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 .
Detailed Action
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 without traverse in the reply filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in this application; elected Group I, claims 1-11 is now under consideration for examination, and claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). This application filed on 07/09/2024 and claims the priority date of Korea application 10-2023-0089691 filed on 07/11/2023; however, no English translation of said foreign priority application has been provided. Therefore, the priority date for instant claims under consideration is deemed to be the filing date of 07/09/2024.
Information disclosure statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2024 and 05/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are considered and initialed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
I. Claim 1 and claims 2-11 depending therefrom 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the phrase “highly active microorganism…” is considered to be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Claims 1 and 10 do not recite the specific metric and does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite property i.e., genotype/phenotype as compared to which microorganism? of the claimed “highly active microorganism…”. In the art what is considered “highly active microorganism…” varies widely depending on the individual situation as well as the person making the determination. It is not clear to the examiner as to how “highly active microorganism…” is measured? and encompassed in the above phrase. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear, as written does not recite the specific conditions/specific strain in the claimed “highly active microorganism…” the applicants' intend to encompass. As such it is unclear what “highly active microorganism…” of interest must be to be included within the scope of the claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claims. Examiner also would like to point out: “Although the claims are examined in the light of the specification, specification cannot be read into the claims, i.e., the limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims (see MPEP 2111 R-5)”). Clarification and correction is required.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Enablement
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method for producing syngas fermentation products, specific products acetate and butyrate (hydrocarbons) comprising gaseous substrate including CO and CO2 in a partial pressure ratio of 4:1 injected to a first bioreactor including the culture medium, wherein the fermenting microorganism is Eubacterium limosum KIST612 strain (see Examples 1-3, pages 22-25 of specification), the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for a method for producing any syngas fermentation products using highly active microorganisms, the method comprising: a biomass boosting step of obtaining highly active microorganisms by injecting a gaseous substrate including CO into a first bioreactor; a step of supplying the obtained highly active microorganisms to a second bioreactor; and any product producing step of injecting a gaseous substrate into the second bioreactor, and producing any hydrocarbon products (genera of products; as in claims 1 and 9) by any fermenting action of the highly active microorganisms (genera of microorganisms; as in claims 1 and 8) in the second bioreactor, wherein the first bioreactor includes a first culture medium; comprising a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains in the claimed process of production of genera of chemical products (as in claims 1-11; also see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims interpretation). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make/use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims without undue experimentation.
Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required are summarized in In re Wands (858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ 2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) as follows: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claim(s).
Claims 1-11 broadly encompass: a method for producing any syngas fermentation products using highly active microorganisms, the method comprising: a biomass boosting step of obtaining highly active microorganisms by injecting a gaseous substrate including CO into a first bioreactor; a step of supplying the obtained highly active microorganisms to a second bioreactor; and any product producing step of injecting a gaseous substrate into the second bioreactor, and producing any hydrocarbon products (genera of products; as in claims 1 and 9) by any fermenting action of the highly active microorganisms (genera of microorganisms; as in claims 1 and 8) in the second bioreactor, wherein the first bioreactor includes a first culture medium; comprising a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains in the claimed process of production of genera of chemical products (as in claims 1-11; also see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims interpretation). Predictability of which genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains and said genera of organisms capable of producing genera of chemical products/hydrocarbons requires a knowledge of biochemical and biological characteristics of the claimed organism in the claimed process, and guidance with regard to how said microorganisms relates to the desired outcome, as recited in the claimed process and claims. However, in this case the disclosure is limited to a method for producing syngas fermentation products, specific products acetate and butyrate (hydrocarbons) comprising gaseous substrate including CO and CO2 in a partial pressure ratio of 4:1 injected to a first bioreactor including the culture medium, wherein the fermenting microorganism is Eubacterium limosum KIST612 strain (see Examples 1-3, pages 22-25 of specification).
While some model systems comprising specific microorganisms (known species and strains) capable of producing specific chemicals (such as acetate, butyrate, and ethanol) are known, it is not routine in the art to screen an essentially unlimited genera of microorganisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains and method of use to produce a genera of chemicals with a reasonable expectation of success remain unpredictable in the claimed process.
Examiner finds support for his position in the following references:
De Tissera et al., (Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol., 2019, Vol. 166: 247-280) disclose that many mesophilic and thermophilic autotrophic acetogens are currently known. However, not all have been investigated in detail and only a few are currently used in or for developing industrial applications (¶ 2, page 249; and entire document); said reference also discloses pH is one of the key parameters that need to be controlled during fermentation and there is diversity among acetogens regarding pH requirement (see Fig. 2, page 262) and further emphasize optimal temperature for growth, gas supply and media formulation and the products produced also varies (see pages 263-268).
Hence, the specification does not support the broad scope of the claims which encompass a method for producing any syngas fermentation products using highly active microorganisms, the method comprising: a biomass boosting step of obtaining highly active microorganisms by injecting a gaseous substrate including CO into a first bioreactor; a step of supplying the obtained highly active microorganisms to a second bioreactor; and any product producing step of injecting a gaseous substrate into the second bioreactor, and producing any hydrocarbon products (genera of products; as in claims 1 and 9) by any fermenting action of the highly active microorganisms (genera of microorganisms; as in claims 1 and 8) in the second bioreactor, wherein the first bioreactor includes a first culture medium; comprising a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains in the claimed process of production of genera of chemical products (as in claims 1-11; also see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims interpretation), because the specification does not establish: (A) a rational and predictable scheme for selecting microorganisms for the production of desired chemicals and optimal conditions; and (B) the specification provides insufficient guidance as to which of the essentially infinite possible choices is likely to be successful. The claims 1-11 remains not commensurate in scope with the enabled invention and therefore for the rejected claims, this would clearly constitute undue experimentation. While enablement is not precluded by the necessity for routine screening, if a large amount of screening is required, the specification must provide a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed. Such guidance has not been provided in the instant specification or in the prior art. Thus, applicants’ have not provided sufficient guidance to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in a manner reasonably correlated with the scope of the claims broadly including a genera of microorganisms and producing a genera of chemicals/hydrocarbon products. The scope of the claim must bear a reasonable correlation with the scope of enablement (In re Fisher, 166 USPQ 19 24 (CCPA 1975)). Without sufficient guidance, determination of microorganisms with the desired biological characteristics is unpredictable and the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly, extensive and undue. See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988).
In view of the great breadth of the claims, amount of experimentation required to make and use the claimed composition/microorganisms in the claimed method for producing a genera of chemicals/hydrocarbons, the lack of guidance, working examples, and unpredictability of the art in predicting the use in the claimed process in the present invention would require undue experimentation. As such, the specification fails to teach one of ordinary skill how to use the full scope of the claimed composition and method encompassed by the claims. Without such guidance in the specification and lack of correlative working examples, the claims would require an improperly extensive and undue amount of experimentation without a predictable degree of success on the part of the skilled artisan. (See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ 2nd 1400 Fed. Cir. 1988).
Written-Description
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not disclosed in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of skilled in the relevant art that the invention(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 as interpreted are directed to a method for producing any syngas fermentation products using highly active microorganisms, the method comprising: a biomass boosting step of obtaining highly active microorganisms by injecting a gaseous substrate including CO into a first bioreactor; a step of supplying the obtained highly active microorganisms to a second bioreactor; and any product producing step of injecting a gaseous substrate into the second bioreactor, and producing any hydrocarbon products (genera of products; as in claims 1 and 9) by any fermenting action of the highly active microorganisms (genera of microorganisms; as in claims 1 and 8) in the second bioreactor, wherein the first bioreactor includes a first culture medium; comprising a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains in the claimed process of production of genera of chemical products (as in claims 1-11; also see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims interpretation).
The specification discloses and is limited to a method for producing syngas fermentation products, specific products acetate and butyrate (hydrocarbons) comprising gaseous substrate including CO and CO2 in a partial pressure ratio of 4:1 injected to a first bioreactor including the culture medium, wherein the fermenting microorganism is Eubacterium limosum KIST612 strain (see Examples 1-3, pages 22-25 of specification), which is insufficient to put one of skill in the art in possession of the attributes and features of all species within the claimed genus in the claimed process. A sufficient written description of a genus of may be achieved by a recitation of structural features common to members of genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. There is no recited structural feature of the genus in the specification, i.e., a method for producing any syngas fermentation products using highly active microorganisms, the method comprising: a biomass boosting step of obtaining highly active microorganisms by injecting a gaseous substrate including CO into a first bioreactor; a step of supplying the obtained highly active microorganisms to a second bioreactor; and any product producing step of injecting a gaseous substrate into the second bioreactor, and producing any hydrocarbon products (genera of products; as in claims 1 and 9) by any fermenting action of the highly active microorganisms (genera of microorganisms; as in claims 1 and 8) in the second bioreactor, wherein the first bioreactor includes a first culture medium; comprising a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains in the claimed process of production of genera of chemical products (as in claims 1-11; also see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims interpretation). Therefore, one skilled in the art cannot reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed.
In University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1938, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that “A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials”. As indicated in MPEP § 2163, the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. In addition, MPEP § 2163 states that a representative number of species means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The Federal Circuit in Lilly, Fiers, Rochester and many other cases has determined that the written description issue applies to situations where the definition of the subject matter of the claims fails to provide description commensurate with the genus. Case law directly supports this rejection. As the District Court in University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc. (2003 WL 759719 W.D.N.Y., 2003. March 5, 2003) noted “In effect, then, the '850 patent claims a method that cannot be practiced until one discovers a compound that was not in the possession of, or known to, the inventors themselves. Putting the claimed method into practice awaited someone actually discovering a necessary component of the invention.”
This is similar to the current situation since the breadth of the current claims comprises a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype and able to produce a genera of desired chemicals/hydrocarbons in the claimed process i.e., a method for producing any syngas fermentation products using highly active microorganisms, the method comprising: a biomass boosting step of obtaining highly active microorganisms by injecting a gaseous substrate including CO into a first bioreactor; a step of supplying the obtained highly active microorganisms to a second bioreactor; and any product producing step of injecting a gaseous substrate into the second bioreactor, and producing any hydrocarbon products (genera of products; as in claims 1 and 9) by any fermenting action of the highly active microorganisms (genera of microorganisms; as in claims 1 and 8) in the second bioreactor, wherein the first bioreactor includes a first culture medium; comprising a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains in the claimed process of production of genera of chemical products (as in claims 1-11; also see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims interpretation) which the present inventors were not in the possession of, or which were not known to the inventors.
Hence, claims are reading on significant numbers of inoperative embodiments in the claimed process would render claims non-enabled/lack of written-description, when the specification does not clearly identify the operative embodiments or evidence of possession and undue experimentation is involved in determining those that are operative.” Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cook, 439 F.2d 730, 735, 169 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1971); MPEP 2164.08(b).
The factors considered in the Written Description requirement are (1) level of skill and knowledge in the art, (2) partial structure, (3) physical and/or chemical properties, (4) functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the (5) method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient." MPEP § 2163.
Therefore, one skilled in the art cannot reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed. Applicant is referred to the revised guidelines concerning compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, published in the Official Gazette and also available at <http://www.uspto.gov>.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
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 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al., (PNAS., 2016, vol. 113(14): 3773-3778).
Hu et al., (PNAS., 2016, vol. 113(14): 3773-3778) disclose an integrated bioprocess for conversion of gaseous substrate to useful products/hydrocarbons/triacylglycerides in a two-stage system (see Abstract; Significance, page 3773; Fig. 1; and entire document) said method comprising microbial biomass and methods of production of hydrocarbons/triacylglycerides by culturing a microorganism/Morella thermoacetica from mixtures CO2 and CO or H2; wherein CO:CO2 ratio is 4:1 and (Fig. 2-3, page 3774; Table 1, page 3776; Fig. 9, page 3777; Table 2, page 3778); cell growth and maximum cell density in the range of OD `2.5-`11 (Results; col. 1, page 3774).
Hence, claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al., (PNAS., 2016, vol. 113(14): 3773-3778).
Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing applicants’ process with the process of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed process of the prior art (i.e., that the process of the prior art does not possess the same material structural and functional characteristics of the process of the instant invention). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu et al., (PNAS., 2016, vol. 113(14): 3773-3778) as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection above) and in view of De Tissera et al., (Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol., 2019, Vol. 166: 247-280), Kim et al., (Chem. Eng. J., 2023, Vol. 459, 141555, pages 1-10) and Rittmann et al., (Appl. Energy., 2018, Vol. 216: 751-760).
The disclosure of Hu et al., (PNAS., 2016, vol. 113(14): 3773-3778) as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 is described above in 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection above. However, Hu et al., is silent regarding wherein a pH condition inside the first and second bioreactors is from 6.8 to 7.2 (as in claim 2); wherein a first culture medium addition rate (dilution rate) in the first bioreactor is from 0.08 h-1 to 0.15 h-1 (as in claims 3-4); wherein a gaseous substrate injection rate (vvm) into the first bioreactor is from 0.06 vvm to 0.86 vvm; wherein a gaseous substrate injection rate (vvm) into the second bioreactor is from 0.086 vvm to 0.1 vvm (as in claims 5-6); wherein the first and second culture media include a compound selected from the group consisting of NaCl, MgSO4…NH4Cl (as in claim 7)
Regarding claim 2, De Tissera et al., (Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol., 2019, Vol. 166: 247-280) teach microorganism/acetogen E. limosum able to utilize syngas with an optimal pH range as 6.8-7.2 and optimal fermentation conditions (see Fig. 2, page 262; pages 262-263).
Regarding claims 3-7, Kim et al., (Chem. Eng. J., 2023, Vol. 459, 141555, pages 1-10) provides teaching, suggestion and motivation for recycling minerals i.e., “integrating syngas fermentation and electrodialysis (ED) systems to reduce operating costs of fermentation process by reusing nutrients required for biocatalyst/microorganism growth as well as separating the ionized product, acetate; by reusing nutrients, the nutrient and mineral limitations that generally occur in high cell density conditions are resolved; Eubacterium callanderi KIST612, used as a biocatalyst, improved acetate titer by 25 % (264 mmol/L) in the ED-integrated process by avoiding nutrient and mineral limitations” (see Abstract; and entire document); and gas composition/injection rate ”vvm” for optimal growth, biomass, acetate concentration, acetate productivity, reactor gas composition including a ratio of 4:1 for CO:CO2 performed at 0.03 vvm (col. 2, ¶ 2, page 8) and cation concentration, optimal pH and culturing conditions for microorganism/acetogen E. limosum able to utilize syngas (see Abstract; Fig. 1, page 2; Fig. 2-3, page 5; Fig. 6, page 7; and entire document).
Regarding claim 7, Rittmann et al., (Appl. Energy., 2018, Vol. 216: 751-760) analogous art also provide teaching suggestion and motivation for optimizing gas injection rate/gassing rate per working volume per minute (vvm [L L−1 min−1]) as an important parameter/known variable in CO2 based biological methane/product production and biomass growth (col. 2, ¶ 2.1, page 752; Fig, 7, page 757; Fig. 8, page 758).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify the teachings of Hu et al., and employ the optimal pH range as 6.8-7.2 and gas composition/injection rate ”vvm” for optimal growth and for optimal fermentation conditions as taught in the references of De Tissera et al., Kim et al., and Rittmann et al., that teach structural and functional elements and involved in the enhanced production of desired chemical products of interest depending on the experimental need. Motivation to generate such a modified process derives from the fact that producing syngas fermentation products is a commercial product of importance and useful in the preparation of fine chemicals and in industry (Hu et al., De Tissera et al., and Kim et al.,). The expectation of success is high, because the combined teachings of Hu et al., De Tissera et al., Kim et al., and Rittmann et al., teach enhanced production of desired chemical products of interest via syngas fermentation utilizing microorganisms and said references also provide the structural and functional elements of the instant invention (Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation).
Given this extensive teaching in prior art (Hu et al., De Tissera et al., Kim et al., and Rittmann et al.,) i.e., a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype and able to produce a genera of desired chemicals/hydrocarbons in the claimed process i.e., a method for producing any syngas fermentation products using highly active microorganisms, the method comprising: a biomass boosting step of obtaining highly active microorganisms by injecting a gaseous substrate including CO into a first bioreactor; a step of supplying the obtained highly active microorganisms to a second bioreactor; and any product producing step of injecting a gaseous substrate into the second bioreactor, and producing any hydrocarbon products (genera of products) by any fermenting action of the highly active microorganisms (genera of microorganisms) in the second bioreactor, wherein the first bioreactor includes a first culture medium; comprising a genera of organisms including microorganisms of undefined and unlimited phenotype/genotype or strains in the claimed process of production of genera of chemical products (also see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims interpretation), as taught by the instant invention and as claimed in claims 1-11 is not of innovation but of ordinary skill in the art and the expectation of success is extremely high i.e., “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1397”.
Therefore, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu et al., (PNAS., 2016, vol. 113(14): 3773-3778) as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection above) and in view of De Tissera et al., (Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol., 2019, Vol. 166: 247-280), Kim et al., (Chem. Eng. J., 2023, Vol. 459, 141555, pages 1-10) and Rittmann et al., (Appl. Energy., 2018, Vol. 216: 751-760).
Allowable Subject Matter/Conclusion
None of the claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 408-918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights