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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02 March 2026 is entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are amended. Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4-19 are pending. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are under examination.
Amendment to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
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 1-2 and 4-15 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.
(New necessitated by amendment) Claim 1’s step c recites mixing the pretreated organic waste feed of step b or the organic waste feed of the size of 1-5mm of step a with water to prepare a feed slurry. Since the organic material in step c that is mixed with water to form the feed slurry is claimed in the alternative, it is unclear if the pretreatment in step b is even required to be performed to practice the instant invention, or if step b is merely an optional step.
(New necessitated by amendment) Claim 2 recites the limitation "the reduced size organic waste feed" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(New necessitated by amendment) Claims 4-12 are indefinite because they depend from canceled claim 3. Since the contents of claim 3 are now canceled, it is not clear what additional limitations claims 4-12 are further limiting. Claim 13 depends on claim 10, claim 14 depends on claim 11, and claim 15 depends on claim 15, so those claims are indefinite for the same reason.
(Maintained) Claims 4 and 13-15 are indefinite because it is unclear whether the terms inside the parenthetical phrases are part of the claim limitations and intended to be limiting, or if the contents of the parenthetical phrases are merely exemplary and thus not required.
Claims 2 and 4-15 are dependent on claim 1, so are indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
For purposes of applying prior art, claims 4-12 are interpreted as depending on independent claim 1.
(New necessitated by amendment) Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (US 9643867 B2, published 09 May 2017) in view of Zhang et al. (Biogas from anaerobic digestion processes: Research updates, Renewable Energy 98 (2016) 108-119) and Mohapatra et al. (Optimization of culture conditions and properties of immobilized sulfide oxidase from Arthrobacter species, Journal of Biotechnology 124 (2006) 523–531).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Brooks teaches a method of producing methane rich biogas from organic wastes in a bioreactor (Brooks abstract, claim 6, and col. 12 lns. 55-60). Brooks teaches grinding and sieving the organic waste into particles with a size of 0.25-20 cm, which overlaps with the instant claimed range of 1-5 mm (Brooks col. 11, l. 9-35). Brooks teaches diluting the input organic waste to a solid content of 5-50% using water which forms a suspension of solid waste (a slurry) (Brooks col. 11, l. 63-67, and col. 12 l. 62 through col. 13 l. 1). Brooks adds the diluted organic waste slurry into a series of bioreactor tanks comprising a consortium of hydrolytic, acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic bacteria in order to produce a methane-rich biogas (Brooks claim 6). Brooks also teaches that impurities and contaminant gases, such as H2S and CO2, are removed from the biogas (Brooks claim 6 and col. 21, l. 44-48). Brooks teaches that the biogas producing reactors include inlet ports used to add biological additives and microbial inoculum (Brooks col. 13 lns. 33-39), and also that the microbial inoculum containing the hydrolytic, acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic bacteria may be seeded into the biogas producing reactor as a separate component from the input organic waste feed (Brooks col. 10, l. 3-19). Although Brooks does not specifically teach that the inlet ports are connected to a side bioinoculant reactor containing the microbial inoculum, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that a vessel containing the microbial inoculum must be attached to the inlet port to allow for the microbial inoculum to be seeded into the biogas producing reactor.
Brooks does not teach that the bioinoculant reactors are 1/500th the size of the biogas producing bioreactor tanks. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relative size of the bioinoculant reactors attached to the biogas producing reactors because the amount of bioinoculant required to be seeded into the biogas producing bioreactors varies according to the amount of organic waste feed, thus the relative size of the bioinoculant reactors would have to scale in proportion to the amount of bioinoculant.
Brooks does not teach the ground and sieved organic waste particles are pretreated by hydrothermal treatment, extrusion, ozonation, or hydrodynamic cavitation.
Zhang teaches that pretreating organic matter waste enhances biogas productivity, especially in lignocellulosic materials (Zhang pg. 111 sec. 4), and provides several physical, chemical, and biological means of pretreating the organic matter, including high temperature hydrothermal and steam explosion treatments (Zhang pg. 112 paras. 1-2).
Brooks and Zhang do not teach the pretreatment is performed on organic waste feed comprising a specific lignin content of more than 10%. However, Zhang teaches that lignocellulosic materials are recalcitrant to digestion, and thus require pretreatments to enhance biogas productivity so the energy gain can be increased (Zhang pg. 111 sec. 4). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform pretreatment step of the obvious method of Brooks and Zhang on an organic waste feed comprising a lignin content of more than 10%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because lignocellulosic materials are recalcitrant to digestion, and thus require pretreatments to enhance biogas productivity so the energy gain can be increased (Zhang pg. 111 sec. 4)
Brooks and Zhang do not teach the blend of microbes in the inoculum comprises sulfide-oxidizing microbes.
Mohapatra teaches an Arthrobacter species that produces sulfide oxidase (Mohapatra abstract), which is an enzyme capable of oxidizing sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide (Mohapatra pg. 524 para. 2). Mohapatra also teaches that sulfides are generated from domestic animal wastes, sewage treatment wastewater, and are highly undesirable because of they are neurotoxic and corrosive to metallic infrastructure (Mohapatra pgs. 523-524 bridging para.). Mohapatra teaches that sulfide oxidase is useful for mitigating sulfides in organic waste such as compost piles, ground waters, oil-field brines, and petroleum refinery wastewater (Mohapatra pg. 524 para. 2).
Although Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra do not disclose a series of reactors (digester tanks) R1, R2, R4, R6, and R8 connected to reactors R3, R5, R7, and R9, respectively, MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B) states that “the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. Accordingly, duplication of the digester tanks of Brooks in view of Zhang does not render the instant invention patentably distinct from that of Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Brooks’ method of producing methane rich biogas by pretreating the organic waste using high temperature hydrothermal and steam explosion treatments as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang taught that pretreating organic matter waste prior to methane biogas production enhances biogas productivity, especially in lignocellulosic organic waste materials.
Regarding claim 4, Brooks teaches the feed slurry (organic waste suspension) is diluted to a total solid content of 5-50% using water (Brooks col. 11 l. 63-67).
Regarding claim 5, although Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra do not teach that 80% of the content of the reactors is transferred to later reactors in the series, nor that the interval is every 24 hours, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of digestate transferred from one digester tank to another, and to optimize the timing of such a transfer with the result effective variable being the amount of methane rich biogas being produced by the microbial digestion of organic waste. By modulating the amounts of digestate transferred from reactor to reactor and the timelines for doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the optimal amounts of digestate to transfer from reactor to reactor, and the time intervals for performing the transfer, which would result in the optimal amount of methane rich biogas produced by performing the method of Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra. Regarding the limitation “the volume of R3, R5, R7, and R9 is restored using a combined slurry from the reactors R2, R4, R6, and R8, respectively, and nutrient rich waste or wastewater, wherein the nutrient rich waste comprises molasses, spent wash, and fruit waste”, Brooks teaches diluting the input organic waste water to a solid content of 5-50% to form a suspension of the organic waste (a slurry) (Brooks col. 11, l. 63-67, and col. 12 l. 62 through col. 13 l. 1), and that the organic waste slurry is added into a series of bioreactor tanks comprising a blend of bacteria in order to produce a methane-rich biogas (Brooks claim 6). The flow of initial incoming organic waste water thus mixes with the slurry of organic waste, which would refill the volume of the digester (reactor) tanks.
Regarding claims 6-8, Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra do not teach the recited specific temperature and mixing time limitations; however, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature and mixing times of the microbial digestions in the digester tanks taught by Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra with the result effective variable being the resultant amount of biogas produced by the microbes. By modulating the temperature and mixing times of the microbial digestion of the organic waste suspension, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine which parameters and ranges result in the optimal amount of biogas produced by the microbes.
Further regarding claim 8 and last part of claim 9, Brooks also teaches that impurities and contaminant gases, such as H2S and CO2, are removed from the biogas (Brooks claim 6 and col. 21, l. 44-48), and Zhang teaches that ferric chloride (FeCl-3) is added to anaerobic digesters to remove contaminating H2S (Zhang sec. 6.2 para. 3). Although Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra do not teach the recited specific concentration of 0.01-0.05% FeCl3, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of FeCl3 in the digester tanks of Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra with the result effective variable being the resultant purity of the biogas product produced by the microbial digestion. By modulating the relative concentrations of FeCl3 in the microbial digestion tanks, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine which FeCl3 concentration ranges result in the optimal purity of the produced biogas with the lowest amount of H2S contamination.
Regarding claim 9, although Brooks teaches that the biogas produced by the microbial digestion of organic waste slurry is collected, Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra do not teach that the methane rich biogas is collected from digestion tanks at positions equivalent to reactors R6 and R8 of the instant invention. However, as described above, duplication of the digester tanks of Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra does not render the instant invention patentably distinct from that of Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra, so it would have been obvious to collect the biogas at the digestion tanks that are at the terminal end of the series of duplicated digester tanks.
Regarding claims 10-11, although Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra teach the addition of hydrolytic acidogenic, acetogenic, methanogenic, and sulfide-oxidizing microbes into the digester tanks in order to produce biogas (Brooks claim 6), they do not teach any specific concentration of those organisms to add into the tanks. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the concentration of the hydrolytic acidogenic, acetogenic, methanogenic, and sulfide-oxidizing microbes in the digester tanks of Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra with the result effective variable being the amount of biogas produced by the microbial digestion of organic waste. By modulating the concentration of hydrolytic acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic microbes in the organic waste suspension digestion tanks, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine which microbial concentration ranges result in the optimal amount of biogas produced by the microbial digestion of organic waste.
(New necessitated by amendment) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra as applied to claims 1-2 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Acs et al. (Bioaugmentation of biogas production by a hydrogen-producing bacterium, Bioresource Technology 186 (2015) 286–293).
Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra do not teach the blend of microbes comprises hydrogen producing microbes.
Acs teaches that hydrogen producing microbe Enterobacter cloacae was able to augment biogas production in an organic waste biogas reactor (Acs title, abstract, and intro. para. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to include Acs’ hydrogen producing microbe Enterobacter cloacae in the blend of microbes of Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra. However, Brooks, Zhang, Mohapatra, and Acs do not teach the blend of microbes supplied to the different biogas digester tanks is in a ratio of 2:1 and maintained at a temperature range of 60-70°C. It would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the ratio of microbes supplied from reactors R7 and R10 to reactor R6, and from reactors R9 and R10 to reactor R8 to be 2:1 with the result effective variable being the resultant amount of biogas produced by the microbes in the series of reactors. By modulating the relative ratios of microbes in the series of organic waste suspension digestion tanks, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine which microbial concentration ratios would result in the optimal amount of biogas produced by the microbial digestion of organic waste. It also would have been obvious to optimize the temperature of reactor R10 to be in a range of 60-70°C with the result effective variable being the resultant amount of biogas produced by the microbes in the series of reactors. By modulating the temperature of the microbial digestion of the organic waste suspension, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine which parameters and ranges result in the optimal amount of biogas produced by the microbes.
Regarding the limitation “a volume of the reactor R10 is restored by a combination of the feed slurry from the reactor R8 and a nutrient rich waste, or wastewater, wherein the nutrient rich waste comprises molasses, spent wash, and fruit waste”, Brooks teaches diluting the input organic waste water to a solid content of 5-50% to form a suspension of the organic waste (a slurry) (Brooks col. 11, l. 63-67, and col. 12 l. 62 through col. 13 l. 1), and that the organic waste slurry is added into a series of bioreactor tanks comprising a blend of bacteria in order to produce a methane-rich biogas (Brooks claim 6). The flow of initial incoming organic waste water thus mixes with the slurry of organic waste, which would refill the volume of the digester (reactor) tanks.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the method of producing a methane rich biogas taught by Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra to include a hydrogen producing microbe in the blend of hydrolytic acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic microbes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Acs taught that adding hydrogen producing microbes into the microbial consortium used in an organic waste biogas reactor was able to augment the total amount of biogas produced.
(New necessitated by amendment) Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra as applied to claims 1-2 and 10-11above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (EP 3798313 A1, published 31 March 2021).
Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra do not teach the blend of microbes comprises Desulfovibrio sp. (MTCC No. 25301), Brevibacterium sp. (MTCC 25254), Methanothermobacter sp. (MTCC No. 25268), Methanolobus sp. (MTCC No. 25302), Thermotoga sp. (MTCC No. 25304 ), Methanosarcina sp. (MTCC No. 25300), Clostridium sp. (MTCC No. 25264), Methanobacterium sp. (MTCC No. 25266), Lactobacillus sp.(MTCC No. 25282), , Moorella sp. (MTCC No. 25267), Methanosaeta sp. (MTCC No.25303), Pyrococcus sp. (MTCC No. 25305), or Shewanella sp. MTCC 25020.
However, Kumar teaches a blend of microbes for increasing methane production in a biogas system, and the blend of microbes comprises Brevibacterium IOC-5, Methanosarcina sp. IOC-1, and Moorella sp. IOC-10 (Kumar claim 1 and [0035]). Brevibacterium IOC-5 is equivalent to MTCC 25254, Methanosarcina sp. IOC-1 is equivalent to MTCC 25300, and Moorella sp. IOC-10 is equivalent to MTCC 25267 (Kumar [0036]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the method of producing a methane rich biogas taught by Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra to use Kumar’s Brevibacterium IOC-5, Methanosarcina sp. IOC-1, and Moorella sp. IOC-10 microbes in the blend of hydrolytic acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic microbes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Kumar teaches that Brevibacterium IOC-5, Methanosarcina sp. IOC-1, and Moorella sp. IOC-10 are hydrolytic acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic microbes capable of advantageously increasing methane producing in a biogas production system.
(New necessitated by amendment) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra as applied to claims 1-2 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (EP 3798313 A1, published 31 March 2021).
Mohapatra teaches the sulfide oxidizing bacteria is Arthrobacter sp. (Mohapatra abstract).
However, Brooks, Zhang, and Mohapatra do not teach that the blend of microbes comprises Desulfovibrio sp. (MTCC No. 25301), Brevibacterium sp. (MTCC 25254), Methanothermobacter sp. (MTCC No. 25268), Methanolobus sp. (MTCC No. 25302), Thermotoga sp. (MTCC No. 25304 ), Methanosarcina sp. (MTCC No. 25300), Clostridium sp. (MTCC No. 25264), Methanobacterium sp. (MTCC No. 25266), Lactobacillus sp.(MTCC No. 25282), , Moorella sp. (MTCC No. 25267), Methanosaeta sp. (MTCC No.25303), Pyrococcus sp. (MTCC No. 25305), or Shewanella sp. MTCC 25020.
Kumar teaches a blend of microbes for increasing methane production in a biogas system, and the blend of microbes comprises Brevibacterium IOC-5, Methanosarcina sp. IOC-1, and Moorella sp. IOC-10 (Kumar claim 1 and [0035]). Brevibacterium IOC-5 is equivalent to MTCC 25254, Methanosarcina sp. IOC-1 is equivalent to MTCC 25300, and Moorella sp. IOC-10 is equivalent to MTCC 25267 (Kumar [0036]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the method of producing a methane rich biogas taught by Brooks in view of Zhang and Mohapatra to use Kumar’s Brevibacterium IOC-5, Methanosarcina sp. IOC-1, and Moorella sp. IOC-10 microbes in the blend of hydrolytic acidogenic, acetogenic, methanogenic, and sulfide oxidizing microbes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Kumar teaches that Brevibacterium IOC-5, Methanosarcina sp. IOC-1, and Moorella sp. IOC-10 are hydrolytic acidogenic, acetogenic, and methanogenic microbes capable of advantageously increasing methane producing in a biogas production system.
(New necessitated by amendment) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Zhang, Mohapatra, and Acs as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nakashimada et al. (Hydrogen production of Enterobacter aerogenes altered by extracellular and intracellular redox states, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 27 (2002) 1399 – 1405).
Brooks, Zhang, Mohapatra and Acs do not teach the hydrogen producing microbe is Enterobacter aerogenes.
However, Nakashimada teaches that Enterobacter aerogenes produces hydrogen during fermentation of various substrates (Nakashimada abstract and Table 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the Enterobacter aerogenes of Nakashimada for Acs’ hydrogen producing Enterobacter cloacae bacteria because both of the organisms are alternative bacteria suitable for the same purpose of microbially producing hydrogen. See MPEP §2144.06(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Alexander M Duryee whose telephone number is (571)272-9377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/Alexander M Duryee/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights