1 of water:waste proportion ( instant claim 14 ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Patil’s method with Patil’s teaching s on adding water to waste at a 1:1 to 3:1 water to waste ratio upstream of enzymatic/microbial treatment, in order to have created a method wherein the flow rate of the addition of process water and water from an external source in step d) into the bioreactor in step a) is essentially proportional to the amount of waste, having between 1:1 and 3:1 of water:waste proportion. One would have been motivated to do so, to further optimize a djusting the pH in the bioreactor to a desired pH for improving waste hydrolysis and acidogenesis in the bioreactor, and to reduce or eliminate the need for adding external agents for pH adjustments (Patil, par a graph [ 0075] on page 16, lines15-17 ). While modified Patil does not teach wherein the filling volume of the bioreactor in step a) is larger than 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450 or 500 m 3 during operation and is adapted to process more than 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 or 50 tons of waste per hour ( instant claim 7 ) , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined modified Patel’s method with Sørensen ’s teachings on waste batch sizes of 40 to 6000 m 3 of food waste corresponding to a mass of about 11 to 1650 tons and with Patil’s teachings on reactor retention time s of 12-48 hours , to have created a waste treatment method wherein the filling volume of the bioreactor in step a) is larger than 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450 or 500 m 3 , and is adapted to process 0.92 to 137.5 tons of waste per hour given a 12 hour reactor retention time (11 to 1650 tons/ 12 hours) , or a bout 0. 23 to 3 4. 4 tons of waste per hour given a 48 hour reactor retention time (11 to 1650 tons/ 48 hours) . One would have been motivated to do so to ensure treatment of waste batch sizes of 15-20 m 3 and 40-6000 m 3 as taught by Sørensen (page 9, lines 29 -33) that allow for waste process rate s at a tons per hour rate within Patil’s reactor retention times . While modified Patil does not expressly teach wherein the bioreactor is adapted to process more than 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 or 50 tons of waste per hour ( instant claim 7 ), the instantly recited ranges of process rates would be with in the realm of routine experimentation, since Sørensen teaches waste batch sizes of 40-6000 m 3 (page 9, lines 32-33), a nd Patil teaches reactor retention time s of 12 -48 hours (paragraph [0072]) resulting in 0.92 to 137.5 tons of waste per hour given a 12 hour reactor retention time, or in 0.23 to 34.38 tons of waste per hour given a 48 hour reactor retention time . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have determined the optimal processing rate for a given waste and microbial/enzyme composition, and thus to have employed a bioreactor adapted to process the waste at the optimized rate s . Further, one would expect success since Patil’s and Sørensen ’s teachings are directed to different types of waste (see Patil, paragraph [0034] -[ 0035], [0065]; see Sørensen , page 8, lines 11-24 ) , and th us , manipulation of retention times, process ing rates , and bioreactor design would be within the purview of an artisan. While modified Patil does not teach wherein said enzymatic and/or microbial treatment is performed by adding bacteria capable of producing biochemicals, ethanol, or biogas and/or by bacteria present in the waste ( instant claim 10 ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Patil’s method with Sørensen ’s teachings on the addition of bacteria, in order to have developed a method wherein said enzymatic and/or microbial treatment is performed by adding bacteria capable of producing biochemicals, ethanol, or biogas and/or by bacteria present in the waste. One would have been motivated to do so to improve waste treatment in the bioreactor, wherein bacterially produced biochemicals can serve as substrates for downstream biomethane production ( Sørensen , page 4, lines 18-29) , which is a component of biogas (Patil, paragraph [0076]). While modified Patil does not teach wherein the treatment in step a) comprises contacting the waste with a live lactic acid bacteria concentration of at least 1.0 x 10 6 , 1.0 x 10 7 , 1.0 x 10 8 or 1.0 x 10 9 CFU/L ( instant claim 11 ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Patil’s teachings with Sørensen ’s teachings on contacting waste with live lactic acid bacteria at a concentration of at least 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L, to have created a waste treatment method , wherein the treatment in step a) comprises contacting the waste with a live lactic acid bacteria concentration of at least 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L . One would have been motivated to do so to improve waste treatment and downstream biogas production, since any combination of “lactic acid bacteria, or … "pre-conditions" the bioliquid so as to render it more efficient as a substrate for further processing, such as biomethane production ” ( Sørensen , page 4, lines 18-29 ). While modified Patil does not teach wherein the treatment in step a) comprises adding microorganisms to the waste at a concentration of 1.0 x 10 6 , 1.0 x 10 7 , 1.0 x 10 8 , 1.0 x 10 9 or 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L ( instant claim 12 ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined modified Patil’s teachings with Sørensen ’s teachings on adding bacteria at a concentration of at least 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L, to have created a waste treatment method wherein step a) comprises adding microorganisms to the waste at a concentration of at least 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L . One would have been motivated to do so to improve waste hydrolysis and acidogenesis in the bioreactor . While modified Patil does not expressly teach wherein the microorganism s are added at a concentration of 1.0 x 10 6 , 1.0 x 10 7 , 1.0 x 10 8 , 1.0 x 10 9 or 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L , the recited concentrations would be within the realm of routine experimentation since modified Patil teaches a concentration of least 1.0 x 10 10 CFU/L. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined t he optimal concentration of added microorganisms for improved waste hydrolysis and acidogenesis in the bioreactor . Further, a skilled artisan would have expected success since Patil’s and Sørensen ’s teachings are directed to different types of waste (see Patil, paragraph s [0034] -[ 0035], [0065]; see Sørensen , page 8, lines 11-24), and therefore, manipulation of microbial concentrations would be within the purview of an artisan. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 (CCPA1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 part II A. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (WO 2019/102364 A1, published on 05/31/2019), hereinafter ‘Patil’, in view of Sørensen et al. (WO 2019/201765 A1, published on 10/24/2019), hereinafter ‘ Sørensen ’, as evidenced by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (“Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors”, published in April 2016, downloaded from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf, pages 1-7), hereinafter ‘EPA’, in view of Larsen (WO 00/70014, published on 11/23/2000), hereinafter ‘Larsen’. Patil’s and Sørensen ’s teachings have been set forth above. As discussed above, Patil teaches returning reject water to the bioreactor (Patil, see claim 8), and using the alkalinity of reject water for neutralizing ( paragraph [0075] on page 16, lines 15-17 ) . Sørensen teaches wherein the pH during microbial waste treatment is “3.5, pH 4, pH 4.5, pH 5, pH 5.5, pH 6” ( Sørensen , page 21, lines 3 -8) . Modified Patil does not teach wherein the pH of the reject water is adjusted to between 3.5 and 6 by addition of acid and/or by reducing the ammonium content ( instant claim 4 ) , and wherein the reject water obtained from said anaerobic digestion process is subject to hygienization before being subjected to step d) ( instant claim 5 ). Larsen’s general disclosure relates to U-shape and/or nozzle-U-loop fermentors and methods of the operation of the same (see entire document, including abstract). Regarding claim 4 , pertaining to adjusting the pH , Larsen teaches wherein “[s] odium hydroxide and sulphuric acid are used for pH adjustments” (page 5, lines 23-24). Regarding claim 5 , pertaining to sterilizing reject water, Larsen teaches a fermentation process in a bioreactor (page 1, lines 8-14 ; see Fig. 1 ) wherein “ [ i ]n order to minimise the consumption of process water and to minimise the amount of wastewater, the process water (supernatant) separated by the separator 35, by the sterilization unit 39 and by the ultra filtration unit 43 is returned after a short heat treatment” ( page 16, lines 1-4 ; page 13 , lines 1 2 -15; see Fig. 1 ). While modified P atil does not teach wherein the pH of the reject water is adjusted to between 3.5 and 6 by addition of acid and/or by reducing the ammonium content ( instant claim 4 ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Patil’s method with Larsen ’s teachings on using acid for adjusting the pH , and with Sørensen ’s teachings on a microbial waste treatment pH of 3.5, pH 4, pH 4.5, pH 5, pH 5.5, pH 6 ” (page 21, lines 7-8), to have created a waste treatment method wherein the pH of the reject water is adjusted to between 3.5 and 6 by addition of acid . One would have been be motivated to do so to improve pH control in the bioreactor and thus enhance waste hydrolysis and acidogenesis . While modified Patil does not teach wherein the reject water obtained from said anaerobic digestion process is subject to hygienization before being subjected to step d) ( instant claim 5 ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined modified Pati l ’s method with Larsen ’s teachings on returning process water obtained from steriliz ed fermentation liquid and after heat treatment to the bioreactor, to have created a method wherein the reject water obtained from the anaerobic digestion process is subject to hygienization before being subjected to step d). One would have been motivated to do so in order to remove microorganisms originating from the anaerobic digest er , that could lead to biogas production in the upstream hydrolysis/acidogenesis bioreactor . A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Patil’s and Larsen ’s teachings since both are directed to recirculating process water obtained downstream from a bioreactor. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SANDRA ZINGARELLI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1799 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sharmila Landau can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /SANDRA ZINGARELLI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653 /SHARMILA G LANDAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653