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 .
The Response of 6 Jan. 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are considered here.
Any rejection not reiterated herein has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 should be amended as follows: "… wherein a carbonaceous material content …".
Claim 19 has been amended such that "wt." is both underlined and crossed-through. The claim is construed herein such that "wt." has not been added, and the claims should be amended to add such term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 11-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US20100248322 to Pfeiffer et al. in view of US10151185 to Urynowicz et al., as evidenced by Kakaee et al., Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 38 (2014): 64-78, Anagnostopoulos et al., Report: Environmental Science for European Refining 16/22 (2022) and (in the case of claims 11-12) Liu, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 59.5 (2011): 1508-1526.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 19, Pfeiffer teaches a method of enhancing methane production in an underground reservoir, comprising: accessing a consortium of microorganisms in a geologic formation; delivering an aqueous solution (amendment) including nutrients and/or other additives to the consortium and thereby increasing production of gaseous materials (e.g., methane) by the consortium; and recovering gaseous products including methane from the reservoir (entire doc, including [0007]-[0009]; [0019]-[0045]; Figs. 1-4). Pfeiffer teaches that the amendment can result in the gaseous products having an increased mol.% of methane (i.e. an enriched methane concentration ([0024]; [0028]-[0029]). The amendment can include vitamins, minerals, metals, yeast extracts, and other nutrients ([0034]; [0038]-[0042]).
Regarding the recitation of a “waste product” in claims 1, 14 and 19, the specification describes various byproducts of industrial processes as “waste products”, including e.g. glycerol from biodiesel production (Spec. US20240229082, [0029]-[0030]), but does not expressly define the term in the specification. The term “waste product” is thus given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The term is construed herein as a product-by-process limitation (wherein “waste product” indicates that it is yielded as a byproduct of some other process), and as such the term is limited only by the structure necessarily implied by the process (see MPEP 2113). Since neither the claims nor the specification limits the waste product as coming from any particular process or as having any particular structural features (e.g., being part of a composition comprising other products), the recitation “waste product” is not considered to impose any structural limitation on materials recited in the claims. It is noted that any particular material can be considered “waste” depending on the context of use and the subjective intent of the user. Moreover, the claims do not preclude further processing/refinement of the byproducts. For example, the specification describes a market for purified glycerol in the context of waste glycerol from biodiesel production (Spec., [0029]), and such purified glycerol would not be patentably distinguishable from other sources of glycerol. In addition, Pfeiffer teaches various nutrients (e.g., milk proteins, hydrolyzates of milk proteins such as casein hydrolyzates, soy protein, peptones; [0040]) that are common byproducts in the food industry (e.g., from cheesemaking and the like), and it would have been obvious to source such nutrients from suitable waste streams. One would have been motivated to do so to provide an economical source of nutrients and to facilitate disposal of the waste. In view of the above, the recitation of a “waste product” does not differentiate the instant claims from Pfeiffer.
Regarding the concentrations of CO2 and methane in claims 3, 14 and 19, Kakaee evidences that natural gas compositions naturally comprise about 85-96% methane with a small (<1%) proportion of carbon dioxide (under 1. Introduction; Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to harvest a natural gas product from a formation according to the method of Pfeiffer (wherein methane is enhanced) having less than 10 vol.% or 40 vol.% CO2 and greater than 51 vol.% methane with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Pfeiffer teaches that the method can comprise measuring one or more parameters of the formation, including quantities of elements, vitamins and other nutrients, and analysis of pH, salinity, oxidation potential (Eh), and other chemical characteristics ([0032]).
Regarding the glycerol in claims 5 and 19 and the concentration of waste product in claim 14, Pfeiffer teaches that the nutrients can include glycerol ([0042]), and that the effects of the amendment on methane production can be monitored over time and the amounts of the various nutrients can be adjusted to reach a desired level of production ([0026]; [0035]; [0043]-[0044]; Fig. 3). The concentration of nutrients (including glycerol) is thus a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to adjust the concentration/amount using routine experimentation to achieve a desired level of methane production (see MPEP 2144.05). Moreover, Pfeiffer teaches that the components of the amendment can be added in a single amendment or in separate amendments after which they are ultimately combined with the consortium in situ ([0023]-[0024]), which argues against criticality for any particular concentration of nutrient in the injected amendment solution (one of ordinary skill would recognize that a particular amount of nutrient could be added at various concentrations/volumes to achieve the same end concentration within the formation in situ).
Regarding claim 6, Pfeiffer teaches that the concentration of various species within the formation environment can be monitored over time and adjusted as needed to reach a desired level of production ([0035]; [0043]-[0044]), and it would have been obvious to monitor any nutrient (e.g., a carbonaceous waste product such as glycerol) for such purpose.
Regarding claim 13, Pfeiffer teaches that the amendment can include carboxylate compounds, inorganic nitrogen, vitamins, minerals, metals, yeast extracts, and other nutrients ([0025]-[0030]; [0034]; [0040]; [0059]).
Regarding claim 20, Pfeiffer teaches that the method can comprise measuring one or more parameters of the formation, including quantities of elements, vitamins and other nutrients, and analysis of pH, salinity, oxidation potential (Eh), and other chemical characteristics ([0032]), and adding amendments that modify said parameters ([0038]-[0042]).
Claims 1-6, 11-14, 19 and 20 differ from Pfeiffer in that: the aqueous solution comprises a chemical oxygen demand of greater than or about 3,000 mg/L (claims 1, 14 and 19); the amendment added to the formation comprises formation water (claim 2); the aqueous solution delivered into the geologic formation is characterized by a first concentration of salinity and a first concentration of free fatty acids (claim 11); and a carbonaceous material content is increased over time in the aqueous solution, and wherein the aqueous solution is adjusted over time to increase free fatty acids to a second concentration greater than the first concentration of free fatty acids (claim 12).
Urynowicz teaches a method substantially similar to that of Pfeiffer, comprising accessing a consortium of microorganisms in a geologic formation; delivering an aqueous solution (amendment) including a cellulosic waste product/stream comprising nutrients to the consortium and thereby increasing production of gaseous materials (e.g., methane) by the consortium; and recovering gaseous products including methane from the reservoir (entire doc, including col. 2, line 29 to col. 6, line 20). Urynowicz teaches that the method can comprise harvesting formation water, formulating an amendment comprising the formation water and the biomass/nutrients, and re-injecting the amendment into the formation (col. 2, lines 29-63). The amendment can include 500 mg/L and 100,000 mg/L total organic carbon (TOC) (col. 4, lines 23-25; Example 1). Anagnostopoulos evidences that TOC is higher than COD with a conversion factor of about 2-5 (Anagnostopoulos, under 1. INTRODUCTION; 2.3. COD/TOC RATIO DEPENDING ON WASTEWATER TYPE). Thus, the TOC range taught by Urynowicz substantially overlaps and renders obvious the claimed COD range of 3,000 mg/L or more (see MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Pfeiffer to enhance methane production by injecting an amended aqueous nutrient solution into a methane-producing formation wherein the amendment comprises formation water and a TOC/COD within the range taught by Urynowicz because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to formulate the amendment of Pfeiffer using formation water because formation water would provide a ready source of useful water that is suitable for native microorganisms within the formation. Formulating the amendment of Pfeiffer using formation water and a TOC/COD within the range taught by Urynowicz would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because Urynowicz teaches a substantially similar method for the same purpose of enhancing microbial methane production by resident microbes in the geologic formation in which waste nutrient materials are diluted in formation water with a TOC/COD within the range taught by Urynowicz.
Regarding the recitation in claim 11 that the amendment is “characterized by a first concentration of salinity”, Urynowicz teaches that the injected solution can comprise mineral salts (col. 6, lines 4-7) and such solution would have some level of salinity. Claim 11 does not require any particular range or level of salinity.
Regarding claim 12, Urynowicz teaches that the cellulosic waste product can comprise hemicellulosic fractions from bioethanol plants (claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, 27) and further describes DDGS as such a waste stream (col. 5, lines 26-57), and as such it would have been obvious to utilize DDGS in the amendment of the cited combination. Liu evidences that DDGS comprises fatty acids (under Lipids; and Changes in Fatty Acids Composition). Pfeiffer further teaches that the concentration of various species within the formation environment can be monitored over time and adjusted as needed to reach a desired level of production ([0035]; [0043]-[0044]), and it would have been obvious to monitor and adjust (higher or lower) any nutrient (including DDGS and its constituent fatty acids) for such purpose.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz, as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 19 and 20, in view of US 20110308790 to Strapoc et al.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz, as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 19 and 20, in that: the aqueous solution/amendment is characterized by a pH of less than or about 8 (claim 7); and the pH of the aqueous solution is adjusted by incorporating hydrochloric acid or phosphoric acid (claim 8).
Strapoc teaches a method substantially similar to those of Pfeiffer and Urynowicz, comprising accessing a consortium of microorganisms in a geologic formation; delivering an aqueous solution (amendment) including nutrients and/or other additives to the consortium and thereby increasing production of gaseous materials (e.g., methane) by the consortium; and recovering gaseous products including methane from the reservoir (entire doc, including [0010]-[0077]). The method can comprise sampling the formation and analyzing parameters including pH, and formulating an amendment with a pH that enhances methane production, e.g. between 7-8 ([0028]; [0052]; [0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz to enhance methane production by injecting an amended aqueous nutrient solution into a methane-producing formation wherein the amendment has a pH less than 8 as taught by Strapoc because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare an amendment with a pH less than 8 because Strapoc teaches that such a pH range (e.g., pH 7.7) is optimal for methane production (Strapoc, [0028]). Using an amendment with a pH less than 8 in the method of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because Strapoc teaches that such pH range was optimal for biogas production in a substantially similar method of enhancing methane production as in Pfeiffer and Urynowicz.
Regarding claim 8, Strapoc further teaches adjusting chloride and phosphate levels via the amendment, e.g. by addition of chloride and/or phosphate salts ([0028; [0050]; Example 2). It would have thus been obvious that the pH adjustment could be carried out using any acid having chloride and/or phosphate counterions.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz, as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 19 and 20, further in view of US20060254765 to Pfeiffer et al. (“Pfeiffer 2006”).
The teachings of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz are detailed above. Regarding claim 15, Pfeiffer teaches that the characterization of the formation can include identification of microorganisms within the formation ([0033]). Regarding claim 16, Urynowicz teaches that the amendment can include hemicellulose (i.e. xylan) (Urynowicz, claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, 27).
Claims 15 and 16 differ from the combination of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz, as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 19 and 20, in that: the method comprises identifying microorganisms from the genus Thermotoga (claim 15).
Pfeiffer 2006 teaches a method substantially similar to that of Pfeiffer and Urynowicz, comprising accessing a consortium of microorganisms in a geologic formation; delivering an aqueous solution (amendment) comprising formation water and nutrients and/or other additives to the consortium and thereby increasing production of gaseous materials (e.g., methane) by the consortium; and recovering gaseous products including methane from the reservoir (entire doc, including [0008]-[0013]; [0022]-[0063]). Pfeiffer 2006 further teaches that the method can comprise analyzing the extracted fermentation water including identifying microorganisms therein (as taught by Pfeiffer), and that the microorganisms within the formation water can include Thermotoga species ([0032]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz to enhance methane production by injecting an amended aqueous nutrient solution into a methane-producing formation wherein the method further comprises identifying microorganisms comprising Thermotoga species because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Identifying microorganisms comprising Thermotoga species in the method of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because Pfeiffer teaches a step of identifying microorganisms within the formation, and Pfeiffer 2006 teaches identifying Thermotoga species in a substantially similar method using the same means for the same purpose (injecting an amended solution into a formation to enhance methane production by resident microbes).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz, as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 19 and 20, in view of US20070248531 to Debryun et al.
Claims 17 differs from Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz, as applied to claims 1-6, 11-14, 19 and 20, in that: the method further comprises separating the carbon dioxide from methane recovered from the reservoir.
Debryun teaches a method substantially similar to that of Pfeiffer and Urynowicz, comprising accessing a consortium of microorganisms in a geologic formation; delivering an aqueous solution (amendment) including nutrients and/or other additives to the consortium and thereby increasing production of gaseous materials (e.g., methane) by the consortium; and recovering gaseous products including methane from the reservoir (entire doc, including [0012]-[0015]; [0020]-[0036]). Debryun teaches that the method can comprise recovering a mixture of gases including methane, and separating the component gases using known methods ([0020]).
Kakaee evidences that natural gas comprises mostly methane, and also a smaller amount of carbon dioxide (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz to enhance methane production by injecting an amended aqueous nutrient solution into a methane-producing formation wherein the method comprises recovering a mixture of gases and separating the methane and other gases including CO2 as taught by Debryun because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to separate the component gases in order to obtain a pure methane product and/or to obtain gaseous co-products. Separating the gases recovered in the method of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz, including methane and CO2, would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because Debryun teaches that gas mixtures yielded by a substantially similar process can be separated using known methods.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz and Debryun, as applied to claim 17, further in view of US20040033557 to Scott et al.
Claims 18 differs from Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz and Debryun, as applied to claim 17, in that: the method further comprises re-injecting the carbon dioxide separated from the methane into the geologic formation.
Scott teaches a method substantially similar to that of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz and Debryun, comprising accessing a consortium of microorganisms in a geologic formation; delivering an aqueous solution (amendment) including nutrients and/or other additives to the consortium and thereby increasing production of gaseous materials (e.g., methane) by the consortium; and recovering gaseous products including methane from the reservoir (entire doc, including [0013]-[0016]; [0029]-[0058]). The nutrients can include carbon dioxide, which is converted by the consortium to methane ([0015]; [0033]; Claims 9-12). The carbon dioxide can be obtained directly or indirectly via outside sources ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the method of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz and Debryun to enhance methane production by injecting nutrients into a methane-producing formation, recovering a gaseous mixture from the formation and separating the methane and CO2 from the mixture, wherein the nutrients include the separated CO2 because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to re-inject CO2 separated from the harvested methane gas into the formation because Debryun teaches that microorganisms in the formation can use the CO2 as a carbon source for methane production. Re-injecting CO2 separated from the harvested methane gas in the method of Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz and Debryun into the formation would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because Scott teaches injecting CO2 as a nutrient in a substantially similar method for enhancing in situ methane production as taught by Pfeiffer in view of Urynowicz and Debryun. Moreover, Pfeiffer teaches that the method can involve injection of multiple amendments, and that the aqueous amendment can be injected with the aid of a pressurized gas (Pfeiffer, [0023]). Also, Scott teaches that the CO2 used for injection can be obtained directly (via the formation).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9458375 in view of Pfeiffer, Urynowicz, Strapoc, Pfeiffer 2006, Debryun, and/or Scott, as applied above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘375 Patent teach a method comprising accessing a consortium of microorganisms in a geologic formation that includes a carbonaceous material; and providing a carboxylate compound to the microorganisms; wherein the carboxylate compound stimulates the consortium to metabolize the carbonaceous material into methane (‘375, claims 1, 15), wherein the carboxylate compound can be a fatty acid (‘375, claims 3, 17). Pfeiffer teaches a substantially similar method wherein an amendment comprising a carboxylate compound is delivered to a consortium along with nutrients that can include glycerol and other components that can be characterized as “waste products”, and Urynowicz teaches a similar method in which the amendment can have a COD within the claimed range and can comprise a hemicellulosic waste product such as DDGS (which comprises fatty acids and xylan among other elements; see above). It would have thus been obvious to carry out the method of the ‘375 Patent wherein the carboxylate amendment comprises a waste product such as DDGS and a COD within the claimed range. Moreover, Urynowicz, Strapoc, Pfeiffer 2006, Debryun and/or Scott teach the remaining elements of the dependent claims in the context of similar methods (see 103 rejections, above).
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 8092559 in view of Pfeiffer, Urynowicz, Strapoc, Pfeiffer 2006, Debryun and/or Scott, as applied above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘559 Patent teach a method comprising characterizing at least one environmental parameter for the in situ hydrocarbon-rich deposit located in a geologic formation; introducing an aqueous solution to the in situ hydrocarbon-rich deposit located in the geologic formation, wherein the aqueous solution stimulates a microbial consortium to increase a production rate for producing the methane from the in situ deposit; and collecting a gas mixture comprising the methane (‘559, claim 1) wherein the aqueous solution can comprise complex nutrients along with vitamins, metals, etc. (‘559, claim 7). Pfeiffer and Urynowicz teach substantially similar methods wherein an amendment comprising nutrients is delivered to a consortium wherein the nutrients can include glycerol and other components that can be characterized as “waste products”, and wherein the amendment can have a COD within the claimed range and can comprise a hemicellulosic waste product such as DDGS (which comprises fatty acids and xylan among other elements; see above). Moreover, Pfeiffer, Urynowicz, Strapoc, Debryun and/or Scott teach the remaining elements of the dependent claims in the context of similar methods (see 103 rejections, above).
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9057082 in view of Pfeiffer, Urynowicz, Pfeiffer 2006, Strapoc, Debryun and/or Scott, as applied above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘082 Patent teach a method comprising characterizing at least one environmental parameter for the in situ hydrocarbon-rich deposit located in a geologic formation; introducing an aqueous solution to the in situ hydrocarbon-rich deposit located in the geologic formation, wherein the aqueous solution stimulates a microbial consortium to increase a production rate for producing the methane from the in situ deposit; and collecting a gas mixture comprising the methane wherein the aqueous solution can comprise a yeast extract (complex nutrient) along with vitamins, metals, etc. (‘082, claims 1, 7). Pfeiffer and Urynowicz teach substantially similar methods wherein an amendment comprising nutrients is delivered to a consortium wherein the nutrients can include glycerol and other components that can be characterized as “waste products”, and wherein the amendment can have a COD within the claimed range and can comprise a hemicellulosic waste product such as DDGS (which comprises fatty acids and xylan among other elements; see above). Moreover, Pfeiffer, Urynowicz, Strapoc, Debryun and/or Scott teach the remaining elements of the dependent claims in the context of similar methods (see 103 rejections, above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J YAMASAKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-6 PST.
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/ROBERT J YAMASAKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657