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 .
Manner of Making Amendments to Patent Applications
In response to this action, the status identifiers for claims 28-32 should be “(Withdrawn)” or “(Withdrawn – Currently Amended)” and not “(Currently Amended)”. See 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c) and MPEP 714(II)(C)(A). Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (claims 2-15) in the reply filed on 11/05/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 28-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/05/2025.
The remaining claims 1, 16-27, and 33-34, are drawn to a system and are classified in the respective USPC as well as CPCs from above with the inclusion of the elected species.
In all, the claims 1-27 and 33-34 are examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on:
01/19/2024
01/22/2024
02/16/2024
Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 13, the term “compressed gas” can be “a compressed gas”, but this is optional.
Regarding claim 1, in line 18, the term “compressed gas” can be “a compressed gas”, but this is optional.
Regarding claim 33, in line 2, the term “induced by gas from the one or more first spargers and/or the one or more second spargers” can be “induced by the compressed gas from the one or more first spargers and/or the compressed gas from the one or more second spargers”. The term “compressed gas” has antecedent basis for both the one or more first spargers and/or the one or more second spargers in parent claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 18-21 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 18 recites the limitation “a second portion of the downcomer section” in line 6. However, this is confusing, as the only other relevant portion recited in the parent claim 1, in lines 16-17 is “a lower portion of the downcomer section”. Due to the way that the claims are written, it would have been expected that there is a “first portion of the downcomer section” recited in claim 18 or its parent claims. See the instant specification at paragraph [0040] and/or instant Fig. 1 for further suggestions on how to amend this limitation.
Regarding the dependent claims 19-21, these claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-21, 23-27, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen (US 20110244543) (newly disclosed) in view of Satou (US 20180072978) (newly disclosed) and Li (US 20150031099) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Larsen discloses a system comprising:
a main exterior body (annotated Figs. 2-5, element 100 “U-loop fermenter” and paragraphs [0073] and [0080]) comprising:
a return section at a bottom of the main exterior body (annotated Figs. 2-5, element 103 “U-bend” and paragraphs [0073]-[0074] and [0080]);
a gas disengagement section at a top of the main exterior body (annotated Figs. 2-5, element 104 “top part” and paragraph [0076]);
a riser section positioned between the return section and the gas disengagement section (annotated Figs. 2-5, element 102 “up-flow leg” and paragraph [0073]); and
a downcomer section positioned between the gas disengagement section and the return section (annotated Figs. 2-5, element 101 “down-flow leg” and paragraph [0073]); and,
one or more first spargers (paragraphs [0038] and [0086]) positioned in a portion of the riser section of the main exterior body, and wherein the one or more first spargers are configured to supply compressed gas to the riser section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0086] “The gaseous substances may be added anywhere along the legs 101,102 or the lower connecting part 103 of the fermenter”);
one or more second spargers (paragraphs [0038] and [0086]) positioned in a portion of the downcomer section of the main exterior body adjacent to the return section, and wherein the one or more second spargers are configured to supply compressed gas to the downcomer section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0086] “The gaseous substances may be added anywhere along the legs 101,102 or the lower connecting part 103 of the fermenter”).
PNG
media_image1.png
783
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Larsen, Annotated Figs. 2 and 3
If it is deemed that Larsen does not disclose “compressed gas”, Li discloses a compressed gas (paragraph [0148]).
In the analogous art of microorganism culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Larsen with the compressed gases of Li in order to facilitate delivery of the streams to particular stages, for example, to provide gases to a bioreactor with different efficiencies of the fermentation reaction performed therein because of the compressed gases (Li, paragraph [0148]).
Larsen does not disclose:
one or more first spargers each having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein each of the one or more first spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body and the second end is positioned in a lower portion of the riser section; and
one or more second spargers each having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein each of the one or more second spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body and the second end is positioned in a lower portion of the downcomer section of the main exterior body adjacent to the return section.
Satou discloses one or more first spargers (paragraphs [0048] and [0061]; and, Fig. 1, element 22 “diffuser tube”) each having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 1, element 22 “diffuser tube”), wherein each of the one or more first spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body and the second end is positioned in a lower portion of the riser section (paragraphs [0048] and [0061]; and, Fig. 1, element 22 “diffuser tube”).
In the analogous art of microorganismal culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the U-shape fermenter of Larsen with the sparger of Satou in order to diffuse and dissolve gases into the culture medium for microorganismal growth (Satou, abstract and paragraph [0061]).
PNG
media_image2.png
682
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Satou, Fig. 1
Regarding the limitation “one or more second spargers each having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein each of the one or more second spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body and the second end is positioned in a lower portion of the downcomer section of the main exterior body adjacent to the return section”, this limitation is both obvious under duplication of parts and rearrangement of parts. Regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Additionally, regarding the limitation, rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). In the analogous art of microorganismal culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the U-shape fermenter of Larsen with the sparger of Satou in order to diffuse and dissolve gases into the culture medium for microorganismal growth (Satou, abstract and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 2, Larsen discloses wherein the system comprises an external-loop system, and wherein the main exterior body comprises a closed loop (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 3, Larsen discloses wherein each of the return section (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]), the gas disengagement section (paragraph [0076]), the riser section (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]), and the downcomer section have a round cross-section (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 4, Larsen discloses wherein a diameter of the return section is less than a diameter of the gas disengagement section (paragraph [0038] “the top part having a diameter which is substantially larger than the diameter of U-part”).
Regarding claim 5, Larsen discloses wherein the riser section includes a first portion having a first diameter (paragraph [0085] the inherent narrow portion of “a narrowing of the diameter of/cross-section of the leg 102”), a second portion having a second diameter that is greater than the first diameter (paragraph [0085] the inherent wider portion of “a narrowing of the diameter/cross-section of the leg 102”); and, a third portion having a variable diameter (paragraph [0076]; and, Figs. 2-5, element 114 “conical connection parts”).
Larsen does not disclose a third portion having a variable diameter connecting the first portion to the second portion.
Regarding this limitation, rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conical connection part of Larsen to connect the first portion to the second portion in order to better adjust the flow of medium through the riser section without as many eddies and turbulent behavior.
Regarding claim 6, Larsen does not disclose wherein the second portion of the riser section has a greater length that the first portion of the riser section.
However, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second portion of the riser section of Larsen to have greater length than the first portion of the riser section of Larsen in order to have a larger volume of the riser to increase the total volume of the reactor.
Regarding claim 7, Larsen discloses wherein the first diameter of the first portion of the riser section (Fig. 2, lower portion of the riser section) is equal to a diameter of the return section (paragraph [0038] “the diameter of U-part”, inherently indicating that the U-part has one diameter; Fig. 2, return section).
If it is deemed that Larsen does not disclose “wherein the first diameter of the first portion of the riser section is equal to a diameter of the return section”, the limitation is obvious under changes in the size, proportion, and/or shapes of parts: the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. In addition, the claim limitation is obvious, as the configuration of the claimed shape is a matter of choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection between riser section and the return section of Larsen to connect the first portion to the return section with an equal diameter in order to better adjust the flow of medium through the riser section without as many eddies and turbulent behavior.
Regarding claim 8, Larsen does not disclose wherein the second diameter of the second portion of the riser section is equal to a diameter of the gas disengagement section.
However, the limitation is obvious under changes in the size, proportion, and/or shapes of parts: the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. In addition, the claim limitation is obvious, as the configuration of the claimed shape is a matter of choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection between riser section and the gas disengagement section of Larsen to connect the second portion to the gas disengagement section with an equal diameter in order to better adjust the flow of medium through the riser section without as many eddies and turbulent behavior.
Regarding claim 9, Larsen discloses wherein the one or more first spargers are positioned in the riser section (paragraphs [0038] and [0086]); and, the first portion of the riser section (paragraph [0085] the inherent narrow portion of “a narrowing of the diameter of/cross-section of the leg 102”).
Larsen does not disclose “one or more first spargers are positioned in the first portion of the riser section”.
However, regarding this limitation, rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the location of the one or more first spargers of Larsen to be in the first portion of the riser section in order to create an airlift effect to keep the culture medium moving upwards through the riser section.
Regarding claim 10, Larsen discloses wherein the downcomer section (annotated Figs. 2-5, element 101 “down-flow leg” and paragraph [0073]) includes a first portion having a first diameter (inherent to annotated Figs. 2-5, element 101 “down-flow leg” and paragraph [0073]) and a second portion having a variable diameter (paragraph [0076]; and, Figs. 2-5, element 114 “conical connection parts”) connecting the first portion to the gas disengagement section (annotated Figs. 2-5, element 104 “top part” and paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, Larsen discloses wherein the first portion of the downcomer section (inherent to annotated Figs. 2-5, element 101 “down-flow leg” and paragraph [0073]) has a greater length (see drawings with a length of Figs. 2-5, element 101 “down-flow leg”) than the second portion of the downcomer section (paragraph [0076]; and, Figs. 2-5, element 114 “conical connection parts”).
If it is deemed that Larsen does not disclose the limitation “a greater length”, it would have been obvious to modify the size or proportion of the ratio of the length of the first portion of the downcomer section to the second portion of the downcomer section. In addition, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of the first portion of the downcomer section to the second portion of the downcomer section in order to increase the total length of the downcomer to hold more volume in the system.
Regarding claim 12, Larsen discloses wherein the first diameter of the first portion of the downcomer section (inherent to annotated Figs. 2-5, element 101 “down-flow leg” and paragraph [0073]) is equal in a diameter of the return section (paragraph [0038] “the diameter of U-part”, inherently indicating that the U-part has one diameter; Fig. 2, return section).
If it is deemed that Larsen does not disclose “wherein the first diameter of the first portion of the downcomer section is equal in a diameter of the return section”, the limitation is obvious under changes in the size, proportion, and/or shapes of parts: the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. In addition, the claim limitation is obvious, as the configuration of the claimed shape is a matter of choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection between downcomer section and the return section of Larsen to connect the first portion to the return section with an equal diameter in order to better adjust the flow of medium through the downcomer section without as many eddies and turbulent behavior.
Regarding claim 13, Larsen discloses wherein the one or more second spargers are positioned in the first portion of the downcomer section (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Larsen does not disclose wherein the one or more first spargers comprises a plurality of spargers equally spaced around the riser section such that a longitudinal axis of each of the one or more first spargers intersect at a center of the riser section.
However, this limitation is obvious under both duplication of parts and rearrangement of parts. Regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Additionally, regarding the limitation, rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spargers of Larsen to be a plurality of spargers at the spacing given above in order to create a larger bubbling effect of the sparger so that more gases move the culture medium more effectively through the riser section of the reactor.
Regarding claim 15, Larsen does not disclose wherein the one or more first spargers comprises six spargers.
However, this limitation is obvious under duplication of parts. Regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spargers of Larsen to be six spargers in order to create a larger bubbling effect of the sparger so that more gases move the culture medium more effectively through the riser section of the reactor.
Regarding claim 16, Larsen does not disclose wherein the one or more second spargers comprises two spargers.
However, this limitation is obvious under duplication of parts. Regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spargers of Larsen to be two spargers in order to create a larger bubbling effect of the sparger to oxygenate the culture medium more effectively through the downcomer section of the reactor.
Regarding claim 17, Larsen does not disclose wherein the one or more second spargers are positioned such that a longitudinal axis of each of the one or more second spargers are parallel to one another.
However, this limitation is obvious under both duplication of parts and rearrangement of parts. Regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Additionally, regarding the limitation, rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spargers of Larsen to be one or more second spargers at the location(s) above as well as orientated as given above in order to create a larger bubbling effect of the sparger to oxygenate the culture medium more effectively through the downcomer section of the reactor.
Regarding claim 18, Larsen discloses further comprising:
one or more spargers (paragraph [0079] “addition of pressurized gas, e.g. air or an inert gas”), wherein each of the one or more spargers are positioned in a portion of the downcomer section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0079]).
Larsen does not disclose:
one or more third spargers each having a first end and a second end opposite the first end
wherein each of the one or more third spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body and the second end is positioned in a second portion of the downcomer
Regarding feature 1, Satou discloses one or more spargers (paragraphs [0048] and [0061]; and, Fig. 1, element 22 “diffuser tube”) each having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 1, element 22 “diffuser tube”).
In the analogous art of microorganismal culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the U-shape fermenter of Larsen with the sparger of Satou in order to diffuse and dissolve gases into the culture medium for microorganismal growth (Satou, abstract and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding feature 2, Satou discloses wherein each of the one or more spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body and the second end is positioned in a lower portion of the riser section (paragraphs [0048] and [0061]; and, Fig. 1, element 22 “diffuser tube”).
In the analogous art of microorganismal culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the U-shape fermenter of Larsen with the sparger of Satou in order to diffuse and dissolve gases into the culture medium for microorganismal growth (Satou, abstract and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding the limitation “downcomer section”, Larsen already discloses a downcomer section with a sparger (Larsen, paragraph [0079]). In the analogous art of microorganismal culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the downcomer section of Larsen with the sparger with the technical specifications of Satou in order to diffuse and dissolve gases into the culture medium for microorganismal growth (Satou, abstract and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding the limitation “one or more third spargers each having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein each of the one or more third spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body and the second end is positioned in one of (i) the gas disengagement section of the main exterior body or (ii) a second portion of the downcomer section of the main exterior body”, this limitation is both obvious under duplication of parts and rearrangement of parts. Regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Additionally, regarding the limitation, rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). In the analogous art of microorganismal culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the U-shape fermenter of Larsen with the sparger of Satou in order to diffuse and dissolve gases into the culture medium for microorganismal growth (Satou, abstract and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding the limitation “one of (i) the gas disengagement section of the main exterior body or (ii) a second portion of the downcomer section of the main exterior body”, the limitation is phrased in the alternative. Because at least one of the limitations is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time.
Regarding claim 19, Larsen discloses wherein the one or more third spargers comprise a single sparger (paragraph [0079] “a first pressure controlling device … addition of a pressurized gas”).
Regarding claim 20, Larsen discloses wherein the single sparger of the one or more third spargers (paragraph [0079] “a first pressure controlling device … addition of a pressurized gas”) is positioned closer to the downcomer section than the riser section (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding the limitation “is positioned closer to the downcomer section than the riser section”, Larsen already discloses a downcomer section with a sparger (Larsen, paragraph [0079]). In the analogous art of microorganismal culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the downcomer section of Larsen with the sparger with the technical specifications of Satou in order to diffuse and dissolve gases into the culture medium for microorganismal growth (Satou, abstract and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding this limitation “is positioned closer to the downcomer section than the riser section”, rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). In the analogous art of microorganismal culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the downcomer section of Larsen with the sparger with the technical specifications of Satou in order to diffuse and dissolve gases into the culture medium for microorganismal growth (Satou, abstract and paragraph [0061]).
Regarding the limitation “is positioned closer to the downcomer section than the riser section”, regarding dependent claim 20, if it is deemed that the limitation pertains to the location of the sparger within the gas disengagement section, the limitation is presented in the alternative in parent claim 18; therefore, said limitations are not needed to satisfy the claim. Because at least one of the limitations is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time. A further limiting limitation of “is positioned closer to the downcomer section than the riser section” in dependent claim 20 is similarly interpreted to be presented in the alternative as well and is not needed to satisfy the limitations of the claim. As such, dependent claim 20 does not provide a positive recitation of a patentable distinction over modified Larsen (in view of Satou), and is therefore met by said references.
Regarding claim 21, Larsen discloses wherein the single sparger of the one or more third spargers (paragraph [0079] “a first pressure controlling device … addition of a pressurized gas”).
Larsen does not disclose is positioned on a bottom half of the gas disengagement section.
Regarding the limitation “is positioned on a bottom half of the gas disengagement section”, regarding dependent claim 21, the limitation is presented in the alternative in parent claim 18; therefore, said limitations are not needed to satisfy the claim. Because at least one of the limitations is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time. A further limiting limitation of “is positioned on a bottom half of the gas disengagement section” in dependent claim 21 is similarly interpreted to be presented in the alternative as well and is not needed to satisfy the limitations of the claim. As such, dependent claim 21 does not provide a positive recitation of a patentable distinction over modified Larsen (in view of Satou), and is therefore met by said references.
Regarding claim 23, Larsen discloses wherein the riser section is positioned between the return section and the gas disengagement section on a first side of the main exterior body, and wherein the downcomer section is positioned between the gas disengagement section and the return section on a second side of the main exterior body (Figs. 2-5 and Annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 24, Larsen does not disclose wherein each of the one or more first spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body, and wherein each of the one or more second spargers are positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body.
Satou discloses wherein a sparger is positioned such that the first end is outside of the main exterior body (Fig. 1).
In the analogous art of microorganism culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Larsen with the sparger position of Satou in order to supply spargers with an external source of gases.
Regarding claim 25, Larsen discloses wherein a pressure of the compressed gas supplied by the one or more first spargers to the riser section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0086]); and wherein a pressure of the compressed gas supplied by the one or more second spargers to the downcomer section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0086]).
If it is deemed that Larsen does not disclose “compressed gas”, Li discloses a compressed gas (paragraph [0148]).
In the analogous art of microorganism culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Larsen with the compressed gases of Li in order to facilitate delivery of the streams to particular stages, for example, to provide gases to a bioreactor with different efficiencies of the fermentation reaction performed therein because of the compressed gases (Li, paragraph [0148]).
Larsen does not disclose “is adjustable”.
However, according to MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D), adjustability of a part is not a patentable advance. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pressures of the gases of Larsen to be adjustable in order to facilitate delivery of the streams to particular stages, for example, to provide gases to a bioreactor with different efficiencies of the fermentation reaction performed therein because of the compressed gases (Li, paragraph [0148]).
In addition, regarding the limitation “a pressure … is adjustable” the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Larsen would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the pump of Larsen (Larsen, paragraph [0086], Fig. 2-5, element 111 “pump”).
Regarding claim 26, Larsen discloses wherein a pressure of the gas supplied by the one or more first spargers to the riser section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0086]); and, a pressure of the gas supplied by the one or more second spargers to the downcomer section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0086]).
If it is deemed that Larsen does not disclose “compressed gas”, Li discloses a compressed gas (paragraph [0148]).
In the analogous art of microorganism culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Larsen with the compressed gases of Li in order to facilitate delivery of the streams to particular stages, for example, to provide gases to a bioreactor with different efficiencies of the fermentation reaction performed therein because of the compressed gases (Li, paragraph [0148]).
Larsen does not disclose wherein a pressure of the compressed gas supplied by the one or more first spargers to the riser section of the main exterior body is greater than a pressure of the compressed gas supplied by the one or more second spargers to the downcomer section of the main exterior body.
However, regarding the limitation, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Larsen would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the pump of Larsen (Larsen, paragraph [0086], Fig. 2-5, element 111 “pump”).
Regarding claim 27, Larsen discloses wherein a pressure of the gas supplied by the one or more first spargers to the riser section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0086]); and, a pressure of the gas supplied by the one or more second spargers to the downcomer section of the main exterior body (paragraph [0086]).
If it is deemed that Larsen does not disclose “compressed gas”, Li discloses a compressed gas (paragraph [0148]).
In the analogous art of microorganism culture methods and culture apparatuses, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Larsen with the compressed gases of Li in order to facilitate delivery of the streams to particular stages, for example, to provide gases to a bioreactor with different efficiencies of the fermentation reaction performed therein because of the compressed gases (Li, paragraph [0148]).
Larsen does not disclose wherein a pressure of the compressed gas supplied by the one or more first spargers to the riser section of the main exterior body is less than a pressure of the compressed gas supplied by the one or more second spargers to the downcomer section of the main exterior body.
However, regarding the limitation, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Larsen would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the pump of Larsen (Larsen, paragraph [0086], Fig. 2-5, element 111 “pump”).
Regarding claim 33, Larsen discloses wherein the system is configured to be operated such that a circular liquid motion is induced by gas from the one or more first spargers and/or the one or more second spargers (paragraph [0044]).
In addition, regarding the limitation, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device(s) of modified Larsen would be fully capable of operating in this manner given its loop reactor and spargers.
Regarding claim 34, Larsen discloses wherein the system includes one or more impellers to aid in mixing (paragraphs [0019] and [0039] “propeller pump”).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen (US 20110244543) (newly disclosed) in view of Satou (US 20180072978) (newly disclosed) and Li (US 20150031099) (newly cited) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Fukuda (US 4,282,328) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 22, Larsen discloses wherein each of the one or more first spargers (paragraphs [0038] and [0086]).
Larsen does not disclose wherein each of the one or more first spargers include a porous section at the second end, and wherein each of the one or more second spargers include a porous section at the second end.
Fukuda discloses a sparger that includes a porous section at an end (col. 3, lines 10-17; “a fused metal”).
In the analogous art of apparatuses having spargers, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sparger of Larsen with the porous sparger of Fukuda in order to increase partial pressure of oxygen supplied (Fukuda, col. 3, lines 10-17).
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Larsen (US 6492135) (newly cited) – This invention is a U-loop fermentor.
Hidayat (US 20200009478) (newly cited) – This invention is a fermentation reactor and fermentation process.
Christensen (US 20220081668) (newly cited) – This invention is an improved loop-fermenter.
Su (US 5342781) (newly cited) – This invention is an external-loop perfusion air-lift bioreactor.
Jones (“Gas-liquid mass transfer in an external airlift loop reactor for syngas fermentation”) (previously cited in IDS from 02/16/2024) – This non-patent literature describes different kinds of airlift loop reactors (see Fig. 2.2).
Siegel (“Air-Lift Reactor Analysis: Interrelationships Between Riser, Downcomer, and Gas-Liquid Separator Behavior, Including Gas Recirculation Effects”) (previously cited in IDS from 02/16/2024) – This non-patent literature describes a two-sparger system of a separated airlift reactor.
Chisti (“II.A.3 Airlift Bioreactors” of “Bioreactors”) (previously cited in IDS from 01/22/2024) – This non-patent literature describes an external loop airlift bioreactor, among other types (see Fig. 5).
Wang (“2.2 Pneumatically agitated bioreactors” of “Bioreactor Engineering”) (previously cited in IDS from 01/22/2024) – This non-patent literature describes an external loop airlift bioreactor, among other types (see Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799