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 .
Applicant’s amendment has been considered and entered for the record.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/636,768, filed on 02/05/2020.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-20, 22-25, 29-31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telljohann et al. (US 2015/0103619 A1 – hereafter ‘619) in view of Medoff et al. (US 2015/0284757 A1 – hereafter ‘757) and Bonhomme (US 2015/0203874 A1 – hereafter ‘874).
‘619 discloses a mixing device ([0004]) that includes the following limitations for claim 17:
“A fermenter for fermentation of a microorganism for the production of one or more enzymes”: ‘757 discloses a fermentation process ([0019]; [0020]) that is used for saccharifying a biomass feedstock. It should be noted that preamble statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the invention rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations is not considered to structurally define the claimed invention over the prior art. See also MPEP 2111.02 II and 2114.
“a tank”: ‘757 discloses a vessel ([0011]; [0107]; Fig. 11; Fig. 12; tank 1104).
“at least two two-phase injectors connected to an air supply and a liquid supply for supplying oxygen localized in the lower part of the fermenter”: ‘757 discloses at least two two-phase injectors ([0105]) that inject a liquid and a gas through the nozzle. (Fig. 9; Fig. 11; Fig. 12).
“at least one loop withdrawing fluid from the fermenter and circulating the fluid with a pump to provide the liquid supply for the two-phase injectors”: ‘757 discloses a loop that circulates fluid from the fermenter and back to the nozzle via a pump (Fig. 11; [0106]; [0098]; [0099]; Fig. 6A; pump 620)
“one or more inlets and one or more outlets”: ‘757 discloses that the tank has more than one inlet and outlet (Fig. 1; Fig. 8b; Fig. 11; [0109]).
“wherein at least one of the two-phase injectors is arranged so the injected stream is injected at an angle to the horizontal plane of 30-80°”: ‘757 discloses that the injects can be angled at 15-30° to the horizontal plane ([0107]).
“wherein the air supply is greater than atmospheric pressure,”: ‘757 discloses supplying the air under pressure, but does not explicitly disclose that the pressure is greater than atmospheric.
”wherein at least one of the two-phase injectors provides an injected stream going down ant at least one of the two phase injectors provides an injected stream going up”: ‘757 discloses that the jet nozzles can be angled upward and downward ([0096]).
“wherein the at least two two-phase injectors are arranged so their injected streams do not collide with each other.”: ‘757discloses that the nozzles inject the streams such that they don’t collide (Fig. 11).
“wherein the microorganism is selected from Trichoderma, Aspergillus, and Bacillus.”: ‘757 discloses using cells from Trichoderma ([0239]), Aspergillus ([0239]) and Bacillus ([0239]).
‘757 does not specify that the gas is at a pressure of 1 bar or greater.
‘874 discloses a method for dry methanation in a fermenter (Abstract) that for claim 17 includes sending the gas to the fermenter at a pressure of 7 to 4 bars ([0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the pressure of ‘874 within ‘757 in order to mix the biomass within the tank. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to mix the slurry ([0056]).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the number of injectors in order to achieve any desired flow characteristics.
Regarding claim 19, the manner of operating a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. See MPEP §2114.
For claim 20, ‘757 discloses that the circulation loop includes an inlet, outlet and a pump ([0107]; [0108]; Fig. 10; Fig. 11).
For claim 22, ‘757 discloses that the tank volume can be at least 4000 L ([0205]).
For claim 23, the tank is fully capable of being sterilizable or CIP cleanable.
For claim 24, ‘757 differs from the instant claim regarding the pressures.
For claim 24, ‘874 discloses that the pressure can be held at 6 to 3 bars ([0087]) where this is being interpreted as an absolute pressure and therefore would approximately be 5 to 3 bars gauge. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing using the same reasoning as claim 17.
For claim 25, ‘757 discloses using yeast or Zymomanas bacteria ([0215]) for fermentation where this is being interpreted as the cell growth of the instant method.
For claim 29, ‘757 discloses the step of producing cellulases ([0202]) where this reads on the one or more enzymes.
For claim 30, ‘757 discloses more than one fermenter connected together (Fig. 2; [0057]) that forms a loop such that the fermenters can be run in parallel.
For claim 31, ‘757 discloses producing cells with the fermenter installation (Fig. 2; [0057]; [0215]).
For claim 35, ‘757 discloses the step of producing cellulases ([0202]) where this reads on the one or more enzymes.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medoff et al. (US 2015/0284757 A1 – hereafter ‘757) in view of Bonhomme (US 2015/0203874 A1 – hereafter ‘874) and in further view of Flores-Cotera et al. (US 5,660,977 A – hereafter ‘977).
Modified ‘757 differs from the instant claim regarding a probe.
‘977 discloses a fermenter (Abstract) that for claim 21 includes one or more probes for measuring conditions in the fermenter (col. 6 line 60 – col. 7 line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ the sensors of ‘977 within modified ‘757 in order to control the pressure within the fermenter. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to monitor the gas holdup within the system (col. 4 lines 51-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant summarizes the rejection and the applied art on page 5.
Applicant argues in the second paragraph on page 6 that the ‘757 reference does not teach the higher range and therefore does not render the claimed range obvious. This is not found persuasive as ‘757 does teach the end point at the bottom of the range and therefore teaches a portion of the range. This renders the claimed range obvious. Moreover, the claim does not limit the angel to be only at the top of the range and does not preclude a reference for teaching the lower end of the range.
Applicant further argues in the second paragraph on page 6 that ‘757 does not teach one mixer angled up and another angled down. This is not found persuasive as ‘757 clearly states in paragraph 96 that one can be arranged upward and the other can be arranged downward. Therefore, this limitation is taught by ‘757. Regarding the statement about the motivation to mix the slurry, this appears to be what this configuration does and therefore is a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have this arrangement of injectors within the tank of ‘757.
Regarding applicant’s arguments in the third paragraph on page 6, this appears to reiterate the above remarks regarding the injectors that have already been addressed. Regarding the statement that the motivation for “mixing the slurry” has already been addressed by the positioning of injectors is not found persuasive. While this may not be the reason applicant uses a higher pressure on the gas source, the use of this pressure would assist modified ‘757 to mix the slurry and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding applicant’s argument that spans the bottom of page 6 to the top of page 7 is drawn to the manner which the claimed device is operated which does not provide a structural limitation that defines over the prior art.
Regarding applicant’s arguments in the first full paragraph on page 7, this is not found persuasive since the prior art references teach and render obvious the claimed invention and are therefore fully capable of performing the oxygen transfer rate of claim 19.
Applicant appears to argue unexpected results in the second paragraph on page 7, however, this is not persuasive. Specifically, the cited examples compare the claimed invention versus a stirred tank reactor (STR; this is the best interpretation as this anacronym is not defined in the instant specification) and does not provide a nexus between the claimed invention, the closest prior art and the claimed invention.
Applicant’s argument in the third paragraph on page 7 reiterates the above remarks which have already been addressed.
Furthermore, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The bottom of page 7 to the top of page 8 is applicant’s conclusion which reiterates the above points.
Therefore, the claims stand rejected.
It should be noted that claim 20 was previously rejected, but was inadvertently labeled as claim 21 in the previous rejection. This has been corrected in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Telljohann et al. (US 2015/0103619 A1) discloses a fluid mixing device that includes mixers with an opening that are angled in the vertical direction by an angle that is 90° or less and alternate between the mixers being oriented either toward the bottom of the tank and the top of the tank.
If at any point during the prosecution it is believed that an interview with the Examiner would further the prosecution of an application, please consider this option.
The Automated Interview Request form (AIR) is available to request an interview to be scheduled with the Examiner.
First, an authorization for internet communications regarding the case should be filed prior or with an AIR online request. The internet communication authorization form (SB/0439), which authorizes or withdraws authorization for internet-based communication (e.g., video conferencing, email, etc.) for the application must be signed by the applicant or the attorney/agent for applicant. The form can be found at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
The AIR form can be filled out online, and is automatically forwarded to the Examiner, who will call to confirm a requested time and date, or set up a mutually convenient time for the interview. The form can be found at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto- automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
The Examiner encourages, but does not require, interviews by the USPTO WebEx video conferencing.
This system allows for file-sharing along audioconferencing. WebEx can be used as an internet browser add-on in Microsoft IE, Google Chrome, or Mozilla Foxfire, or as a temporary Java-based application on these browsers.
Steps for joining an Examiner setup WebEx can be found at the USPTO website:
https ://www.uspto.gov/about-us/contact-us/video-conferencing-and-collaboration
Additionally, a blank email to the Examiner at the time of a telephonic interview can be used for a reply to easily allow for WebEx communication.
Please note, policy guidelines regarding Internet communications are detailed at MPEP §500-502.3, and office policy regarding interviews are detailed at MPEP §713.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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 on 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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights