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 .
The response filed on November 10, 2025 is received.
Claims 1-16 are pending and are being examined (Also see Restriction/Election below).
Restriction/Election:
Applicant’s election of the species ”yeast” (as the species of microorganism), “ethanol” (as the species of organic feedstock), and “methanol” (as the species of reduced CO2 product), in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
However, upon further consideration the requirement for the election of species as set forth in the Office action mailed on 08/12/2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Objection(s):
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, replace “i.” with –i)--, line 5, replace “ii.” with –ii)--, and line 7 replace “iii.” with –iii)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-16 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 reads “an anaerobic fermentation, wherein a carbon substrate is used for production of an organic feedstock” and the claim further recites “wherein the reduced CO2 product is fed to the anaerobic fermentation” this is confusing which renders the claim indefinite because from the way the claim written the substrate being added to the anaerobic fermentation is not exactly clear.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: define the carbon substrate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 15 the recitation “the reduced CO2 product comprises formic acid” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim 14 upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: replace “comprises” with –is--.
In claim 16 the recitation “the reduced CO2 product comprises CO” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim 14 upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: replace “comprises” with –is--.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejection - 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.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molitor et al. (Bioresource Technology, Vol. 215, 2016, p. 386-396) and Bang (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA., 2018, Vol. 11, No. 14, p. E9271-E9279).
Regarding claim 1, Molitor et al. teach a method for production of biomass comprising: i. capturing CO2 from a CO2 containing gas stream (fermentation of carbon gaseous streams from steel mills industry, CO2 and CO-containing gases, fermentation process located downstream of an existing steel mill) (See for example, p. 387 “Introduction” both columns, right-hand column paragraph 2.1. -Continued on p. 388 left-hand column, p. 395 paragraph 6. “Conclusion”), reducing captured CO2 via electrochemical reduction to a reduced CO2 product and producing an O2 stream (electrochemically reduced CO2 in the fermentation gas to CO using electrochemical catalysis, etc.) (See for example, p. 391 right-hand column 2nd paragraph); anaerobic fermentation, wherein a carbon substrate is used for production of an organic feedstock (anaerobic fermentations to produced ethanol and acetic acid, etc.) (See p. 392 righthand column 1st paragraph); and aerobic fermentation, wherein the organic feedstock is used for production of biomass (aerobic conversion of organic wastewater treatment stream into a mixed culture of bacteria for single-cell protein production as an animal feed) (See p. 392 right-hand column paragraph 4.3.).
Regarding claim 2, Molitor et al. teach the biomass comprises single cell protein (aerobic conversion of organic wastewater treatment stream into a mixed culture of bacteria for single-cell protein production as an animal feed) (See p. 392 right-hand column paragraph 4.3.)
Regarding claim 3, Molitor et al. teach the aerobic fermentation comprises cultivating a microorganism for production of biomass (aerobic conversion of organic wastewater treatment stream into a mixed culture of bacteria for single-cell protein production as an animal feed) (See p. 392 right-hand column paragraph 4.3.).
Regarding claim 4, Molitor et al. teach the microorganism is a bacterium, a yeast, a filamentous fungus, or an algae (aerobic conversion via a mixed culture of bacteria for single-cell protein production, etc.) (See p. 392 right-hand column paragraph 4.3.).
Regarding claim 5, Molitor et al. teach the organic feedstock is chosen from the group consisting of acetic acid, ethanol, butanol, acetone and isopropanol, and mixtures thereof (anaerobic fermentations to produced ethanol and acetic acid, etc.) (See p. 392 righthand column 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Molitor et al. do not necessarily teach feeding a sugar to the anaerobic and aerobic fermentation.
Regarding claim 7, Molitor et al. do not teach H2 is produced.
Regarding claim 8, although Molitor et al. do not explicitly teach the method comprising further feeding the O2 stream to the aerobic fermentation, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention would have known that aerobic fermentation requires O2 as such feeding the O2 stream to the aerobic fermentation would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Molitor et al. teach wherein (i) comprises capturing CO2 from off-gas from the anaerobic fermentation and/or from the aerobic fermentation (several cycles of electrochemical CO2 reduction for efficient mitigation (See for example, p. 391 left-hand-column 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Molitor et al. teach wherein (i) comprises capturing CO2 from a waste gas, or an industrial off-gas, optionally an off-gas from steel industry (fermentation of carbon gaseous streams from steel mills industry, CO2 and CO-containing gases, fermentation process located downstream of an existing steel mill) (See for example, p. 387 “Introduction” both columns, right-hand column paragraph 2.1. -Continued on p. 388 left-hand column, p. 395 paragraph 6. “Conclusion”).
Regarding claim 11, Molitor et al. teach wherein a CO containing waste gas is fed to the anaerobic fermentation, wherein CO is used as a carbon substrate and/or energy source for fermentation (gas fermentation using CO) (See for example, p. 387 left-hand column paragraph 2.).
Regarding claim 12, Molitor et al. teach wherein the CO containing waste gas further comprises CO2, and wherein the waste gas is first fed to the anaerobic fermentation before capturing CO2 from the waste gas () ().
Regarding claim 13, Molitor et al. teach wherein the CO containing waste gas further comprises CO2, and wherein the waste gas is first subjected to CO2 capture before feeding to the anaerobic fermentation (gaseous substrates containing CO and CO2) (See for example, p. 387 left-hand column paragraph 2.1.1.).
Regarding claim 14, Molitor et al. teach wherein the reduced CO2 product is a compound selected from carbon monoxide, methane, ethane, ethanol, ethylene, methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and 1-propanol; or an organic acid selected from formic acid, oxalic acid, glyoxylic acid, glycolic acid, acetic acid, tartaric acid, malonic acid and propionic acid; or a salt of said organic acid (electrochemically reduced CO2 in the fermentation gas to CO) (See for example, p. 391 right-hand column 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Molitor et al. teach wherein the reduced CO2 product comprises CO, which is fed to the anaerobic fermentation (electrochemically reduced CO2 in the fermentation gas to CO using electrochemical catalysis, etc.) (See for example, p. 391 right-hand column 2nd paragraph).
Molitor et al. do not teach wherein the reduced CO2 product is fed to the anaerobic fermentation and/or to the aerobic fermentation (Claim 1), and wherein the reduced CO2 product comprises formic acid, which is fed to the anaerobic fermentation, the aerobic fermentation, or both (claim 15).
However, regarding claims 1 and 15, Bang et al. teach bacteria capable of utilizing formic acid or FA (as reduced CO2 product), and further teach FA as a fermentation substrate is advantageous to produce value-added chemicals and reduced the amount of sugar (glucose) needed, and potentially sustain cell growth only from formic acid and CO2 and further advancing C1 biorefinery toward the production of chemicals from FA and CO2 (See for example, p. E9271 right-hand column both paragraphs and p. E9279 both columns).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention knowing that formic acid or FA (as reduced CO2 product) as a fermentation substrate is advantageous to produce value-added chemicals and sustain cell growth only from formic acid and CO2 and further advancing C1 biorefinery toward the production of chemicals from FA and CO2 (as taught by Bang et al.) would have been motivated to apply the prior art teaching in the method taught by Molitor et al. said method by feeding a reduced CO2 product to the anaerobic fermentation and/or to the aerobic fermentation, wherein reduced CO2 product comprises formic acid, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the claimed method for production of biomass comprising: i. capturing CO2 from a CO2 containing gas stream, reducing captured CO2 via electrochemical reduction to a reduced CO2 product and producing an O2 stream; anaerobic fermentation, wherein a carbon substrate is used for production of an organic feedstock; and aerobic fermentation, wherein the organic feedstock is used for production of biomass, wherein the reduced CO2 product is fed to the anaerobic fermentation and/or to the aerobic fermentation, and wherein the reduced CO2 product comprises formic acid, which is fed to the anaerobic fermentation, the aerobic fermentation, or both. The motivation as taught by Bang et al. would be because Bang et al. teach bacteria capable of utilizing formic acid or FA (as reduced CO2 product), and further teach FA as a fermentation substrate is advantageous to produce value-added chemicals and reduced the amount of sugar (glucose) needed, and potentially sustain cell growth only from formic acid and CO2 and further advancing C1 biorefinery toward the production of chemicals from FA and CO2.
Conclusion(s):
No claim(s) is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KADE ARIANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6083. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM -4:00 PM 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, Adam Weidner can be reached at (571)272-3045. 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.
/KADE ARIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651