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 .
Applicant’s response to restriction requirement of 5/27/26 is acknowledged. Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-2) with traverse.
In traversal of restriction requirement applicant argues that Norddahl, cited previously by the examiner, only teachs injection of CO2 and H2 into the membrane biofilm reactor and merely provides a liquid supply conduit to said reactor. However, instant invention utilizes two injectors; one to supply CO2 and/or H2 into the reactor and one to supply CO2 into the liquid bath surrounding the reactor. This analysis applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of the elected invention.
Applicant further explains that nothing in Norddahl suggests modifying the system architecture to have two separate conduits for separate injections into the lumen and the liquid bath.
He/she then concludes that in view of the traversal arguments summarized above, lack of unity exists among the inventions listed previously by the examiner and hence, restriction should be withdrawn.
These arguments were fully considered and Norddahl patent is hereby withdrawn. However, the lack of unity is maintained in view of the art instantly cited (see below). Therefore, in view of the explanations explained below, the examiner finds no reason to withdraw the rejection.
Claims 1-2 are under examination on the merits.
Claims 3-19 are hereby withdrawn as drawn to non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Camacho et al., “Camacho” (US2020/0115664, 4/2020, cited in the IDS).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Camacho in [0011-0014] discloses the following:
[0011] The invention aims to provide a solution to increase the methane content of biogas in a digester while increasing the conversion of organic feedstock, even with a low methanogenic potential by coupling biomethanation of the syngas from the pyrolysis/gasification of this organic feedstock.
[0012] To this end, the subject of the invention is an apparatus for syngas bio-methanation comprising a unit for pyrolysis/gasification configured for receiving organic material from an organic deposit and being configured for generating syngas and a membrane bioreactor configured to be placed inside a liquid bath comprising at least one suitable bacteria population, said membrane reactor comprising at least one hollow fiber arranged in such a way that, when the membrane reactor is in contact with the liquid bath, a biofilm is formed around the at least one hollow fiber and so that the syngas generated at the unit for pyrolysis/gasification flows into the at least one hollow fiber so as to convert the syngas into methane.
[0013] According to the invention, a suitable population of bacteria is homoacetogenic bacteria and/or acetogenic methanogens or hydrogenotrophic methanogens and/or carboxydotrophic acetogens and acetogenic methanogens. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, a suitable population of bacteria is homoacetogenic bacteria coupled to acetogenic methanogens and hydrogenotrophic methanogens and carboxydotrophic acetogens coupled to acetogenic methanogens.
[0014] The apparatus for syngas bio-methanation further comprises an anaerobic digester configured to be fed with organic material, the digester being connected to the outlet of the membrane reactor, so as to inject a gaseous phase with methane and potentially without carbon dioxide into the digester. This increases the content of methane in the digester, resulting in an increase of the lower calorific value of the biogas. Pyrolysing a low methanogenic feedstock and then converting the syngas to methane biologically increases the conversion yield of the organic feedstock (compared to anaerobic digestion alone).
In [0024] according to Camacho, the method according to the invention further comprises a step of feeding the digestate from the anaerobic digester into a dewatering unit, so as to obtain a solid part, a so-called cake, and a liquid part, a so-called centrate.
In [0043] according to Camacho syngas is injected into the membranes at a pressure greater than 2 bars.
In [0058] Camacho explains that FIG. 4 schematically represents another embodiment of the apparatus 30 for syngas bio-methanation according to the invention. The apparatus 30 comprises the same elements as the apparatus 20 presented in FIG. 3. In the embodiment of FIG. 4, the centrate 25 is sent into the liquid bath 17. The centrate 25 constitutes a culture medium to provide nutrient support and bacteria to the liquid bath 17 of the membrane reactor 16, so as to help the formation of the biofilm on the membrane.
As applicant appreciates, the returned centrate mentioned above does have some CO2 dissolved therein by inherency. Therefore, the concept of introducing CO2 into the liquid bath was readily obvious to one of ordinary skill, prior to the filing of this application and whether CO2 was introduced by an injector (or bubble generator) or by other means can hardly contribute to the patentability of this invention.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM MONSHIPOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-0932. The examiner can normally be reached full-flex.
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 L 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.
/MARYAM MONSHIPOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights