Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/18/2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejection over claims 8, 14, 15, and 17 regarding the term “biogas” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) of claims 8, 14, 15, and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/18/2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejection over claims 8-13 regarding the term “natural gas” have been fully considered and due to the amendments set forth, the examiner has withdrawn the 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/18/2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejection over claims 8-13 regarding the term “efficiency” have been fully considered and due to the amendments set forth, the examiner has withdrawn the 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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.
Response to Amendments
The examiner acknowledges the amendments set forth by the Applicant wherein they cancel claim 15, and amend claims 1, 8, 14, 16, and 18-19.
Detailed Action
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 1-13 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 “from industrial equipment”, however in the claims current state, this feature is not positively recited, and thus does not hold patentable weight. See MPEP § 2115. It is therefore unclear if this feature is required to be included in the claim, and Applicant is requested to state on the record if this feature is intended to be included in the claim. However, given the limitations within the remainder of the claims, the examiner believes the applicant intended on positively reciting this limitation and thus will interpret it as such.
Claim 1 recites “from a biogas upgrading system”, however in the claims current state, this feature is not positively recited, and thus does not hold patentable weight. However, given the limitations within the remainder of the claims, the examiner believes the applicant intended on positively reciting this limitation and thus will interpret it as such.
Claim 1 recites “from a membrane bioreactor”, however in the claims current state, this feature is not positively recited, and thus does not hold patentable weight. However, given the limitations within the remainder of the claims, the examiner believes the applicant intended on positively reciting this limitation and thus will interpret it as such.
Claim 8 recites “from a bioreactor”, however in the claims current state, this feature is not positively recited, and thus does not hold patentable weight. However, given the limitations within the remainder of the claims, the examiner believes the applicant intended on positively reciting this limitation and thus will interpret it as such.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections above, it is unclear whether these negatively recited features (industrial equipment, biogas upgrading system, membrane bioreactor and rector) are to be included (given patentable weight) in the claims. While the examiner will interpret them in the way recited above, it is requested that the applicant amend the claims to make the record clear, whether these features are to be included in the claims or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitmore (US20210094894A1).
Regarding claim 8, Whitmore teaches a method for capturing carbon dioxide and renewable methane comprising: receiving a mixture of biogases from a bioreactor; {[0008] re. process for recovering carbon dioxide and biomethane product streams} removing hydrogen sulfide {[0027] re. removal of hydrogen sulfide} and moisture from the received biogases; {[0032] re. moisture removal through convention technology} and separating mixed methane and carbon dioxide from the received biogases {[0008] re. process for recovering carbon dioxide and biomethane product streams} into separate methane {[0008] re. biomethane product} and carbon dioxide gas streams. {[0008] re. carbon dioxide product}
Regarding claim 10, Whitmore teaches outputting the carbon dioxide stream to a purifier. {[0037] re. the purified gas stream (of carbon dioxide) being sent to additional separation equipment to separate the remaining carbon dioxide}
Regarding claim 11, Whitmore teaches comprising generating the methane stream that is about 97% methane. {Table 3 re. Case 5 methane concentration % of 98.5}
Regarding claim 12, Whitmore teaches comprising outputting the methane stream. {[0015] re. utilizing or supply the biomethane as compressed or liquefied fuel}
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmore (US20210094894A1), in view of Baskis (US11279645B1).
Regarding claim 1, Whitmore teaches a method for capturing carbon dioxide {[0008] re. process for recovering carbon dioxide} comprising: receiving, at a purifier, {[0037] re. additional separation equipment to separate gaseous carbon dioxide} a first carbon dioxide-containing stream comprising off-gas {[0015] re. carbon dioxide from biogas sources & the system extracts carbon dioxide from one or more gas streams} from industrial equipment, {[0003] re. biogas from wastewater treatment plants} a second carbon dioxide-containing stream {[0015] re. carbon dioxide from biogas sources & the system extracts carbon dioxide from one or more gas streams} from a biogas upgrading system, {[0015] re. recycling gaseous carbon dioxide upstream into the system (teaching that the system receives a carbon dioxide stream from a biogas upgrading system, as this system is a biogas upgrading system, which separates carbon dioxide and methane streams from biogas)} and a third carbon dioxide-containing stream {[0015] re. carbon dioxide from biogas sources & the system extracts carbon dioxide from one or more gas streams} from a membrane bioreactor. {[0003] re. biogas from anaerobic digester}
While Whitmore is silent to the components of an anaerobic digester, Baskis states, that anaerobic digesters have fixed film membranes. {Baskis, Column 9 lines 1-6} One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement the anaerobic digester (membrane bioreactor) of Baskis as these digesters are capable of being paired with thermal treatment, which breaks biomass down into simpler compounds for more rapid digestion. {Baskis, Column 9 lines 24-27}
Whitmore further teaches combining the first, second, and third carbon dioxide-containing streams. {[0015] re. one or more gas streams}
While Whitmore is silent to specifically combining multiple gas streams, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the treatment of the disclosed "one or more gas streams" {Whitmore, [0015]} would occur simultaneously, as they are all carbon dioxide-containing gas streams that are treated identically to one another. As long as the combination of gas streams do not exceed the capacity of the purification system, then the system of Whitmore is capable of combining the multiple gas streams and treating simultaneously. One would be motivated to combine the first, second, and third carbon dioxide-containing streams, as it would increase the throughput of the purification process, opposed to treating each stream independently from one another.
Whitmore further teaches and purifying a total amount of received carbon dioxide from the combined first, second, and third carbon dioxide-containing streams. {[0015] re. separating carbon dioxide from the gas stream}
Regarding claim 3, Whitmore teaches outputting the purified carbon dioxide. {[0015] re. recycling gaseous carbon dioxide & sequestering or supplying the carbon dioxide for sequestration or other utilization}
Regarding claim 4, Whitmore teaches outputting the purified carbon dioxide for re-use or for storage. {[0015] re. recycling gaseous carbon dioxide & sequestering or supplying the carbon dioxide for sequestration or other utilization}
Regarding claim 5, Whitmore teaches controlling a flow of carbon dioxide into, and out of, the purifier. {[0027] re. controlling the feed gas and air intrusion in the separation process}
Regarding claim 6, Whitmore fails to teach wherein the membrane bioreactor comprises a combined aerobic digester coupled to a membrane filtration element configured to convert organic residue in an aqueous stream into a mixture of air and carbon dioxide.
Baskis teaches wherein the membrane bioreactor comprises a combined aerobic digester coupled to a membrane filtration element {Column 9 lines 3-5 re. aerobic digesters and fixed film membrane} configured to convert organic residue in an aqueous stream into a mixture of air and carbon dioxide. {Columns 6-7 lines 65-1 re. digester degrades organic components of sludge into carbon dioxide and water & Column 7 lines 61-63 re. waste stream and air are introduced into the separation tank}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Baskis’ teachings wherein the membrane bioreactor comprises a combined aerobic digester coupled to a membrane filtration element configured to convert organic residue in an aqueous stream into a mixture of air and carbon dioxide as Baskis, similar to Whitmore, teaches a method capturing and removing carbon dioxide from a waste stream. Doing so would increase the rate of digestion through the breakdown of the biosolids into simpler compounds through additional thermal treatment, compatible with the bioreactor (aerobic digester) taught by Baskis. {Baskis, Column 9 lines 24-27}.
Regarding claim 7, Whitmore fails to teach outputting a purified water stream.
Baskis teaches comprising outputting a purified water stream. {Column 9 lines 20-22 re. near drink water quality}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Baskis’ teachings comprising outputting a purified water stream as doing so creates a more environmentally friendly treatment system by reducing the waste to components that are favorable for release into the environment. {Baskis, Column 9 lines 19-22}.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmore (US20210094894A1), in view of Ho (US20180133643A1).
Regarding claim 2, Whitmore fails to teach comprising purifying the total amount of received carbon dioxide to about 99.99% CO2.
Ho teaches comprising purifying the total amount of received carbon dioxide to about 99.99% CO2.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Ho’s teachings comprising purifying the total amount of received carbon dioxide to about 99.99% CO2 as Ho, like Whitmore, teaches a process for the capture of carbon dioxide {Ho, Abstract}. Given Ho and Whitmore have similar objectives of obtaining pure carbon dioxide from a gas stream, modifying the system of Whitmore to include the gas purification steps of Ho, further increases the purity of the carbon dioxide gas stream product.
Regarding claim 9, Whitmore fails to teach comprising generating the carbon dioxide gas stream that is about 98% carbon dioxide.
Ho teaches comprising generating the carbon dioxide gas stream that is about 98% carbon dioxide.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Ho’s teachings comprising purifying the total amount of received carbon dioxide to about 99.99% CO2 as Ho, like Whitmore, teaches a process for the capture of carbon dioxide {Ho, Abstract}. Given Ho and Whitmore have similar objectives of obtaining pure carbon dioxide from a gas stream, modifying the system of Whitmore to include the gas purification steps of Ho, further increases the purity of the carbon dioxide gas stream product.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmore (US20210094894A1), in view of Baskis (US11279645B1).
Regarding claim 13, Whitmore fails to teach wherein the bioreactor comprises an anaerobic treatment zone.
Baskis teaches wherein the bioreactor comprises an anaerobic treatment zone. {Column 9 lines 1-7 re. anaerobic digester}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Baskis’ teachings wherein the bioreactor comprises an anaerobic treatment zone as Baskis, similar to Whitmore, teaches a method capturing and removing carbon dioxide from a waste stream. Doing so would increase the rate of digestion through the breakdown of the biosolids into simpler compounds through additional thermal treatment, compatible with the bioreactor (anaerobic digester) taught by Baskis. {Baskis, Column 9 lines 24-27}
Claim(s) 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmore (US20210094894A1), in view of Johnson (US20210253456A1), in further view of Baskis (US11279645B1).
Regarding claim 14, Whitmore teaches a method for controlling the purification of carbon dioxide and wastewater comprising: {[0008] re. process for recovering carbon dioxide} and measured data between a control subsystem {[0015] re. monitoring the material and energy inputs and outputs from the biogas processing facility} and (1) a purifier {[0037] re. additional separation equipment to separate gaseous carbon dioxide} and (3) industrial equipment; {[0015] re. biogas processing system} controlling a flow of carbon dioxide into, and out of, the purifier; {[0027] re. controlling the feed gas and air intrusion in the separation process}
Whitmore fails to teach exchanging electrical control signals via dedicated or shared communication links; controlling an output of biogases and treated wastewater from the anaerobic subsystem; (2) an anaerobic subsystem; controlling an input of wastewater into the industrial equipment.
Johnson teaches exchanging electrical control signals {[0012] re. controller configured to receive a signal} via dedicated or shared communication links. {[0012] re. controller configured to receive a signal}
While Johnson is silent to dedicated or shared, this limitation refers to either type of communication of a signal, and thus Johnson inherently teaches dedicated or shared communication.
Johnson further teaches controlling an output of biogases and treated wastewater from the anaerobic subsystem. {[0103] re. controller 570 and pH, pressure, flow rates, operating conditions within the treatment process}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Johnson’s teachings exchanging electrical control signals via dedicated or shared communication links; and controlling an output of biogases and treated wastewater from the anaerobic subsystem as Johnson, similar to Whitmore, teaches a process for the treatment of biogas. Doing so would allow for increased control/adjustment over the parameters of the system through automation, without the need for human intervention, thus saving time and costs.
Whitmore modified by Johnson fails to teach (2) an anaerobic subsystem; and controlling an input of wastewater into the industrial equipment.
Baskis teaches (2) an anaerobic subsystem. {Column 9 lines 1-7 re. anaerobic digester}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Baskis’ teachings of (2) an anaerobic subsystem as Baskis, similar to Whitmore, teaches a method capturing and removing carbon dioxide from a waste stream. Doing so would increase the rate of digestion through the breakdown of the biosolids into simpler compounds through additional thermal treatment, compatible with the bioreactor (anaerobic digester) taught by Baskis. {Baskis, Column 9 lines 24-27}
Baskis further teaches controlling an input of wastewater into the industrial equipment. {Column 7 lines 49-55 re. controlling the rate (selected by an operator) of the waste stream and air into the equalization and separation basin through, and into the aerator}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Baskis’ teachings controlling an input of wastewater into the industrial equipment as doing so would increase the control the user has over the parameters of the system. Having control over the flow rate allows the user to slow down, speed up, or maintain favorable conditions for product capture, thus increasing the efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Whitmore fails to teach wherein the measured data comprises pH, pressures, temperatures, and flow rates associated with the purifier, the industrial equipment, and the anaerobic subsystem.
Johnson teaches wherein the measured data comprises pH, pressures, temperatures, and flow rates associated with the purifier, the industrial equipment, and the anaerobic subsystem. {[0103] re. controller 570 and pH, pressure, flow rates, operating conditions within the treatment process}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitmore with Johnson’s teachings wherein the measured data comprises pH, pressures, temperatures, and flow rates associated with the purifier, the industrial equipment, and the anaerobic subsystem as Johnson, similar to Whitmore, teaches a process for the treatment of biogas. Doing so would allow for increased monitoring over the parameters of the system through automation, without the need for human intervention, thus saving time and costs.
Regarding claim 17, Whitmore teaches comprising determining an amount of biogas produced. {[0015] re. monitoring the material and energy inputs and outputs from the biogas processing facility}
Regarding claim 18, Whitmore teaches comprising determining an amount of methane generated from wastewater treated in the anaerobic subsystem. {[0015] re. monitoring the material and energy inputs and outputs from the biogas processing facility (biomethane product)}
Regarding claim 19, Whitmore teaches comprising determining a carbon dioxide capture efficiency of at least the purifier. {[0015] re. monitoring the material and energy inputs and outputs from the biogas processing facility (carbon dioxide product)}
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.
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 CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights