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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1– 11 in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12– 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1– 11 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 1 recites, the term “CO2-rich gas” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “CO2-rich gas” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner interprets CO2-rich gas as any gaseous composition containing CO2. Clarification is requested.
Additionally, claims 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 recite the relative term “CO2-rich gas”.
Claims 2– 11 inherit the 112(b) rejection by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 9 recites, the CO2 concentration of the total volume of the stream of CO2-rich gas supplemented by the recycled gas stream is determined by equation. However, it is unclear how the language of claim 9 recites a method step or further limits a previously recited method step. Specifically, the language "is determined by equation" recited in claim 9 appears to broadly define the term X but does not represent any actual steps of "adding a feed medium into a bioprocess". The examiner interprets any method having (A) is concentration of CO2 in the stream of CO2-rich gas, (B) is flow rate of the stream of CO2-rich gas, (C) is flow rate of the recycled gas stream, and (D) is concentration of CO2 in the recycled gas stream would inherently and necessarily meet the CO2 concentration of the total volume of the stream of CO2-rich gas supplemented by the recycled gas stream is determined by equation recited in claim 9. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dalla-Betta et al. US2013/0189763 A1 (Dalla-Betta) and further in view of evidence by Reis et al. Membrane separations in biotechnology (Reis).
Regarding Claim 1, Dalla-Betta discloses compositions, methods, and an apparatus for growth and maintenance of microorganisms and/or bioprocesses using one or more gases as electron donors, electron acceptors, carbon sources, or other nutrients (Dalla-Betta, Abstract, Title) (i.e. a method of adding a feed medium into a bioprocess),
wherein, the microorganisms are fed gas steams of carbon dioxide-containing gas (Dalla-Betta, [0012]– [0019]) (i.e. (a) receiving a stream of CO2 rich gas),
wherein, the carbon dioxide-containing gas is first scrubbed to remove impurities (Dalla-Betta, [0065]– [0066], Figure 8, 2. CO2 scrubber) (i.e. (b) treating the stream of CO2 rich gas to remove impurities),
wherein, aqueous media is prepared comprising nitrogen (N) nutrients (e.g. ammonium chloride or ammonium hydroxide) (Dalla-Betta, [0044], Figure 8, H2O + NPK and other nutrients). Wherein, the mineral salts medium (MSM) contains 1.0 g/l NH4Cl, or 0.1 wt.% (Dalla-Betta, [0113], [0193]– [0195], Examples) (i.e. (c) preparing an aqueous mixture, the aqueous mixture comprises at least one inorganic nitrogen compound in a range of 0.1 - 50 wt.% of the aqueous mixture, the at least one inorganic nitrogen compound is a nitrogen source for microorganisms),
wherein, the microorganisms in the bioreactor are fed scrubbed CO2 containing the aqueous mixture comprising N nutrients (Dalla-Betta, [0012]– [0019], Figure 8) (i.e. (d) absorbing carbon dioxide from the stream of CO2-rich gas into the aqueous mixture, the aqueous mixture with absorbed carbon dioxide forming a feed medium),
wherein, the MSM is fed into bioreactor 4 for a bioprocess that converts hydrogen and carbon dioxide, or syngas, or producer gas into lipid products, bio-based oils, or other biochemical products (Dalla-Betta, Abstract, [0007]– [0009], [0017], Figure 8) (i.e. (e) adding the feed medium into a bioprocess).
Regarding claim 2, Dalla-Betta further discloses the process having an operating temperature under room temperature, or about 22 °C, and atmospheric pressure, or 1 bar (Dalla-Betta, claim 1, Examples). Alternative embodiments may be as high as 10 atmospheres, because higher pressures lead to faster saturation kinetics (Dalla-Betta, Figure 7, [0063]– [0065]) (i.e. wherein the absorption of carbon dioxide is carried out at temperature ranging from 0 to 35 °C and pressure ranging from 1 to 200 bars)
Regarding Claim 3, Dalla-Betta further discloses a plurality of filtering techniques to remove cells from the media (e.g. filters with less than 0.2 µm pore size) (Dalla-Betta, [0046]) or centrifugation; flocculation; flotation; filtration using a membranous, hollow fiber, spiral wound, or ceramic filter system; vacuum filtration; tangential flow filtration; clarification; settling; hydrocyclone; belt pressing (Dalla-Betta, [0126]) (i.e. filtering the feed medium to remove impurities selected from plurality of solid impurities.).
Regarding claim 4, Dalla-Betta teaches centrifugation and membranous filtering with filters with less than 0.2 µm pore size, (Dalla-Betta, [0046], [0126]). According to Reis, sterile filtration is performed in a normal flow, or dead end, configuration using 0.2 µm pore size membranes that have been validated for the absolute removal of Brevundimonas diminuta (Reis, page 1, right column, Normal flow clarification). Therefore, the filtering in Dalla-Betta is necessarily sterile filtering.
Regarding Claim 5, Dalla-Betta further discloses, the addition of hydrogen gas (Dalla-Betta, [0090], Figure 8), oxygen gas (Dalla-Betta, [0019], Figure 8), carbon monoxide (Dalla-Betta, [0025]), and minerals, e.g. metal sulfides, hydrogen sulfide, or hydrocarbons, (Dalla-Betta, [0025], [0092]) to the bioprocess. (i.e. adding at least one of: hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, carbon monoxide, minerals, light into the bioprocess.)
Regarding Claim 6, Dalla-Betta further discloses the carbon dioxide-containing gas is preferably sourced from industrial tail gas such as powerplants, refineries, cement processing, or coal gasification (Dalla-Betta, [0017]– [0019]) (i.e. wherein the CO2 rich gas is obtained from an external source, and wherein the external source is a combustion plant.)
Regarding Claim 7, Dalla-Betta further discloses that the carbon is further sourced from microbial syngas conversion, biofuel fermentation, biomass liquification, and/or gasification (Dalla-Betta, [0142]). (i.e. wherein the external source further comprises microbial fermentation process to obtain CO2-rich gases.)
Regarding Claim 8, Dalla-Betta further discloses recycling gaseous electron donors (e.g. hydrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons) (Dalla-Betta, [0007]–[0009], Figure 2, 3 and 8) (i.e. recycled gas stream comprises, insoluble gases generated at step (d)), carbon dioxide and oxygen (Dalla-Betta, [0054]–[0057]) (i.e. the carbon dioxide generated at step (e), and wherein the stream of CO2-rich gas is supplemented by the recycled gas stream.), and process water and chemical nutrients back into the bio reactor (Dalla-Betta, [0013]–[0015]) (i.e. recycled water).
Regarding claim 9, Dalla-Betta discloses adding gas steams of carbon dioxide-containing gas to a bioprocess (Dalla-Betta, [0012]– [0019]) (i.e. (A) is concentration of CO2 in the stream of CO2-rich gas) wherein, the CO2 has a flow rate (Dalla-Betta, [0044]– [0046]) (B) is flow rate of the stream of CO2-rich gas). Dalla-Betta further discloses recycling unused and produced carbon dioxide back into the bioprocess (Dalla-Betta, [0054]– [0057]) (i.e. (D) is concentration of CO2 in the recycled gas stream), wherein, the CO2 has a flow rate (Dalla-Betta, [0044]– [0046]) (i.e. C is flow rate of the recycled gas stream).
Dalla-Betta inputs CO2 and recycles CO2 to supplement the CO2 in the bioreactor (Dalla-Betta, [0012]– [0019], [0044]– [0046]), therefore (A×B + C×D) / (B+C) in the prior art inherently describes the "concentration of CO2 in the total volume”, i.e., X, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 11, Dalla-Betta further discloses scrubbing and preprocessing input gases to remove impurities (Dalla-Betta, [0065]– [0066], Figure 8, 2. CO2 scrubber) (i.e. wherein treating the CO2 rich gas comprises at least one of selected from filtering; pre-scrubbing; using a flash tank; desulphurisation; removal of hydrocarbons, oxygen, halogen, siloxanes; filtering as high- efficiency particulate absorbing filtering.)
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalla-Betta and further in view of Mansfield et al. US12600941 B2 (Mansfield).
Regarding Claim 10, Dalla-Betta does not teach wherein concentration of the at least one inorganic nitrogen compound is in a range of 5 – 10 wt.% of the aqueous mixture.
With respect to the difference Mansfield teaches a method for producing a biomass comprising at least 65% protein from hydrogen-oxidising microorganisms using one or more input streams comprising one or more gaseous substrates and a nutrient composition which are controlled (Mansfield, Abstract).
As Mansfield explicitly teaches, bioavailable nitrogen concentrations of at least 10g per liter of aqueous media, or 1 wt.%, are explicitly needed, but may be as high as 50,000g, as there is no maximum threshold foreseen as excess bioavailable nitrogen in the liquid phase, because the media is recycled. Mansfield further teaches that the range is more preferably 50g to 50,000g per liter, or 100g to 50,000g per liter (Mansfield, Column 13, line 18 – Column 14 line 9) (i.e. wherein concentration of the at least one inorganic nitrogen compound is in a range of 5 - 10 wt.% of the aqueous mixture.). Mansfield further teaches that high nitrogen levels are necessary for high productivity of the microorganisms (Mansfield, Column 3 line 54 – Column 4 line 14).
In light of the motivation of using high bioavailable nitrogen concentration to increase microorganism productivity, as taught by Mansfield.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to substitute the bioavailable nitrogen concentration from 0.1 wt.% as taught by Dalla-Betta to 50g – 50,000g, as taught by Mansfield, in order to obtain the predictable result of increased microorganism productivity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.)
As set forth in the MPEP 2144.05, in the case where claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2D 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ritchie E Hernandez whose telephone number is (571)270-1711. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/KELING ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights