DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/647,655, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the prior application 17/647,655 does not support additionally inoculating an inorganic matrix with a dose of soil from the methane source site greater than 2.7% and less than 50% of the matrix by weight, wherein the inorganic matrix comprises supplemental methanotrophs sufficient to increase the initial methanotroph concentration at the methane source site to equal or exceed the final methanotroph concentration. Instead, paragraph [0058] of the specification of 17/647,655 discloses that a dose of soil (1.35%, 2.7%, 6.8%, 13.5%) is provided as the source of methanotrophs to stimulate methane biodegradation, without teaching that the dose is added to an inorganic matrix comprising supplemental methanotrophs sufficient to increase the initial methanotroph concentration at the methane source site to equal or exceed the final methanotroph concentration, in addition to comprising a moisture retaining material and a drainage component. Also, paragraph [0059] of the specification of 17/647,655 discloses a 50/20/15/15 mixture of soil, sand, pumice, and vermiculite with ground shrimp shells, but does not disclose further including supplemental methanotrophs sufficient to increase the initial methanotroph concentration at the methane source site to equal or exceed the final methanotroph concentration.
Therefore, the effective filing date of claims 1-11 is considered the filing date of the application (May 31, 2024).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001] sets forth a related application, the provisional application 63/137550, but fails to recite the parent patent application 17/647,655 as a related application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 begins with “1.” which should be deleted. Also, a semi-colon is missing after the recitation “deriving supplemental methanotrophs from soil at the methane source site.” Since claim 1 is objected to, then its dependent claims, claims 2-11, are objected to.
Claim 2 is objected to because the recitation “supplementing the inorganic matrix with at the methane source site with the grown methanotrophic bacteria” is not grammatically correct. It appears that the recitation should be replaced with “supplementing the inorganic matrix at the methane source site with the grown methanotrophic bacteria” or “supplementing the inorganic matrix with the grown methanotrophic bacteria at the methane source site” in order to overcome the objection.
Claim 4 is objected to because a comma is missing after the recitation “the methane source” in line 3.
Claim 7 is objected to because it recites “to the to the” in line 2. One recitation of “to the” should be deleted.
Claim 8 is objected to because it recites “to the to the” in line 2 and “being in being in” in lines 2-3. One recitation of each of “to the” and “being in” should be deleted.
Also, claim 8 is objected to because the recitation “configuring the inorganic matrix to have a ratio of the moisture retaining material to the drainage component is at least 2:1” is not grammatically correct. The word “is” in the recitation should be replaced with “of.”
Claim 9 is objected to because the recitation “configuring the inorganic matrix to have a ratio of the drainage component to the moisture retaining material is at least 2:1” is not grammatically correct. The word “is” in the recitation should be replaced with “of.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 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 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “responsive to deriving supplemental methanotrophs and determining the final methanotroph concentration sufficient for sustained methane biodegradation.” It is unclear how forming the inorganic matrix is “responsive” to deriving the supplemental methanotrophs and determining the final methanotroph concentration sufficient for sustained methane biodegradation. This is confusing given the definitions for the word “responsive.” See the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for definitions of the word “responsive” (“Responsive.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsive. Accessed 10 Mar. 2026). Since claim 1 is indefinite, then its dependent claims, claims 2-11, are rendered indefinite. Thus, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “supplementing methanotrophs” in lines 3-4 is the “supplemental methanotrophs” of parent claim 1.
Also, claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear how the step of extracting methanotrophs from the methane source site relates to the subsequent steps of claim 2 of (1) growing methanotrophic bacteria and supplementing methanotrophs, and (2) supplementing the inorganic matrix at the methane source site with the grown methanotrophic bacteria, or the steps of parent claim 1 (which recites deriving supplemental methanotrophs from soil at the methane source site, as opposed to deriving methanotrophs from the methane source site). Claim 2 does not require that the methanotrophic bacteria and/or the “supplementing methanotrophs” that are grown are the extracted methanotrophs and/or the supplementary methanotrophs derived from soil at the methane source site. It is noted that in only supplementing the inorganic matrix at the methane source site with the grown methanotrophic bacteria, then there is no requirement that the inorganic matrix at the methane source site is also supplemented with the grown supplementing methanotrophs.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear how increasing surface area interaction between methanotrophs and methane is “responsive” to the methane flow rate at the methane source. This is confusing given the definitions for the word “responsive.” See the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for definitions of the word “responsive.”
Also, claim 4 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “the methane source” because it is unclear whether it is referring to the “methane source site” of parent claim 1.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear how one or more successive layers of the moisture retaining material and the drainage component can be formed by layering the inorganic matrix structure (interpreted by the Examiner as the structure inherently possessed by the inorganic matrix) vertically. Parent claim 1 recites forming the inorganic matrix by mixing the components which include the moisture retaining material and the drainage component. In mixing the moisture retaining material and the drainage component, then they are not separate from each other and cannot be formed into successive layers of one and the other.
Claims 6 and 8 are indefinite because it is unclear how “wherein responsive to the methane source site being in an arid environment” modifies the claims. It is unclear how configuring the inorganic matrix is “responsive” to the methane source site being in an arid environment. This is confusing given the definitions for the word “responsive.” See the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for definitions of the word “responsive.” For the purpose of applying prior art, the recitation is being interpreted as “wherein when the methane source site is in an arid environment.”
The term “highly concentrated” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly concentrated” 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. It is unclear what concentration of the moisture retaining material is required for a layer of the moisture retaining material to be considered “highly concentrated.”
Claims 7 and 9 are indefinite because it is unclear how “wherein responsive to the methane source being in a tropical environment” modifies the claims. It is clear how configuring the inorganic matrix is “responsive” to the methane source (of the methane source site of claim 1) being in a tropical environment. This is confusing given the definitions for the word “responsive.” See the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for definitions of the word “responsive.” For the purpose of applying prior art, the recitation is being interpreted as “wherein when the methane source site is in a tropical environment.”
Notice Re: Prior Art Available Under Both Pre-AIA and AIA
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.
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, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20080013589. Machine Translation cited below) in view of Subbian (US 2019/0144890) and Lei (Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy. 2014. 33(4): 1419-1424).
Lee discloses a method for reducing methane gas emitted from the surface of the earth using biomedia having specific surface area, porosity, and permeability that can activate aerobic methane oxidizing microorganisms and flow methane gas freely (abstract). The invention of Lee enables aerobic methane oxidation and free flow of methane (page 2, second paragraph). The method comprises installing the biomedia on the upper surface of the landfill or surface of the waste landfill to convert the methane gas emitted from the surface into carbon dioxide by using the methane oxidation reaction of aerobic methanation microorganisms (page 5, third paragraph). Therefore, Lee is directed to a method for sustained aerobic methane biodegradation, meeting a limitation of the claimed invention.
Figure 5B shows a biomedia of Lee made by mixing one or more materials selected from a list that includes soil, sand, gravel, and sawdust (page 9, third paragraph). Of those in that list, sawdust is directed to a ‘moisture retaining material’ of instant claim 1, and sand and perlite each are directed to a ‘drainage component permeable to water’ of instant claim 1. Therefore, Lee discloses forming an inorganic matrix (their biomedia) by mixing a ‘moisture retaining material’ (sawdust) and a ‘drainage component permeable to water’ (sand and/or gravel), meeting limitations of a step of instant claim 1.
Additionally, Lee teaches that the biomedia includes methane oxide (methane oxidizing) microorganisms (page 9, last paragraph). Methane oxidizing microorganisms are directed to the claimed ‘methanotrophs.’ The biomedia 11 is preferably artificially inoculated with the methane oxidizing microorganism (page 10, first paragraph). The methane oxidizing microorganisms may be collected from landfills or soil where the bioactive layer 10 of the invention is to be installed, and then cultured to inoculate the biomedia 11 (page 10, first paragraph). The location of the soil at which the biomedia 11 is installed is directed to a ‘methane source site.’ In order to collect the methane oxidizing microorganisms from the soil, then the methane oxidizing microorganisms had to have been found at the location of the soil (directed to methane source site). Therefore, Lee teaches the claimed step of finding native methanotrophs at the methane source site (the location of the soil at which the biomedia 11 is installed). The collection of the methane oxidizing microorganisms from the soil as disclosed in Lee is directed to the claimed step of deriving supplemental methanotrophs from soil at the methane source site.
In inoculating the biomedia 11 with the methane oxidizing microorganisms collected from the soil where the bioactive layer 10 is to be installed, then the biomedia is also mixed with the claimed ‘supplemental methanotrophs.’ Thus, Lee also meets further limitations regarding the claimed step of forming an inorganic matrix.
Additionally, since Lee teaches soil amongst the materials selected for the mixture making up the biomedia (page 9, third paragraph), then it would have been within the purview of the skilled artisan to include in the biomedia of Lee the soil from the location where the biomedia is installed (and source of the methane oxidizing microorganisms, i.e. methanotrophs). Therefore, Lee also meets limitations of instant claim 1 by disclosing a step of inoculating the matrix (the biomedia) with a dose of soil from the methane source.
Furthermore, installing the biomedia 11 at the location of the soil as taught in Lee meets limitations of the final step of instant claim 1 of installing, at the methane source site, the inorganic matrix (the biomedia of Lee) for sustained methane biodegradation.
In sum, Lee meets limitations of the claimed invention by rendering obvious a method for sustained aerobic methane biodegradation, comprising:
finding native methanotrophs at the methane source site (location of soil where the biomedia is installed);
deriving supplemental methanotrophs from soil at the methane source site;
forming an inorganic matrix (the biomedia) by mixing
a moisture retaining material (sawdust),
a drainage component permeable to water (sand and/or gravel), and
the supplemental methanotrophs;
inoculating the matrix (the biomedia) with a dose of soil from the methane source site; and
installing, at the methane source site, the inorganic matrix (biomedia) sufficient for sustained methane biodegradation.
Lee differs from the claimed invention in that Lee does not expressly disclose that the soil (directed to the claimed ‘dose of soil’) included in their biomedia (directed to the claimed inorganic matrix) is greater than 2.7% and less than 50% of the biomedia (directed to the claimed inorganic matrix). However, it would have been a matter of routine optimization to have varied the dose of the soil in the biomedia rendered obvious by Lee, including to a dose greater than 2.7% and less than 50% of the biomedia by weight, since the dose of the soil would have affected the surface area, porosity, permeability and thermal conductivity of the biomedia. In particular, Lee states that materials of their biomedia are mixed to satisfy specific values for the surface area, porosity, permeability coefficient, and thermal conductivity (page 9, second-to-last paragraph). Thus, the dose of the soil in the biomedia relative to the other materials of the biomedia rendered obvious by the references (sawdust; sand and/or gravel; methane oxidizing microorganisms, i.e. methanotrophs) would be critical for adjusting the various parameters (surface area, porosity, etc.) of the biomedia.
Moreover, Lee differs from the claimed invention in that Lee does not expressly disclose the steps of identifying, at the methane source site (the location of the soil, in this case), a measured methane flow rate; determining, at the methane source site, an initial methanotroph concentration of the native methanotrophs wherein the initial methanotroph concentration at the methane source site and at the measured methane flow rate is insufficient for sustained aerobic methane biodegradation at the methane source site; and determining a final methanotroph concentration sufficient for sustained methane biodegradation at the measured methane flow rate at the methane source site. Since Lee does not teach these steps, then Lee further differs from the claimed invention in that Lee does not expressly disclose that the methane oxidizing microorganisms that inoculate the biomedia (directed to the claimed ‘supplemental methanotrophs’) are sufficient to increase the initial methanotroph concentration at the methane source site to equal or exceed the final methanotroph concentration, and that the biomedia (directed to the claimed ‘inorganic matrix’) installed at the methane source site (the location of the soil) is sufficient for sustained methane biodegradation for the measured methane flow rate at the methane source site.
Subbian discloses fermentation to convert gaseous substrates to value added products by methanotrophs (paragraphs [0037]-[0039]). In Example 11, Subbian points out that the gas flow rate can significantly affect the productivity of the gaseous fermentation (paragraph [0145]). In that example, the methanotroph M. capsulatus was grown using methane in which methane and air flow rates were varied (paragraphs [0145]-[0146]). It was found that biomass productivity varied with varying methane and air flow rates (paragraph [0146]).
Lei discusses methane oxidation in landfill cover (abstract). See Figure 1 for a schematic diagram of methane and oxygen transport in landfill. Lei shows the chemical equation for the reaction with methanotrophic bacteria between methane and oxygen, labeled as equation 8 (page 1420, right column, second paragraph). In the chemical equation, methane (CH4) is a reactant on the lefthand side of the equation, whereas biomass, represented as CH2O, is a product on the righthand side of the equation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to measure the methane flow rate at the site of the installation of the biomedia; determine the initial concentration of the native methane oxidizing microorganisms, i.e. native methanotrophs, at said site (this initial concentration is necessarily an initial methanotroph concentration at the methane source site and the measured methane flow rate that is insufficient for sustained aerobic methane biodegradation at the methane source site, since the invention of Lee reduces methane gas emitted from the methane source site); determine a final concentration of methane oxidizing microorganisms, i.e. methanotrophs, sufficient for sustained methane biodegradation at the measured flow rate at the site of the installation of the biomedia; and include the methane oxidizing microorganisms, i.e. methanotrophs, in the biomedia in an amount sufficient such that when the biomedia is installed at the site, the methane oxidizing microorganisms concentration at the site of the installation is increased to equal or exceed the final concentration sought for sustained methane biodegradation, when performing the method rendered obvious by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because methane flow rate has an effect on the amount of biomass of a methanotroph based on Subbian, which in turn would have been expected to have an effect on the reaction rate of methane degradation based on Lei. In particular, Lei shows the chemical equation of methane oxidation by methanotrophic bacteria, with the chemical equation showing biomass, as represented by CH2O, as a product on the righthand side of the equation, and methane is a reactant on the lefthand side of the equation. With a shift in the reaction kinetics to the righthand side of the equation due to greater biomass production (as affected by methane flow rate in view of Subbian), there is an increased methane degradation rate. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have recognized the relationship between methane flow rate and methanotroph concentration for optimized methane oxidation to reduce methane gas emitted from the soil. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that the reduction of methane gas by the biomedia of Lee is dependent on the concentration of the methanotrophs in the biomedia because Lee teaches culturing the methane oxidizing microorganism (i.e. methanotrophs) before inoculating the biomedia (page 10, first paragraph). Since the biomedia of Lee is suitable for reducing methane gas emitted from a soil covering layer or a ground surface of a waste landfill (abstract), then the methanotrophs that are in the biomedia 11 are at a concentration sufficient for sustained methane biodegradation for the methane flow rate at the methane source site for the method rendered obvious by Lee in view of Subbian and Lei. Therefore, instant claim 1, 2 (since Lee teaches culturing the collected methane oxidizing microorganisms at page 10, first paragraph), and 3 (all solids inherently have a vertical structure; thus, the biomedia, i.e. inorganic matrix, inherently is configured in a vertical structure at the location of the soil, i.e. methane source site) are rendered obvious.
Regarding instant claim 4, the Examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring that the surface area interaction between methanotrophs and methane is increased. Lee discloses that materials of their biomedia are mixed to satisfy specific values for various parameters, including surface area (page 9, second-to-last paragraph). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the biomedia should have a specific surface area for activating methane oxidation microorganisms and smooth oxidation (page 8, fourth paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the mixing of the materials of the biomedia of the method rendered obvious by Lee in view of Subbian and Lei is to increase surface area interaction between the methane oxidizing microorganisms, i.e. methanotrophs, and methane.
Regarding instant claim 5, the claimed successive layers are being interpreted by the Examiner as each comprising the moisture retaining material and the drainage component. Figure 5B of Lee shows the biomedia. The biomedia is directed to a material comprising multiple layers of itself – a material is divisible into multiple layers. Since the biomedia of Lee in Figure 5B comprises a mixture of their components, then for the method rendered obvious by Lee, Subbian, and Lei, there are necessarily successive layers of the mixture of the sawdust (the claimed moisture retaining material) with the sand and/or gravel (the claimed drainage component) – each layer has the same composition, comprising a mixture of the ‘moisture retaining material’ and the ‘drainage component.’ In order to install the biomedia at the site, it would have been obvious to vertically layer the mixture. Therefore, the method rendered obvious by the references comprises layering the biomedia vertically thereby forming one or more successive layers of the moisture retaining material (sawdust) and the drainage component (sand and/or gravel) (each successive layer comprising the moisture retaining material and the drainage component). As such, instant claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Regarding instant claim 6, Lee in view of Subbian and Lei differs from the claimed invention in that they do not disclose that, when the methane source site is in an arid environment, the structure of the biomedia (directed to the claimed ‘inorganic matrix structure’) is configured with a base of ‘highly concentrated’ layer of the sawdust (directed to the claimed ‘moisture retaining material’). The Examiner is interpreting ‘highly concentrated’ as being any concentration of the sawdust. Lee states that materials of their biomedia are mixed to satisfy specific values for the surface area, porosity, permeability coefficient, and thermal conductivity (page 9, second-to-last paragraph). Moreover, Lee teaches that their invention, a bio active layer comprising biomedia, should satisfy the reaction conditions such as biological influence factors of aerobic methanation microorganisms, including moisture conditions of 10-30% (page 8, third paragraph). Lee teaches sawdust amongst materials serving to increase the moisture content (page 9, second-to-last paragraph). It would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the sawdust according to the moisture in the environment, such as an arid environment, which would influence the moisture content of the biomedia when performing the method rendered obvious by Lee, Subbian, and Lei. In doing so, when in an arid environment, the concentration of the sawdust is configured in the biomedia, which is directed to configuring the structure of the biomedia with a base of a ‘highly concentrated’ layer of the sawdust (the biomedia as a whole is directed to a layer of sawdust since the biomedia comprises sawdust; biomedia of any concentration of sawdust is directed to the claimed ‘highly concentrated’ layer of moisture retaining material). As such, instant claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Regarding instant claims 8 and 9, Lee in view of Subbian and Lei differs from instant claim 8 in that they do not disclose that, when the methane source site is in an arid environment, the biomedia (‘inorganic matrix’) is configured to have a ratio of the sawdust (‘moisture retaining material’) to the sand and/or gravel (‘drainage component’) of at least 2:1. Lee in view of Subbian and Lei differs from instant claim 9 in that they do not disclose that, when the methane source is in a tropical environment, the biomedia (‘inorganic matrix’) is configured to have a ratio of the sand and/or gravel (‘drainage component’) to the sawdust (‘moisture retaining material’) of at least 2:1. However, Lee states that materials of their biomedia are mixed to satisfy specific values for the surface area, porosity, permeability coefficient, and thermal conductivity (page 9, second-to-last paragraph). Lee also teaches that their invention can create a favorable environment for the activity of aerobic methane-oxidizing microorganisms, and provides a biomedia that can protect the methane oxidizing microorganisms from climate change of the atmosphere (page 14, last paragraph). Furthermore, Lee teaches sawdust amongst materials serving to increase the moisture content (page 9, second-to-last paragraph). Since Lee points out that the sawdust serves to increase the moisture content, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the sawdust according to the moisture in the environment which would influence the moisture content of the biomedia when performing the method rendered obvious by Lee, Subbian, and Lei. In doing so, it would have been a matter of routine optimization to have adjusted the ratio of the sawdust to the sand and/or gravel according to the level of moisture in the environment, including to a ratio of the sawdust to the sand and/or gravel of at least 2:1 when the site of the installation of the biomedia is in an arid environment, and a ratio of the sand and/or gravel to the sawdust of at least 2:1 when the site of the installation of the biomedia is in a tropical environment. Thus, instant claims 8 and 9 are rendered obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Subbian, and Lei as applied to claims 1-6, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of Barlaz (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004. 38: 4891-4899).
As discussed above, Lee in view of Subbian and Lei renders obvious claims 1-6, 8, and 9. The references differ from the claimed invention in that they do not expressly disclose that, when the methane source is in a tropical environment, the biomedia (directed to the claimed ‘inorganic matrix’) is configured with a sloped drainage layer of the drainage component.
Barlaz discusses emission of methane from landfill cells covered with soil or a biologically active cover (abstract). Barlaz disclosed the landfill as having flat and sloped sections (page 4892, left column, second paragraph). The role of slope was considered because a large fraction of the overall surface area of a landfill is not flat (page 4892, left column, last paragraph).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious that the biomedia is installed on a sloped section of a landfill when performing the method rendered obvious by Lee in view of Subbian and Lei since Lee speaks of biomedia being installed on the surface of a land cover layer of landfill, or the landfill itself (page 5, third paragraph) and because a large fraction of the overall surface area of a landfill is not flat, as pointed out by Barlaz. Since the biomedia is installed on a slope, then the biomedia is configured as a sloped structure. As the biomedia comprises the claimed drainage component (sand and/or gravel), then the biomedia itself is directed to a sloped drainage layer of the drainage component. The biomedia would have this configuration regardless of the environment of the landfill, including a tropical environment. Therefore, instant claim 7 is rendered obvious.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Subbian, and Lei as applied to claims 1-6, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of Brandt (Journal of Environmental Management. 2016. 182: 412-420) and Gomez-Cuervo (Environmental Technology. 2016. 37(15): 1947-1958. 12 pages), as evidenced by Marks (US 5,458,747).
As discussed above, Lee in view of Subbian and Lei renders obvious claims 1-6, 8, and 9. The references differ from claim 10 in that they do not expressly disclose binding one or more cation exchange sites of the moisture retaining material (the sawdust) with cations. The references differ from claim 11 in that they do not expressly disclose that the mixing of the materials to form the biomedia includes adding a plurality of cation exchange sites, wherein each of the plurality of cation exchange sites are bound with added nutrient cations, and wherein the mixing includes adding magnesium and/or calcium configured to block nutrient uptake by the plurality of cation exchange sites.
Brandt investigated mixtures of organic (composted leaves) and three non-organic materials as packing media for biofilters used for oxidation of methane (abstract). The research group of Brandt considered the use of novel low price packing media for improving methane (CH4) biofiltration, focusing on the selection of organic and non-organic packing materials (page 413, left column, second-to-last paragraph). The non-organic packing materials studied included expanded vermiculite which was selected in the study for its high available surface area for microbial growth (spaces formed between the foliations) and due to its high water absorption capacity (page 413, right column, first paragraph).
Expanded vermiculite (ExpV) is a lamellar clay composed of hydrated silicate of aluminum which was subjected to a sudden heating (page 414, left column, first paragraph). Expanded vermiculite is one of the claimed ‘moisture retaining material’ (vermiculite of instant claim 1). As evidenced by Marks, clays are thought of as natural resin exchange beds, exhibiting specific cation exchange capacities (column 2, lines 37-40; column 12, lines 41-43). Since expanded vermiculite is a clay material (page 414, left column, first paragraph of Brandt), then the expanded vermiculite is directed to a moisture retaining material having cation exchange sites.
The biofilters of Brandt were inoculated with methanotrophs enriched from activated sludge and composted leaves (page 413, right column, second-to-last paragraph). In their study, Brandt found that the biofilter packed with vermiculite (ExpV) showed the best results, and the methanotrophic activity of biomass taken from the ExpV biofilter was three times higher than the activity of biomass from the other two biofilters (abstract). From the results of the study, Brandt hypothesized that the ExpV provides an attractive environment for bacteria growth because of its high water holding capacity and large external surface area, enabling the growth of active methanotrophs (page 415, right column, first paragraph). The much higher methane oxidation rate presented by the methanotrophs biomass taken from the ExpV packing media explains the better performance of the biofilter packed with this material and emphasizes the hypothesis that the ExpV provides an attractive environment for microbial growth, besides the mechanical resistance provided to the whole packing media (page 418, left column, second paragraph).
Gomez-Cuervo discloses biological methane degradation in a conventional biofilter using a mixture of compost, perlite, and bark chips as a carrier (abstract). A specific mineral medium for methanotrophic microorganisms was employed (page 4, left column, second paragraph). The mineral medium is an aqueous nutrient solution that includes MgSO4·7 H2O and CaCl2·H2O in combination with ammonium or nitrate as the nitrogen source, as well as Na2HPO4, KH2PO4, NH4Cl, and FeSO4·7H2O (page 4, left column, second paragraph).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to mix expanded vermiculite with the other components of the biomedia to prepare the biomedia when performing the method rendered obvious by Lee in view of Subbian and Lei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because expanded vermiculite has a high available surface area for microbial growth (page 413, right column, first paragraph of Brandt), high water absorption capacity (page 413, right column, first paragraph of Brandt) which provides an attractive environment for bacteria growth (page 415, right column, first paragraph of Brandt), and yielded the best results in methane oxidation rate and methanotrophic activity in the study of Brandt in which expanded vermiculite was used in a biofilter inoculated with methanotrophs for methane oxidation. There would have been a reasonable expectation of obtaining methane oxidation sought by Lee by including expanded vermiculite in the biomedia of the method rendered obvious by Lee, Subbian, and Lei because Brandt demonstrated the suitability of expanded vermiculite as a packing material in a biofilter for methane oxidation by methanotrophs. Therefore, the biomedia of the invention rendered obvious by Lee, Subbian, and Lei in further view of Brandt (as evidenced by Marks) comprises moisture retaining material (the expanded vermiculite) having cation exchange sites. In mixing the expanded vermiculite with the other materials of the biomedia, then the mixing of the method rendered obvious by Lee, Subbian, Lei, and Brandt (as evidenced by Marks) includes adding a plurality of cation exchange sites (those of expanded vermiculate), meeting a limitation of instant claim 11.
Further still, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to include the mineral medium disclosed in Gomez-Cuervo in the biomedia when performing the method rendered obvious by Lee in view of Subbian, and Lei in further view of Brandt (as evidenced by Marks) for the predictable result of obtaining a biomedia that is suitable for the methane oxidation reaction of aerobic methane oxidizing microorganisms (methanotrophs) as sought by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because the mineral medium would have supported the methanotrophs in the biomedia of the method rendered obvious by Lee, Subbian, Lei, and Brandt (as evidenced by Marks) that are for methane oxidation. There would have been a reasonable expectation of successfully oxidizing methane by including the mineral medium because Gomez-Cuervo indicates that their mineral medium is suitable for methanotrophic microorganisms that are provided on a solid support for the purpose of methane degradation. Furthermore, there would have been a reasonable expectation of obtaining a biomedia suitable for methane oxidation by this modification because Gomez-Cuervo successfully performed biological methane degradation in a biofilter employing the mineral medium. In including the mineral medium in the biomedia for the method rendered obvious by Lee, Subbian, Lei, and Brandt (as evidenced by Marks), then the magnesium and calcium cations of the mineral medium are directed to cations, in particular nutrient cations, that bind to cation exchange sites of the expanded vermiculite (a moisture retaining material). Therefore, the cation exchange sites of the expanded vermiculite (a moisture retaining material) bind with cations (rendering obvious instant claim 10), which further meets the limitations of instant claim 11 of binding the plurality of cation exchange sites with added nutrient cations, wherein the mixing includes adding magnesium and calcium (of the mineral medium) configured to block nutrient uptake by the plurality of cation exchanges sites. As such, instant claims 10 and 11 are rendered obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN EMILY FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3444. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am - 7pm.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
Sef
/SUSAN E. FERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1651