CTNF 18/482,871 CTNF 95194 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification 07-29-04 The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15. Applicant has claim 15 on page 18 of the claim set dated 10/07/2023, where a second claim number 15 is erroneously inserted between after claim 24 and before claim 25. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 07-29-01 AIA Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “baterium” is misspelled and should be corrected . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 is objected to because the term “PHB” in line 2 is abbreviated and is required to be spelled out before being abbreviated. Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “where” should be amended to “wherein” to keep the terms consistent with the previous claims . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: a comma should be inserted after “claim 1” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-31 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 14 recites the limitation “the glyoxylate bypass in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 17 recites the limitation " the desired product" and “the desired end product ” in lines 2 and 3, respectively . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 18 recites the limitation “ the product ” in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 19 recites the limitation “ the product ” in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 20-23 recite the claim limitation “wherein the product” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 recites the claim limitation “the desired product” and “the desired end product” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 recites the claim limitation “the product” and “the products…” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 recites the claim limitation “the desired product” and “the desired end product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 29 recites the claim limitation “the product” and “the products…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-10 Regarding claims 1, 24, and 27 , the term "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-10 AIA Regarding claim s 1, 9, 13-14, 16, 18, and 19-22 , the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-10 Regarding claims 15, 24, and 27 the phrase "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 30 is 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. More specifically, it is unclear what applicant is attempting to claim. The system described by applicant can be fully described in words. MPEP 2173.05(s) describes occasional circumstances where applicant may not be able to define the invention in words. Claim 30 of the instant application, does not meet those circumstances in the previously cited section of the MPEP, and applicant’s system can be described and defined in words. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 20-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0208884 A1-Mets (hereinafter “Mets”), and further in view of US 2019/0000124 A1-Sefton et al (hereinafter “Sefton”) . Regarding claim 1 , Mets discloses an integrated, modular system for direct air capture (DAC) and electro-microbial production (EMP) for bioelectrochemical conversion of CO 2 (the processing or conversion of carbon dioxide into methane using an electro biological apparatus, para. [0034], lines 1-3; further, Mets discloses a culture comprising living methanogenic microorganism, para. [0011], lines 6-7), the system comprising:(a) a solid absorbent configured to directly capture CO 2 from air (barrier 112 may be a solid polymer electrolyte membrane, para. [0040], lines 1-2); (b) a first bioreactor configured to receive enriched and purified CO 2 from the absorbent and convert the CO 2 to an upgradeable organic carbon intermediate by an autotrophic microorganism (e.g acetate by Sporomusa ovata ), wherein the autotrophic microorganism derives energy from oxidation of electrochemically-generated reducing equivalents (e.g. H 2 ; first chamber 104 contains a culture comprising living methanogenic microorganisms, and water, para. [0038], lines 5-7; further, Mets discloses carbon dioxide is supplied to the first chamber 104, including at least a concentrated industrial source or atmospheric carbon dioxide, para. [0058], lines 1-5; Mets discloses culture comprising living methanogenic microorganisms, e.g., autotrophic, para. [0057], lines 4-6; he archaea are cultured under conditions wherein the temperature, pH, salinity, sulfide concentration, carbon source, hydrogen concentration or electric source is altered such that growth of non-methanogens is significantly retarded under such conditions, para. [0186], lines 4-8). Regarding claim 1 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above. Further, Mets teaches gaseous oxygen may be generated in the second chamber 106 as a byproduct of the production of methane in the first chamber 104, para. [0056], lines 1-5; further, Mets teaches the apparatus is being used to generate an energy resource that may be substituted for fossil-based carbon fuels, to reduce reliance on fossil-based carbon fuels, para. [0035], lines 2-5). However, Mets does not explicitly teach a heterotrophic microorganism. For claim 1, Sefton teaches an invention relating to products, materials, intermediates, and the like such as protein bio mass and/or other biological products are produced from the waste gases of industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), and Sefton teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a heterotrophic microorganism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include a heterotrophic microorganism as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches these organisms can be advantageous for providing additional vitamins, minerals, cofactors, etc. to the biomass product (para. ]0020], lines 11-13). Regarding claim 2 , Mets discloses wherein the solid adsorbent comprises a metal-organic framework (MOF) or covalent organic framework (COF) material (the barrier 112 may be a solid polymer electrolyte membrane, para. [0040], lines 1-2). Regarding claim 3 , Mets discloses wherein the solid adsorbent comprises a composite or mixture of adsorbents, or further comprises a binder or substrate (the barrier 112 may be a solid polymer electrolyte membrane, para. [0040], lines 1-2). Regarding claim 4 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not teach wherein heterotrophic microorganism is metabolically engineered. For claim 4, Sefton teaches an invention relating to products, materials, intermediates, and the like such as protein bio mass and/or other biological products are produced from the waste gases of industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), Sefton teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11). Also, Sefton teaches and Sefton teaches one or more of the strains in the consortium may naturally, or be genetically modified (para. [0022], lines 1-3), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein heterotrophic microorganism is metabolically engineered. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include wherein heterotrophic microorganism is metabolically engineered as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches genetic modification of the one or more strains, allow for the production of a valuable small molecule or a protein product (para. [0022], lines 3-6). Regarding claim 5 , Mets discloses further comprising a gas-solid contactor to host the solid adsorbent that processes air, compressed air, or gas mixtures, with dilute CO 2 (0 to 5%; microorganisms may be cultured, for example, in shake or stirred tank bioreactors, hollow fiber bioreactors, or fluidized bed bioreactors, para. ]0037], lines 1-3). Regarding claim 6 , Mets discloses wherein the first and second bioreactors are contained in a common vessel, forming a combined bioreactor (the system 100 includes a biological reactor 102 having at least a first chamber 104 and a second chamber 106, para. [0038], lines 3-5, Fig. 3). Regarding claim 7 , Mets discloses wherein the first and second bioreactors are contained in separate vessels (the first and second chambers are separated by a divider that is permeable to ions to permit them to move from the second chamber to the first chamber, para. [0036], lines 10-12). Regarding claim 8 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Mets teaches a first chamber containing a culture; and Mets teaches a second chamber. However, Mets does not explicitly teach a heterotrophic microorganism For claim 8, Sefton teaches an invention relating to products, materials, intermediates, and the like such as protein biomass and/or other biological products are produced from the waste gases of industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), and Sefton teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a heterotrophic microorganism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include a heterotrophic microorganism as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches these organisms can be advantageous for providing additional vitamins, minerals, cofactors, etc. to the biomass product (para. ]0020], lines 11-13). Regarding claim 10 , Mets discloses wherein the system is configured to operate in batch or continuous production mode (batch mode, para. [0037], line 5). Regarding claim 11 , Mets discloses wherein the system is autonomously powered (the biological reactor 102 may operate at an electrical current density above 6 mA /cm 2 (para. [0052], lines 1-2; the current may be supplied as direct current , or may be supplied as pulsed current such as from rectified alternating current, para. [0052], lines 7-9). Regarding claim 12 , Mets discloses wherein the autotrophic microorganism (the culture may comprise autotrophic microorganisms, para. [0038], lines 6-8) is metabolically engineered (the culture comprises methanogenic microorganisms which have been purpose fully or intentionally genetically modified to become suitable, e.g., more suitable, for the purposes of the present invention, para. [0118], lines 1-5). Regarding claim 14 , modified Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Mets teaches the use of vitamin A acetate (para. [0136], line 11). Also, Mets teaches suitable sources of reducing power may include but are not limited to acetate (para. [0098], lines 17-21). However, Mets does not explicitly teach a heterotrophic microorganism. For claim 14, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), and Sefton teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a heterotrophic microorganism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include a heterotrophic microorganism as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches these organisms can be advantageous for providing additional vitamins, minerals, cofactors, etc. to the biomass product (para. ]0020], lines 11-13). Regarding claim 15 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Also, Mets teaches suitable sources of reducing power may include but are not limited to acetate (para. [0098], lines 17-21). However, Mets does not explicitly teach a heterotrophic microorganism. For claim 15, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), and Sefton teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a heterotrophic microorganism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include a heterotrophic microorganism as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches these organisms can be advantageous for providing additional vitamins, minerals, cofactors, etc. to the biomass product (para. ]0020], lines 11-13). Regarding claim 20 , Mets discloses wherein the product is a commodity chemical/precursor such as glycerol, 3-hydroxypropionic acid, lactic acid, malonic acid, propionic acid, serine, acetoin, aspartic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, threonine, arabinitol, glutamic acid, itaconic acid, proline, xylitol, xylonic acid, aconitic acid, citric acid, glucaric acid, lysine, sorbitol, glucose, fructose, sucrose (para. [0048], lines 19-20). Regarding claim 21 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not teach wherein the product is a small-molecule pharmaceuticals such as artemisinin, benzylpenicillin, streptomycin, doxorubicin. For claim 21, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), and Sefton teaches the production of a small molecule such as an antibiotic (para. [0022], lines 3-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of the product is a small-molecule pharmaceuticals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include the product is a small-molecule pharmaceuticals as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches the invention provides a means to produce such molecules using cheap gas feedstocks (para. [0022], lines 6-8). Regarding claim 22 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not teach wherein the product is a protein such as in use as industrial enzymes, therapeutic proteins, vaccines. For claim 22, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), and Sefton teaches the production of a small molecule such as a protein (para. [0022], lines 3-4), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a small molecule. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include the product is a small-molecule pharmaceuticals as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches the invention provides a means to produce such molecules using cheap gas feedstocks (para. [0022], lines 6-8). Regarding claim 23 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not explicitly teach wherein the product is a biomass for use as a single-cell protein, fertilizer, or to be thermocatalytically upgraded to liquid bio-oil and/or solid biochar via hydrothermal liquefaction, pyrolysis, or a related process. For claim 23, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), and Sefton teaches the generation of biomass for providing nutritional, medical, and/or dietary benefits, and that comprises a consortium of chemoautotrophic microbes, photoautotrophic and non-chemoautotrophic microbes (para. [0023], lines 1-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein the product is a biomass for use as a single-cell protein, fertilizer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include a biomass for use as a single-cell protein, fertilizer as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches the desired product (biomass, nutraceutical, protein, etc.) is recovered from the aqueous phase in a separate vessel or vessels, utilizing a suitable recovery process for the compound produced (para. [0028], lines 5-8) and Sefton teaches the use of multiple microbes allows controlled modification and customization of the nutritional composition of the final product (para. [0013], lines 13-15). Regarding claim 24 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Mets teaches the cultures maybe adapted, manipulated, modified, or mutated (para. [0083], lines 10-12; para. [0109], lines 1-5). However, Mets does not teach wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is either a natural formatotroph (e.g. Cupriavidus necator ) or a non-naturally formatotrophic microorganism engineered or adapted to assimilate acetate as a carbon and energy source either through rational methods, particularly genetically introducing enzymes required for formate-driven carbon fixation or formate assimilation, or adaptive/evolutionary methods, particularly through adaptive laboratory evolution or mutant library generation and screening, and is fed formate/formic acid electrochemically generated from the captured carbon dioxide. For claim 24, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5), and Sefton teaches microbes from the genera Cupriavidus (para. [0018], line 2); and Sefton teaches Cupriavidus necator (Table 1), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is either a natural formatotroph (e.g. Cupriavidus necator ) or a non-naturally formatotrophic microorganism engineered or adapted to assimilate acetate as a carbon and energy source either through rational methods, particularly genetically introducing enzymes required for formate-driven carbon fixation or formate assimilation, or adaptive/evolutionary methods, particularly through adaptive laboratory evolution or mutant library generation and screening, and is fed formate/formic acid electrochemically generated from the captured carbon dioxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is either a natural formatotroph (e.g. Cupriavidus necator ), as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches C. necator has been shown to grow faster and more efficiently on CO 2 /H 2 than typical acetogens that are used in some anaerobic gas fermentation (para. [0019], lines 8-11). Regarding claim 25 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not teach a heterotrophic microorganism. For claim 25, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5). Sefton also teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11). Also, Sefton teaches the production of a small molecule such as a protein (para. [0022], lines 3-4), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a small molecule. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include the product is a small-molecule pharmaceuticals as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches the invention provides a means to produce such molecules using cheap gas feedstocks (para. [0022], lines 6-8). Furthermore, Sefton teaches these organisms can be advantageous for providing additional vitamins, minerals, cofactors, etc. to the biomass product (para. ]0020], lines 11-13). Regarding claim 26 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not explicitly teach a heterotrophic microorganism. For claim 26, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5). Sefton also teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11). Also, Sefton teaches the production of a small molecule such as a protein (para. [0022], lines 3-4), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a product, such as a protein or antibiotic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include the product is a small-molecule pharmaceuticals as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches the invention provides a means to produce such molecules using cheap gas feedstocks (para. [0022], lines 6-8). Furthermore, Sefton teaches these organisms can be advantageous for providing additional vitamins, minerals, cofactors, etc. to the biomass product (para. ]0020], lines 11-13). Regarding claim 27 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not explicitly teach where the heterotrophic microorganism is either a natural Knallgas (aerobic hydrogen-oxidizing) bacterium (e.g. Cupriavidus necator ) or a non-naturally Knallgas microorganism engineered or adapted to fix carbon dioxide using hydrogen gas as an energy source either through rational methods, particularly genetically introducing enzymes required for hydrogen-driven carbon fixation, or adaptive/evolutionary methods, particularly through adaptive laboratory evolution or mutant library generation and screening, and the system comprises a single hydrogen gas/carbon dioxide-fed bioreactor. For claim 27, Sefton teaches industrial processes by cultivating a microbial consortium (para. [0027], lines 1-5). Sefton also teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11). Moreover, Sefton teaches the present invention is the provision of a method, microorganism and apparatus involving continuous gaseous substrate fermentation under aerobic conditions (para. [0031], lines 1-4); and Sefton teaches Cupriavidus necator (Table 1), which reads on the instant claim limitation of where the heterotrophic microorganism is either a natural Knallgas (aerobic hydrogen-oxidizing) bacterium (e.g. Cupriavidus necator ) or a non-naturally Knallgas microorganism engineered or adapted to fix carbon dioxide using hydrogen gas as an energy source either through rational methods, particularly genetically introducing enzymes required for hydrogen-driven carbon fixation, or adaptive/evolutionary methods, particularly through adaptive laboratory evolution or mutant library generation and screening, and the system comprises a single hydrogen gas/carbon dioxide-fed bioreactor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include the heterotrophic microorganism is either a natural Knallgas (aerobic hydrogen-oxidizing) bacterium (e.g. Cupriavidus necator ) as taught by Sefton, because Seton teaches the present invention is the provision of a method, microorganism and apparatus involving continuous gaseous substrate fermentation under aerobic conditions to accomplish the conversion of waste gas streams of certain industrial processes into useful products such as biomass, feed ingredients, proteins, vitamins, probiotics, natural antibiotics, and organic acids (para. [0031], lines 1-7). Regarding claim 28 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not explicitly teach a heterotrophic microorganism is a Knallgas microbe that produces a naturally occurring metabolite or biomolecule that is the desired product, or is genetically engineered to produce the desired end product. For claim 28, Sefton also teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11). Moreover, Sefton teaches the present invention is the provision of a method, microorganism and apparatus involving continuous gaseous substrate fermentation under aerobic conditions (para. [0031], lines 1-4); and Sefton teaches Cupriavidus necator (Table 1), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a heterotrophic microorganism is a Knallgas microbe that produces a naturally occurring metabolite or biomolecule that is the desired product, or is genetically engineered to produce the desired end product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include the heterotrophic microorganism is either a natural Knallgas (aerobic hydrogen-oxidizing) bacterium (e.g. Cupriavidus necator ) as taught by Sefton, because Seton teaches the present invention is the provision of a method, microorganism and apparatus involving continuous gaseous substrate fermentation under aerobic conditions to accomplish the conversion of waste gas streams of certain industrial processes into useful products such as biomass, feed ingredients, proteins, vitamins, probiotics, natural antibiotics, and organic acids (para. [0031], lines 1-7). Regarding claim 29 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not teach wherein the microorganism is a Knallgas bacterium and the product is any of the products or product categories listed above. For claim 29, Sefton also teaches the utilization of heterotrophic microorganisms as growth substrates and growth regulators (para. [0021], lines 10-11). Moreover, Sefton teaches the present invention is the provision of a method, microorganism and apparatus involving continuous gaseous substrate fermentation under aerobic conditions (para. [0031], lines 1-4); and Sefton teaches Cupriavidus necator (Table 1), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein the microorganism is a Knallgas bacterium and the product is any of the products or product categories listed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include wherein the microorganism is a Knallgas bacterium and the product is any of the products or product categories listed above as taught by Sefton, because Sefton teaches the present invention is the provision of a method, microorganism and apparatus involving continuous gaseous substrate fermentation under aerobic conditions to accomplish the conversion of waste gas streams of certain industrial processes into useful products such as biomass, feed ingredients, proteins, vitamins, probiotics, natural antibiotics, and organic acids (para. [0031], lines 1-7). Regarding claim 30 , Mets discloses a similar configuration as that of Fig. 1 of the instant application, such that as discussed above in claim 1 of the rejection, the system allows for the introduction of nutrients and microorganisms into the system (para. [0037], lines 1-11). Additionally, Mets discloses the apparatus uses electricity (para. [0060], lines 1-3, and 6-7). Mets teaches multiple subunits of the system and a reactor comprising a first chamber and a second chamber. Mets also discloses the supply of carbon dioxide to the system (para. [0055], lines 1-3); water (para. [0038], line 7). Regarding claim 31 , Mets discloses a method comprising operating a system of claim 1 providing direct air capture (DAC) and electro-microbial production (EMP) for bioelectrochemical conversion of CO 2 (using a carbon dioxide adsorption / desorption systems to capture atmospheric car bon dioxide, for example, para. [0263], lines 19-21; para. [0256], lines 10-13) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0208884 A1-Mets, in view of US 2019/0000124 A1-Sefton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2018/0208884 A1-Mets (referring to Fig. 8) . Regarding claim 9 , Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, Mets does not teach bioreactors in a manifold configuration. For claim 9, a different embodiment of Mets teaches multiple subunits 404 arranged in a matrix format (that is arranged in rows and columns, shown Fig. 7, para. [0074], lines 1-3, Also, the different embodiment of Mets teaches the subunits 404 may be aligned with each other, para. [0074], line 8), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a manifold configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include bioreactors in a manifold configuration as taught by a different embodiment of Mets, because the different embodiment of Mets teaches the subunits 404 utilizes an offset relative to the arrangement of adjacent rows of subunits 404 , so as to increase the number of subunits 404 within a volume (para. [0074], lines 1-8) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0208884 A1-Mets, in view of US 2019/0000124 A1-Sefton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0071223 A1-Jensen et al (hereinafter, “Jensen”, has an earlier effective filing date as of the provisional application) . Regarding claim 13 , modified Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified Mets teaches an autotrophic microorganism. However, modified Mets does not explicitly teach wherein the autotrophic microorganism is an acetogen such as Sporomusa ovata , Clostridium ljungdahlii , Clostridium drakei , or Moorella thermoacetica . For claim 13, Jensen teaches an invention related to genetically engineered microorganisms (para. [0002], lines 1-2) and Jensen teaches an invention providing microorganisms for the biological production of a product via an intermediate (para. [0034], lines 1-2). Also, Jensen teaches use of Clostridium ljungdahlii (para. [0079], line 2), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein the autotrophic microorganism is an acetogen such as Clostridium ljungdahlii . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include wherein the autotrophic microorganism is an acetogen such as Clostridium ljungdahlii , as taught by Jensen, because Jensen teaches these species have similar genotypes and phenotypes and modes of energy conservation and fermentative metabolism (para. [0080], lines 4-6). Regarding claim 16 , modified Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified Mets also teaches a heterotrophic microorganism. However, modified Mets does not explicitly teach wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is an acetotrophic baterium such as Escherichia coli, Cupriavidus necator, Cupriavidus basilensis, Psuedomonas putida, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Psuedomonas fluorescens, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, Corynebacterium glutamicum, Rhodobacter sp., Clostridium sp., Aeromonas sp.; mixotrophic algae such as Chlorella sp., Chlamydomonas sp .; or fungi/yeasts such as Yarrowia lipolytica, Aspergillus oryzae, Cryptococcus curvatus. For claim 16, Jensen teaches an invention related to genetically engineered microorganisms (para. [0002], lines 1-2) and Jensen teaches an invention providing microorganisms for the biological production of a product via an intermediate (para. [0034], lines 1-2). Also, Jensen teaches use of f Clostridium autoethanogenum (para. [0061], lines 3-4), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is an acetotrophic baterium such as Clostridium sp . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is an acetotrophic baterium such as Clostridium sp., as taught by Jensen, because Jensen teaches these species have similar genotypes and phenotypes and modes of energy conservation and fermentative metabolism (para. [0080], lines 4-6). Regarding claim 17 , modified Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified Mets also teaches a heterotrophic microorganism. However, modified Mets does not explicitly teach wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is an acetotrophic microbe that produces a naturally occurring metabolite or biomolecule that is the desired product, or is genetically engineered to produce the desired end product. For claim 17, Jensen teaches an invention related to genetically engineered microorganisms (para. [0002], lines 1-2) and Jensen teaches an invention providing microorganisms for the biological production of a product via an intermediate (para. [0034], lines 1-2). Also, Jensen teaches use of f Clostridium autoethanogenum (para. [0061], lines 3-4; a heterotrophic microorganism is an acetotrophic microbe). Moreover, Jensen teaches the e invention provides genetically engineered microorganisms and methods for the production of a product by a two-step fermentation process (abstract; para. [0061], lines 1-8), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is an acetotrophic microbe that produces a naturally occurring metabolite or biomolecule that is the desired product, or is genetically engineered to produce the desired end product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include wherein the heterotrophic microorganism is an acetotrophic microbe that produces a naturally occurring metabolite or biomolecule that is the desired product, or is genetically engineered to produce the desired end product, as taught by Jensen, because Jensen teaches these species have similar genotypes and phenotypes and modes of energy conservation and fermentative metabolism (para. [0080], lines 4-6). Regarding claim 18 , modified Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, modified Mets also teaches a heterotrophic microorganism. However, modified Mets does not explicitly teach wherein the product is a fuel such as isobutanol, n-butanol or ethanol. For claim 18, Jensen teaches an invention related to genetically engineered microorganisms (para. [0002], lines 1-2) and Jensen teaches an invention providing microorganisms for the biological production of a product via an intermediate (para. [0034], lines 1-2). Also, Jensen teaches ethanol is a product produced by said microorganism (para. [0061], lines 1-4), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein the product is a fuel such as isobutanol, n-butanol or ethanol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include wherein the product is a fuel such as isobutanol, n-butanol or ethanol, as taught by Jensen, because Jensen teaches these species have similar genotypes and phenotypes and modes of energy conservation and fermentative metabolism (para. [0080], lines 4-6). Regarding claim 19 , modified Mets teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. However, modified Mets does not explicitly teach wherein the product is a bioplastic such as polyhydroxyalkanoate, such as PHB, and associated co-polymers. For claim 19, Jensen teaches an invention related to genetically engineered microorganisms (para. [0002], lines 1-2) and Jensen teaches an invention providing microorganisms for the biological production of a product via an intermediate (para. [0034], lines 1-2). Also, Jensen teaches polyethylene glycol-mediated transformation (para. [0053], lines 12-13), which reads on the instant claim limitation of associated co-polymers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to further include wherein the product is a bioplastic such as polyhydroxyalkanoate, such as PHB, and associated co-polymers as taught by Jensen, because Jensen teaches polyethylene glycol-mediated transformation to allow for the delivery of nucleic acids to a microorganism (para. [0053],lines 1-3) and Jensen teaches these species have similar genotypes and phenotypes and modes of energy conservation and fermentative metabolism (para. [0080], lines 4-6). Moreover, Jensen teaches the culture is generally maintained in an aqueous culture medium that comprises nutrients, vitamins, and/or minerals sufficient to permit growth of a microorganism (para. [0059], lines 4-7). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm. 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 at (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. /L.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 2 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 3 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 4 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 6 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 7 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 8 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 9 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 10 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 11 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 12 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 13 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 14 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 15 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 16 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 17 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 18 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 19 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 20 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 21 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 22 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 23 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 24 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 25 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/482,871 Page 26 Art Unit: 1799
Prosecution Insights