Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-4 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 5-7 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/17/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the phrase “at least a portion of” is broad but definite. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The phrase leads to multiple interpretations of how much can liquid should be disposed of, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how much can liquid to dispose of.
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.
Claims 1 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 1 recites fermenting with microorganisms a syngas substrate and water, however, water is not fermented by microorganisms therefore the statement is scientifically incorrect and unclear. The claim can be interpreted to require adding syngas and water to a gas-utilizing bacterial culture in liquid medium; alternatively, the claim can be interpreted to require isolating gas-utilizing bacteria from a liquid culture and then adding the isolated bacteria to the syngas-water composition.
Claim 1 recites that the nitrogen and phosphorus are components of either the syngas substrate, the medium, or derived from the microorganisms. However, it is unclear if the process requires a step of adding the nitrogen and phosphorus during the fermentation step or if they are inherent waste products produced by fermentation.
Claim 1 recites a separation step of separating the suspension into a liquid and solid component comprising the nitrogen, the phosphorus, the water, and the microorganisms. However, it is unclear if the liquid or the solid component comprises the nitrogen, the phosphorus, the water, and the microorganisms.
Claim 1 recites a purification step of separating a distillate and a can liquid. However, the condensation step prior is what produces the distillate. Therefore, it is unclear how the distillate is further processed in the purification step, i.e., it is unclear what the purification step requires.
Claim 1 recites “a wastewater treatment step of disposing of at least a portion of the can liquid”. The phrase “at least a portion of” is a phrase of approximation which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “at least a portion of” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the upper and lower limits of the range encompassed by the phrase “at least a portion of”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably be apprised of the scope of the invention. It is therefore unclear how much of the second can liquid should be disposed of.
Claims 5-7 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1.
Applicant may consider the following claim amendment, which is based on the disclosed process in paragraphs [0043]-[0115] of the instant specification, and has been drafted by the Examiner:
Claim 1. A method for producing an organic substance, comprising: feeding a syngas into a fermentation tank comprising gas-utilizing bacteria and liquid medium,
wherein the gas-utilizing bacteria ferment the syngas to produce carbons, ketones having 3 to 6 carbons, alkenes having 2 to 6 carbons, and alkadienes having 2 to 6 carbons
to produce a gaseous component comprising the organic substance;
condensing the gaseous component distillate and a can liquid,
a wastewater treatment step of disposing
Claim 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the es
Claim 7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the organic substance is an
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL EMILY MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1416. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-16:00, F 8:30-10:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Louise Humphrey can be reached at (571) 272-5543. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/RACHEL EMILY MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights