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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 13-23 are pending. The effective filing date of the instant claims as applied to the prior art references is February 04, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 06, 2024 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for circulating liquid” in claim 21 has been interpreted as “a pump” and “return line” or structural equivalents thereof .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: all recitations of “carbon monooxide” should be replaced with --carbon monoxide--. 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.
Claims 16, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16 and 23 recite a "flowrate" of 0.5 to 2.5 m3/m2 of reactor cross-sectional area, which is a volume per area without a time denominator. Neither claim nor the corresponding specification passage identifies the time unit. A value per hour and the same value per day have materially different scope. The applicant should identify a supported time unit.
Claim 20 depends from claim 1, whose step (g) requires blowing pressurized air into the reactor, yet claim 20 recites that "the method is anaerobic." It is unclear whether the entire claimed method must exclude
an oxygen-containing atmosphere, which conflicts with step (g) or whether "anaerobic" restricts only a portion of the method. Applicant should specify the step or operating interval to which that term applies.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 13, 15, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf et al., (see citation # 10 in above referenced IDS; hereinafter “Ashraf”) in view of Heits et al., (DE 19609053; hereinafter “Heits”, see attached machine-generated English translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Ashraf teaches a method of converting carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and hydrogen in a gas to methane, comprising:
a) providing a gas comprising carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide;" Ashraf supplies a separately controlled CO2 feed to the reactor (see section 2.1; Fig. 1; carbon dioxide feed and controller meets this limitation);
b) providing a gas comprising hydrogen (Ashraf supplies a separate hydrogen gas feed (see pp 4, section 2.1; Fig. 1);
c) leading/supplying the gas comprising carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and the gas comprising hydrogen to a reactor, wherein the reactor comprises a packaging material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and the reactor comprises microorganisms capable of converting carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and hydrogen to methane, and wherein the packaging material is capable of being detached from the reactor; (Ashraf leads the hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide feed through a reactor packed with separate 7 mm by 10 mm polyethylene finned Raschig rings; a hydrogenotrophic methanogenic biofilm grows on the packing and converts the gases to methane (see pp. 2 and 4-5, Introduction and section 2.1; Fig. 1. The rings are individual carrier pieces in a packed bed, rather than an integral part of the vessel; thus the packaging material of Ashraf is capable of being detached);
d) providing a liquid and supply the liquid to the reactor above the packaging material;" Ashraf pumps nutrient liquid from the lower media sump to the top of the packed reactor (see pp. 4-5, section 2.1; Fig. 1, peristaltic pump and media line).
e) leading the gas comprising carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and the gas comprising hydrogen through the packaging material comprising the liquid and microorganisms to convert carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and hydrogen to methane and water; (Ashraf passes gaseous hydrogen and carbon dioxide over the nutrient-wetted methanogenic packing and produces methane by the hydrogenotrophic reaction, see pp. 2 and 4-5, Introduction and section 2.1; Fig. 1);
f) leading the gas where carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and hydrogen is converted to methane to an outlet (Ashraf withdraws reactor product gas containing methane through the gas outlet and measures the outlet flow and composition, see pp. 4-5, section 2.1 and section 3.1).
Ashraf does not disclose the final cleaning step: "g) cleaning and decompression of the packaging material by filling the reactor with liquid and blowing pressurized air into the reactor below the packaging material." Ashraf floods its packing with nutrient liquid, but does not introduce cleaning air (pp. 12-13, sections 3.3 and 3.3.2; Fig. 4).
In the art of reactors comprising packing material with immobilized microorganisms to convert carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide gas to methane, Heits teaches a method for in-situ cleaning of trickle bed reactors in biological exhaust air purification systems. Heits floods biofilm-bearing packing 6 through water line 11 and blows pressurized air through lower line 12 to remove excess growth, wash liquid, exit the detached material through line 13 (see Fig. 1; description of cleaning cycle and worked example).
Regarding claim 13, Ashraf expressly identifies hydrogenotrophic methanogens in the carrier biofilm (pp. 2, Introduction; pp. 4, section 2.1).
Claim 15 recites “supplying of a liquid to the reactor is a continuously sprinkling”. Ashraf operates its upper media line for continuous trickling over the packing (pp. 12-13, section 3.3, Table 3; Fig. 1).
Claim 16, as best understood, Ashraf teaches the continuous sprinkling is with a flowrate of the liquid in the range of 0.5 to 2.5 of the area of the cross section of the reactor. Under the per-hour interpretation stated above, Ashraf's peristaltic pump continuously trickles nutrient liquid at measured fluxes of 0.786, 1.572, and 2.358 m3/(m2h); each setting was maintained for seven days (pp. 12, section 3.3.1 and Table 3: pp. 4-5, section 2.1; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Ashraf teaches the temperature in the reactor is in the range of 40° C. to 70° C. Ashraf reports an average reactor temperature of 52 °C (see pp. 9. section 3.1).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Ashraf teaches “the method” is anaerobic.
Regarding claim 21 Ashraf teaches an apparatus for converting carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas into to methane (Ashraf's Fig. 1 depicts a reactor converting H2 and CO2 to methane with feed and product paths, see pp. 4-5, section 2.1).
i) a reactor comprising a packaging material, wherein the packaging material Is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and wherein microorganisms are capable of converting carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and hydrogen to methane are growing on the surface of the packaging material, and wherein the packaging material is capable of being detached from the reactor (Ashraf's
reactor contains individual polyethylene Raschig rings on which hydrogenotrophic methanogens form the active biofilm. The separate PE carrier pieces are capable of being removed from the vessel (see pp. 2 and 4-5. Introduction and section 2.1; Fig. 1).;
ii) an inlet for supplying a gas comprising carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide to the reactor;" Ashraf's Fig. 1 depicts the controlled CO2 feed to the reactor (see pp. 4, section 2.1 and Fig. 1).
iii) an inlet for supplying a gas comprising hydrogen to the reactor (see Ashraf's Fig. 1 depicts a separate controlled H2 feed, pp. 4, section 2.1 and Fig. 1).
iv) an Inlet for supplying liquid to the reactor (Ashraf supplies nutrient liquid through its upper media line and peristaltic pump, pp. 4-5, section 2.1; Fig. 1).
v) means for circulating liquid from the lower part of the reactor to the upper part of the reactor above the packaging material (Ashraf's peristaltic pump and return line convey liquid from the lower sump to the upper part of the reactor (preprint pp. 4-5, section 2.1; Fig. 1).
vi) a gas outlet where carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and hydrogen have been converted to methane (Ashraf's Fig. 1 identifies the gas outlet downstream of the methanogenic packed section, see pp. 4, section 2.1).
vii) an outlet for releasing liquid from the reactor (Ashraf's Fig. 1 identifies a drain and lower liquid sump, see pp. 4, section 2.1).
Ashraf does not disclose viii) an inlet for blowing pressurized air into the reactor, wherein the inlet Is located below the packaging material. Heits introduces pressurized cleaning air through line 12 below packing 6, with valve 19 selecting that path (Fig. 1; description of cleaning cycle and worked example). Adding this line to Ashraf's floodable reactor for the cleaning reason discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf and Heits, as applied to claim 1 above, in further in view of Fortin et al., (WO 2019/034820; hereinafter "Fortin").
Regarding claim 14, Ashraf pumps aqueous nutrient medium from its sump over the methanogenic packing (pp. 4-5, section 2.1; Fig. 1), but does not expressly identify water as the liquid supplied above the packing. Fortin describes sprinkling a methanogenic bed with water to maintain moisture and transfer gaseous reactants to the microorganisms, it also depicts recirculation by pump 150 and nutrient supply through inlet 165 (description of Fig. 1; claims 1 and 5). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention seeking another known liquid for wetting the H2/CO2 methanation bed would have supplied water through Ashraf's existing upper liquid path. Fortin expressly identifies that water-wetting function in such a bed, while its separate nutrient supply shows a practical way to continue feeding the culture. The proposed use of water retains Ashraf's top-down supply and would reasonably be expected to wet the packing and support methanation with adequate nutrient availability.
Regarding claim 17, Fortin describes CO2 containing biogas from biological methanization for biological H2/CO2 upgrading (see description of reactor 100, Fig. 1). Substituting that CO2 containing source for Ashraf's synthetic feed would supply the same convertible CO2 substrate and increase the biogas methane fraction. Ashraf's simulated-biogas operation and Fortin's methanation of CO2 containing biogas provide a reasonable expectation that the same hydrogenotrophic conversion would proceed with that feed, subject to ordinary feed conditioning.
As to claim 18, Fortin teaches biogas arises from anaerobic methanization and contains CO2.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ashraf and Heits, as applied to claim 21 above further in view of Brunner (US 2016/0369303).
As to claim 22, Ashraf teaches a reactor that recirculates liquid onto the top of the packaging material bed (pp. 4-5, section 2.1; Fig. 1), but does not expressly describe a sprinkler. Brunner's methanation trickle bed 502 uses upper spray dispersion device 404 to apply aqueous medium over matrix 504 (see para [0155] et seq. and Figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effectively filed claimed invention to have placed Brunner's overhead distributor on Ashraf's existing pumped liquid line to spread recirculated liquid across the packing and wet more of its active biofilm. Both disclosures employ upper delivery of aqueous medium to methanogenic surfaces, providing a reasonable expectation that the same distributor would perform its known wetting function in Ashraf's bed.
Claim 23, as best understood, the combination of Ashraf and Brunner teaches a sprinkler which includes a controller configured to control the flowrate of the liquid sprinkled into the reactor in the range of 0.5 to 2.5 of the area of the cross section of the reactor. Under the per-hour interpretation stated above, Ashraf's peristaltic pump continuously trickles nutrient liquid at measured fluxes of 0.786, 1.572, and 2.358 m3/(m2h); each setting was maintained for seven days (pp. 12, section 3.3.1 and Table 3: pp. 4-5, section 2.1; Fig. 1).
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is hereby made of record. Although the prior art is relied upon, the examiner considers the listed prior art relevant to the applicant’s invention and may be relied upon in a future prior art rejection or as general background information related to applicant’s field of endeavor.
i. Mets (EP 2032709-already of record) teaches renewed methane production after air exposure (cleaning) followed by hydrogen/carbon dioxide gas feed provides the step of resuming methanation after a bounded maintenance cycle.
ii. Grossman et al. (WO 2026/149939) teach a method and reactor for the biosynthesis of methane by means of methanogenic microorganisms, wherein a flushing of at least one growth body and/or of a reactor vessel is carried out by means of a cleaning liquid flowing in the opposite direction to the force of gravity, and to an apparatus for the biosynthesis of methane by means of methanogenic microorganisms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 571-270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights