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 .
Claim Status
Claims 120-139 are pending and are examined on the merits.
Claims 120 and 132 are independent claims.
Priority
As recorded on the 08/29/2023 filing receipt, the instant application is a continuation of PCT/US2022/016880, International Filing Date: 02/17/2022, which claims priority to US Provisional Application 63/151,017, 63/151,021, and 63151016 filed 02/18/2021. As such, the effective filing date assigned to each of claims 120-139 is 02/18/2021.
At this point in examination, all claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further analysis of the disclosure(s) of the priority application(s).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed 08/17/2023 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed 08/17/2023 is accepted.
Claim objections
Claims 125 and 136 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 120, a space is needed after "(iii)..."
In claims 125 and 136, "...one or more... is..." is grammatically incorrect and should read "...one or more... are..." Contrast claim 132, step (b).
Claim rejection - 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.
Claims 120-139 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.
Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
Regarding claim 120, it is not clear whether steps (i-iii), recited within the "wherein" clause, (1) actually require the claimed "method" to perform those steps or (2) only require that the "QDS" have either (a) structure capable of those steps or (b) perform those steps at some other time. Relatedly, one or more dependent claims include further recitation regarding the "QDS," however, as above, it is not clear to what extent those recitations actually limit the claimed method versus whether a product-by-process interpretation applies to such recitations. MPEP 2113 pertains, as well as, for example, Biogen MA, Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 9-28-2020, precedential).
Claim 132 is to a 101 machine or manufacture, i.e. a "system" in this instance, interpreted by statute according to its claimed physical structure, but it is not clear what is the structure associated with the recited "receive..." and "encrypt..." steps. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim is limited according to these steps. MPEP 2106.03, 5th-6th paras. pertain. The recited "system" is interpreted as not clearly requiring structure linking the "system" to the recited steps in a structural sense appropriate to a claim to a machine or manufacture. While the recited elements may comprise unrecited software storage in some embodiments, it is not clear that all embodiments of these elements must comprise software storage corresponding to the recited process steps. Structure should be recited specifically corresponding to stored software. The recited process steps are not properly claimed without corresponding structure. This rejection might be overcome by, for example, reciting a data storage device, comprised by the "system," and instructions stored therein and configured according to the recited elements and steps. MPEP 2173.05(p).II pertains regarding a claim directed to both product and process. A similar issue also renders at least claim 139 indefinite.
Claims 120 and 132 are indefinite under 112/b after invoking 112/f due to their recited "quantified destruction system." The claims recite means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here "system") and function and/or result (here "quantified destruction") without specifying steps or structure to prevent invoking, and it is not clear that the specification discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts rather than just function and results (e.g. specification [0018] “… the QDS is a quantified destruction device (QDD)… the QDS comprises one or more of a methane input measurement module, a methane destruction module, a methane output measurement module, a carbon dioxide (CO2) output measurement module, a geo-positioning module, and a time recording module”), noting that any disclosure must be clearly linked to the invoking recitation and that the above citation to the specification does not clearly disclose structure sufficient to satisfy 112/b. While inputs and/or outputs are disclosed, there is not clear disclosure of operation, detailed structure and analysis required to proceed from inputs to outputs. MPEP 2181 pertains, and MPEP 2187, FP 7.34.23 lists options for overcoming the rejection. MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains.
Claims 125 and 136 are indefinite under 112/b after invoking 112/f due to their recited "quantified destruction device." The claims recite means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here "device") and function and/or result (here "quantified destruction") without specifying steps or structure to prevent invoking, and it is not clear that the specification discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts rather than just function and results (e.g. specification [0016] “ …QDDs may each be configured to couple with a given methane processing unit comprised in the methane processing system. An individual QDD may be configured to collect gas content data (e.g., methane content data) from a methane processing unit…”, [0064] “… QDDs may each be configured to couple with a given methane processing unit comprised in the methane processing system. An individual QDD may be configured to collect gas content data (e.g., methane content data) from a methane processing unit…”), noting that any disclosure must be clearly linked to the invoking recitation and that the above citation to the specification does not clearly disclose structure sufficient to satisfy 112/b. While inputs and/or outputs are disclosed, there is not clear disclosure of operation, detailed structure and analysis required to proceed from inputs to outputs. MPEP 2181 pertains, and MPEP 2187, FP 7.34.23 lists options for overcoming the rejection. MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 120-139 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Judicial exceptions (JE) to 101 patentability (claims 1-22)
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (claim(s) 120-131 being representative) is directed to a method and (claim(s) 132-139 being representative) is directed to a system. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES]
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim(s) 120-139 recite the following steps which fall under the mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas:
Claims 120 and 132 recite encrypting a data block from methane content data and a QSD identifier to generate encrypted data; the limitation “encrypting”, given the plain meaning of “encrypting”, encompasses observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.) performable by human mind (mental process), since human mind is capable of encrypting, for example, converting information into a secret code.
Claim 139 recites to determine a carbon credit; the limitation “to determine”, giving the plain meaning of determining, encompasses observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.) performable by human mind (mental process), since human mind is capable of determining credits earned by for example, contrasting results against a standard.
The identified claims recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) and/or fall into one of the groups of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity for the reasons set forth above. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III and MPEP 2106.04 (b) I. Therefore, claims are directed to one or more judicial exception(s) and require further analysis in Prong Two. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under MPEP § 2106.04, Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
The additional elements of claim(s) 120-139 include the following.
Claim 120 and 132 recite receiving methane content data, one or more computer processors, a quantified destruction system (QSD), and transmit methane content data.
Claim 121 recites storing encrypted data in a database.
Claims 122-124 and 133-135 recite a biological filtration unit.
Claims 129 and 138 recite input gas stream.
Claim 130 recites input and output gas streams.
Claim 131 recites a catalytic reactor.
Claim 132 recites a system.
The additional elements of a system comprising one or more processors, transmitting methane content data, and storing data are generic computer components and/or processes. There are no limitations that indicate that the one or more processors, transmitting, and storing data in the computer-implemented system require anything other than generic computing systems and processes. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the additional elements of receiving and input gas and output gas amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. The courts have found the limitations that amount to necessary data gathering and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application in Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 and O/P Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the additional element of a quantified destruction system (QSD), a catalytic reactor, and biological filtration unit serve to collect the information for use by the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additionally recited elements amount to generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activity and, as such, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In Step 2A, Prong 1 above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B.
Here in Step 2A, Prong 2, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, Prong 2 considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
In conclusion regarding Prong 2, claims 120-139 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements of claim(s) 120-139 include the following.
Claim 120 and 132 recite receiving methane content data, one or more computer processors, a quantified destruction system (QSD), and transmit methane content data.
Claim 121 recites storing encrypted data in a database.
Claims 122-124 and 133-135 recite a biological filtration unit.
Claims 129 and 138 recite input gas stream.
Claim 130 recites input and output gas streams.
Claim 131 recites a catalytic reactor.
Claim 132 recites a system.
The additional elements of a system comprising one or more processors, transmitting methane content data, and storing data are conventional computer components and/or processes. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TU CommunicationsLLCv. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607,613,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Furthermore, the additional elements of receiving and input gas and output gas amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. The courts have found the limitations that amount to necessary data gathering and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the recitation of biological filter unit is conventional (see below). Additionally, the BRI of the recitation "a quantified destruction system (QSD)" reads on "reactor" which is conventional system for methane conversion. These positions are supported by Stone (A mini review on bioreactor configurations and gas transfer enhancements for biochemical methane conversion, Biochemical Engineering Journal, 15 December 2017, pages: 83-92). Stone reviews bioreactor configurations for gas feed with high concentration of methane (e.g., natural gas) and that with low methane concentrations (e.g., anthropogenic emission) (abstract) and teaches biofilters are most commonly used reactors (pg. 85, col. 2, last para.; Table 1).
Furthermore, the limitation of a catalytic reactor is conventional system for methane conversion. This position is supported by Chen (Catalytic Hydrogen Production from Methane: A Review on Recent Progress and Prospect, Catalysts 2020, 10(8), 858, 2 August 2020, pages: 2-18). Chen the major descriptors of catalyst and reaction engineering of the SMR process and compared the SMR process and discusses new progresses of methane conversion (abstract). Chen further reviews most commonly used catalysts (pg. 3, para. 1).
Therefore, the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. [Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 120-130 and 132-139 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bridge (US20200273047A1; as cited in the attached 892 form) in view of Cooner (US20220180374A1; as cited in the attached 892 form).
Regarding claims 120 and 132, the recited computer-implemented method for promoting a decrease in methane emissions, is taught as, a system for tracking at least one emission type generated by an entity comprising a communication network, memory, and processor (Bridge: claims 1 and 14).
Regarding the recited (a) receiving methane content data from said QDS, Bridge teaches receive emission data associated with at least one emission type (Bridge: claims 1 and 14).
Regarding the recited (i) lowers a methane content of a gas stream to yield a lowered methane content, Bridge teaches a second emission data received at a second time, wherein the second emission data is received after implementation of at least one emission reduction step corresponding to the at least one emission type, where the at least one emission type is methane (Bridge: claims 1, 12, and 14).
Regarding the recited (ii) measures said methane content data comprising said methane content of said gas stream, Bridge teaches analyze the first and second emission data received at the first time to determine a first emission output value designated as an emission baseline and the second emission data received at the second time to determine a second emission output value (Bridge: claims 1 and 14).
Regarding the recited (iii) transmits said methane content data to said one or more computer processors, Bridge teaches that the data analysis is computer-implemented where at least one processor is configured to perform the analysis steps (Bridge: claim 14). Bridge further teaches transmitting the emission output data to emission tracking system (Bridge: [0101]).
Regarding the recited (b) encrypting a data block comprising lowered methane content data derived from said methane content data and a QDS identifier, to generate encrypted data, Bridge teaches that the emission tracking device is configured to transmit the emission data … the emission tracking device may encrypt the emission data prior to transmission (Bridge: [0133]).
Further regarding claims 120 and 132, Potts does not teach encrypting a data block. Cooner teaches generating encrypted data.
Cooner teaches systems and methods employ sensor data and blockchain to verify and promote the reduction of undesirable waste products and teaches encrypting data transmission and assigning unique ID to uniquely identify equipment (Cooner: [0023]). Cooner further teaches that data blocks run through an encryption algorithm (Cooner: [0134-0135]).
Regarding claim 121, the recited storing said encrypted data in a database, is taught as, the external secondary system include one or more servers or databases that receive and store emission related data from one or more of the primary sources and that the emission tracking device may encrypt the emission data prior to transmission (Bridge: [0118] and [0133]).
Regarding claims 127-128, the recited QDS further lowers an additional component in said input gas stream, wherein said additional component is selected from the group consisting of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, other volatile organic compounds, and any combination thereof, is taught as, the at least one emission type is selected from the group consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds, ammonia, and peroxyacetyl nitrate. (Bridge: [0028] (claim 25)).
Regarding claim 129 and 138, the recited gas stream is an input gas stream received by said QDS, is taught as, emission tracking device being configured to receive emission data associated with the at least one emission type, the emission data including a first emission data received at a first time (Bridge: claim 1).
Regarding claim 130, the recited methane content data comprises said methane content of input gas stream and a methane content of an output gas stream generated by said QDS, is taught as, emission tracking device configured to receive and analyze first and second emission data, wherein the second emission data is received after implementation of at least one emission reduction step corresponding to the at least one emission type(Bridge: claim 1).
Regarding claim 139, the recited determining a carbon credit, is taught as, determine an emission offset measurement corresponding to the at least one emission type based on the emission baseline and the second emission output value, wherein the external processor is configured to determine carbon credits available for trading based on the emission offset measurement (Bridge: claims 1 and 8).
Rationale for combining Bridge and Cooner:
In KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, and motivation test by the Federal Circuit, indicated that “The principles underlying [earlier] cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
Applying the KSR standard to Potts and Cooner, Examiner concludes that this combination represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Both Bridge and Cooner are directed to promoting reduction of undesirable products and monitoring said data. Bridge only disclosed receiving, lowering, measuring, transmitting, and encrypting data. In the same field of research, Cooner provided the encryption of data blocks, and implementing carbon credits for the purpose of protecting data preventing unauthorized alterations and combating climate change by representing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Combining methane reduction method of Bridge with the known data encryption and carbon credit techniques of Cooner would have of allowed for data protection and lowering global emissions. One ordinary skilled in the art before he effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Bridge and Cooner. This combination would have been expected to have provided an improved methane emissions reduction. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 122-124 and 133-135 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts in view of Cooner, as applied to claims 120-13 and 132-139 above, and further in view of Suk (KR 20170139970 A; as cited in the attached 892 form).
Claims 122-124 and 133-135 depends on claim 120. Limitations of claim 120 are taught in the above rejection.
Regarding claims 122-124 and 133-135, Bridge and Cooner do not teach a biological filtration unit that comprises a bacterial consortium and the bacterial consortium comprises methanotrophs. Suk teaches a method for removing the pollutant gas using the bio-filter or the bio-cover, where the bacterial consortium comprises methanotrophs (Suk: abstract; pg. 8, last para.).
Rationale for combining Bridge, Cooner and Suk:
Applying the KSR standard to Bridge, Cooner, and Suk, Examiner concludes that this combination represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Bridge, Cooner, and Suk are directed to promoting reduction of undesirable products and monitoring said data. Bridge and Cooner taught receiving, lowering, measuring, transmitting data, encryption of data blocks, and implementing carbon credits. In the same field of research, Suk taught the known methane conversion process using methanotrophs. Combining methane reduction method of Bridge and Cooner with the known biofilter of Suk would have of allowed for conversion of methane efficiently. One ordinary skilled in the art before he effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Bridge, Cooner and Suk. This combination would have been expected to have provided an improved methane emissions reduction. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 125-126 and 136-137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts in view of Cooner, as applied to claims 120-13 and 132-139 above, and further in view of Silverman (US20160289782A1; as cited in the attached 892 form).
Claims 125-126 and 136-137 depends on claim 120. Limitations of claim 120 are taught in the above rejection.
Regarding claims 125-126 and 136-137, Bridge and Cooner do not teach altering a temperature, a pressure, a gas composition, a quantity of an addition of air or an accelerant to the methane processing unit, and any combination thereof. Silverman teaches a method of producing biofuel in particular, C1 metabolizing microorganism reactor system for converting C1 substrates, such as methane or methanol, into biomass and teaches maintaining bacterial cultures in air gas mixture or presence of methanol vapor (Silverman: abstract; [0140]).
Rationale for combining Bridge, Cooner and Silverman:
Applying the KSR standard to Bridge, Cooner, and Silverman, Examiner concludes that this combination represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Bridge, Cooner, and Siverman are directed to promoting reduction of undesirable products and. Bridge and Cooner taught receiving, lowering, measuring, transmitting data, encryption of data blocks, and implementing carbon credits. In the same field of research, Siverman taught the known parameter alteration technique. Combining methane reduction method of Bridge and Cooner with the known parameter alteration of Siverman would have of allowed for conversion of methane efficiently. One ordinary skilled in the art before he effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Bridge, Cooner and Siverman. This combination would have been expected to have provided an improved methane emissions reduction. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 131 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts in view of Cooner, as applied to claims 120-13 and 132-139 above, and further in view of Galip (US20150014183A1; as cited in the attached 892 form).
Claim 131 depends on claim 120. Limitations of claim 120 are taught in the above rejection.
Regarding claim 131, Bridge and Cooper do not teach a catalytic reactor. Galip teaches methane conversion process using catalytic plasma reactors (Galip: [0243]).
Galip teaches a method and apparatus for cleaning gases and to a gas separation device (Galip: [0001]). Galip teaches lowering Methane content by using biofilters (Galip: [0106] [0179]).
Rationale for combining Bridge, Cooner and Galip:
Applying the KSR standard to Potts, Cooner, and Galip, Examiner concludes that this combination represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Bridge, Cooner, and Galip are directed to promoting reduction of undesirable products and monitoring said data. Bridge and Cooner taught receiving, lowering, measuring, transmitting data, encryption of data blocks, and implementing carbon credits. In the same field of research, Galip taught the known methane conversion process using catalytic reactors. Combining methane reduction method of Bridge and Cooner with the known catalytic reactor of Galip would have of allowed for conversion of methane at low concentration rapidly. One ordinary skilled in the art before he effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Bridge, Cooner and Galip. This combination would have been expected to have provided an improved methane emissions reduction. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL SABOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686
