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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 2-13) in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant asserts that the Restriction Requirement has not properly established that Groups I-III lack one or more special technical features under Rule 13.2. More particularly, Rule 13.2 states that the term "special technical features" refer to those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The Restriction Requirement has failed to adequately establish that Groups I-III lack one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. More particularly, the Restriction Requirement alleges Applicant's Groups I-III do not make a contribution over Datta (U.S. Patent No. 8,759,047) (hereinafter "Datta"). This is not found persuasive because Groups I_III lack unit if invention even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a reactor, this technical feature is not a special feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 8759047 B2-Datta. Datta teaches this invention enables the utilization of high methane containing syngas in a bioconversion process to make ethanol or other fuels and chemicals (col. 3, lines 62-64). Further, Datta teaches a reactor (bioreactor section 16, col. 6, line 14, Fig. 1; bioreactors 18, col. 16, Fig. 1). Datta also teaches a continuous controlled rate to the gasification reaction chamber 60 (col. 12, lines 56-58); also, Datta teaches the liquid products recovered from the bioreactor process, col. 4, lines 38-39—liquid recirculation circuit). Also, Datta teaches a tail gas stream is also recovered from the bioreactor (gas recirculation circuit, col. 4, lines 30-31). The relied upon reference, Harvey, teaches a packed bed reactor (bulking agents, para. [0037], line 4-5, of reactor 100, discussed below in the rejection), which is required by claim 1 of the instant application and is evidence of a lack of unity. Therefore, for examination purposes, only claims 2-13 will be examined, and non-elected claims 14-22 are withdrawn from consideration. Further, applicant has canceled claim 1 of the instant application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: a coma, “,” should be inserted after “claim number”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0261242 A1-Harvey et al. (hereinafter, “Harvey”), and further in view of CN101279229B-Gan et al. (all citations are made to the machine English translation, hereinafter, “Gan”).
Regarding claim 2, Harvey teaches a vessel having an upper end and a lower end, the lower end having a plurality of openings and a material removal port. A plurality of gas ports are in communication with a gas distribution system and in communication with the plurality of openings in the lower end of the vessel. Further, Harvey teaches a packing material (bulking agents, para. [0037], line 4-5). Also, Harvey teaches the bioreactor 100 further comprises a liquid distribution system 50 and a liquid collection system 70. The liquid collection system 70 is disposed at the lower end 12 of the vessel 10 (para. [0090], lines 1-4). Likewise, Harvey teaches the gas distribution system 30 is in communication with the upper end 14 of the vessel 10 (para. [0081], lines 1-2). Moreover, Harvey teaches valves 38, 40, 42, and 44 allow the gas distribution system 30 to control the flow of gas through the vessel 10 (Para. [0085], lines 4-6), thus the gas flow rates can have a volumetric flow range from 2x to 10x. However, Harvey does not explicitly teach a plurality of sections in sequential order.
For claim 2, Gan teaches an invention relating to a trickle bed reactor (pg. 1, line 2) and Gan teaches a trickle bed reactor 3 including a first section and a second section separated by a liquid-gas barrier and having multiple sections wherein the sections are arranged sequentially (illustrated in annotated Fig. 1A below), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a plurality of sections in sequential order.
PNG
media_image1.png
890
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Harvey to further include of a plurality of sections in sequential order as taught by Gan, because Gan teaches the reactor has the advantages that the gas and liquid are fully contacted in the radial direction and the axial direction, the gas and liquid are evenly distributed in the reactor, the trickle effect in the reactor is good, and the reaction efficiency is high (pg. 2, paragraph 1, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, Harvey teaches the invention and reactor discussed above in claim 2. However, Harvey does not explicitly teach a plurality of sections are in vertical alignment.
For claim 3, Gan teaches an invention relating to a trickle bed reactor (pg. 1, line 2) and Gan teaches a trickle bed reactor 3 including a first section and a second section separated by a liquid-gas barrier and having multiple sections (illustrated in annotated Fig. 1A above), further, annotated Fig. 1A above show the sections are in a vertical orientation, which reads on the instant claim limitation of a plurality of sections are in vertical alignment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Harvey to further include a plurality of sections are in vertical alignment, as taught by Gan, because Gan teaches the reactor has the advantages that the gas and liquid are fully contacted in the radial direction and the axial direction, the gas and liquid are evenly distributed in the reactor, the trickle effect in the reactor is good, and the reaction efficiency is high (pg. 2, paragraph 1, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, Harvey teaches the invention discussed above in claim 2. Further, Harvey teaches having the gas distribution system 30 above the liquid recovery system 70 is preferable because the effluent discharge entering the manifold 17 through one of the plurality of openings 18 will naturally gravitate toward the bottom of the manifold 17 and port 23 in communication with the liquid recovery system (para. [0124], lines 3-8). Harvey also teaches packing material, also discussed above, and shown in a section of vessel in in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, Harvey teaches wherein a packing material of at least one section includes random or structural packing (the bulking material of vessel 10, shown in Fig. 1, appears to be randomly dispersed in vessel 10.
Regarding claim 6, Harvey teaches wherein a liquid recirculation circuit (a wedge wire screen is preferable, other types of screens can be used including a wire screen, a mesh screen, a membrane, a filter, para. [0122], lines 7-9) of at least one section includes a liquid collector at a liquid-gas barrier (liquid collection system 70, para. [0122], lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 7, Harvey teaches wherein a liquid recirculation circuit (liquid distribution system 50) of at least one section includes a pump (liquid system 50 comprise a pump 54, para. [0092], lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 8, Harvey teaches wherein a gas recirculation circuit of at least one section includes a blower or a fan (the gas distribution system further comprises at least one fan 34; the at least one fan 34 could likewise be a blower or any other type of device, para. [0084], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Harvey teaches wherein a gas recirculation circuit of at least one section includes a gas port at a liquid-gas barrier (the gas distribution system 30 is in communication with the upper end 14 and the lower end 12 of the vessel 10, para. [0083], lines 5-7; further, Harvey teaches a wedge wire screen is preferable, other types of screens can be used including a wire screen, a mesh screen, a membrane, a filter, para. [0122], lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 10, Harvey teaches wherein the gas port includes a duct (he gas distribution system further comprises a duct 46, para. [0083], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Harvey teaches the invention discussed above in claim 2. Further, Harvey teaches various valves (valves 38, 40, 42, and 44 allow the gas distribution system 30 to control the flow of gas through the vessel 10 and change the direction of gas flow, para. [0085], lines 4-6). However, Harvey does not explicitly teach a plurality of sections.
For claim 11, Gan teaches an invention relating to a trickle bed reactor (pg. 1, line 2) and Gan teaches a trickle bed reactor 3 including a first section and a second section separated by a liquid-gas barrier and having multiple sections (illustrated in annotated Fig. 1A above), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a plurality of sections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Harvey to further include a plurality of sections, as taught by Gan, because Gan teaches the reactor has the advantages that the gas and liquid are fully contacted in the radial direction and the axial direction, the gas and liquid are evenly distributed in the reactor, the trickle effect in the reactor is good, and the reaction efficiency is high (pg. 2, paragraph 1, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 12, Harvey teaches wherein the reactor is configured for anaerobic operation (vessel 10 is to be used for an anaerobic fermentation process, para. [0065], lines 4-5; the opening 16 may be sealed using automatic doors to create an anaerobic environment, para. [0067], lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 13, Harvey teaches wherein a first gas recirculation circuit of the first section is configured to operate at pressure between 0.1 psig to 1 psig (tank also acts as a gas seal and prevents the process gas from leaving via the liquid distribution system. This is accomplished by maintaining a desired hydraulic head in the tank above the discharge of the liquid into the tank that is greater than the gas pressure in vessel 10, para. [0092], lines 19-23).
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
Prosecution Insights