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 of Group I, claims 1 – 18 in the reply filed on June 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1 – 89 are pending; claims 19 – 89 are withdrawn; claims 1 – 18 have been considered on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 25, 2024 and March 11, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 – 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and 102a2 as being anticipated by Krajete et al. (WO 2018/015393, cited on IDS 03.11.2025, FPD #3).
Regarding claim 1, Krajete teaches a method for producing and recovering methane, wherein the method comprises fermenting an educt (substrate) including gaseous CO2 and H2 with methanogenic archaea in a vessel, wherein the ratio of H2:CO2 is 3 or 4, or 1:3 or 1:4 CO2:H2, (p.36 - 37, example 4, claims 8, 11, 15, 20).
Regarding claims 2 - 3, the archaea include those selected from the claimed list, particularly Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicus (p.24 - 25).
Regarding claim 8, Krajete teaches the method will convert 85 - 99% of the CO2 (p.19).
Thus, the reference anticipates the claimed subject matter.
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.
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 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krajete et al. (WO 2018/015393, cited on IDS 03.11.2025, FPD #3).
Regarding claim 1, Krajete teaches a method for producing and recovering methane, wherein the method comprises fermenting an educt (substrate) including gaseous CO2 and H2 with methanogenic archaea in a vessel, wherein the ratio of H2:CO2 is 3 or 4, or 1:3 or 1:4 CO2:H2, (p.36 - 37, example 4, claims 8, 11, 15, 20).
Regarding claims 2 - 3, the archaea include those selected from the claimed list, particularly Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicus (p.24 - 25).
Regarding claims 4 - 5, the reference does not specifically teach the claimed CO2 or H2 uptake rate. However, Krajete teaches the method is particularly suited for regulating biomass production and regulating use of the substrates, CO2 or H2, for either biomass production or product formation (page 6). In this regard, the method allows one practicing the method to “fine tune” educt consumption (or uptake) by the microorganisms. As such, in following the teachings of Krajete, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings therein, and routine practice, to optimize the rate of uptake of CO2 or H2 and with a reasonable expectation for successfully converting CO2.
Regarding claim 6, the reference does not teach the claimed cell retention time. However, Krajete specifically states the method allows for adjusting fermentation conditions and to keep the cells in one of the states over a period of time which may be selected by the experimenter (p.50). Thus, in following the teachings of Krajete, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize retention times as directed and with a reasonable expectation for successfully converting CO2.
Regarding claim 7, the reference does not specifically teach method wherein methane productivity is as claimed. However, Krajete teaches the method provides methane at least 150 mmol/hour or about 2.5 mmol/min and provides the formula for which one can optimize the methane yield therein (page 4 - 5). As such, in following the teachings of Krajete, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the methane yield as directed and by routine practice and with a reasonable expectation for successfully converting CO2.
Regarding claim 8, Krajete teaches the method will convert 85 - 99% of the CO2 (p.19).
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1 and 9 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krajete et al. (WO 2018/015393, cited on IDS 03.11.2025, FPD #3) in view of Dyson et al. (WO 2018/144965, cited on IDS 03.11.2025, FPD #4).
Regarding claim 1, Krajete teaches a method for producing and recovering methane, wherein the method comprises fermenting an educt (substrate) including gaseous CO2 and H2 with methanogenic archaea in a vessel, wherein the ratio of H2:CO2 is 3 or 4, or 1:3 or 1:4 CO2:H2, (p.36 - 37, example 4, claims 8, 11, 15, 20).
Regarding claims 9 – 18, Krajete does not teach the claimed steps for further recovering a protein. However, Krajete teaches the methods may be used to produce biomass wherein proteins are recovered (p. 20 - 21). Dyson teaches methods for obtaining proteins from bacterial biomass wherein the method comprises harvesting biomass from the bioreactor, rupturing cells by homogenization (to obtain a homogenate) (88); fractionating (84, 86) to obtain the proteins. The biomass has dry weights of 6.7 – 7.2 grams of dry mass (example 1); rupturing cells is accomplished with homogenizers, fractionators (mechanical disruption device), French press, freezer, heaters, ultrasound, sonication, mills, to lyse biomass (363 - 370); additional steps include hydrolyzing the resulting homogenate with lysozyme (a hydrolase), neutral protease (or endopeptidase), trypsin (serine protease) or subtilase at pH 4 - 12 and 15 - 55C for 2 - 120 hours or at 10 - 80C (88, 373, 386, 388); centrifuging and filtering ruptured cells (377); removing nucleic acids by methods known in the art (377); and drying to 10 - 15% moisture, or 85 - 90% dry weight (417). At the time the claims were filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further obtain proteins from the biomass of Krajete, and applying or utilizing the steps as claimed, as a matter of routine practice and procedure as evidenced by Dyson. One would have been further motivated to optimize the various specific parameters such as time, temperature, pH, and amount of starting dry cell material as a matter of routine practice, there being no indication of criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUTH A DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8am - 4pm).
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/RUTH A DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights