DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
This application is a CON of application 13/941,643, filed on 07/15/2013, now US9828580, which is a DIV of 12/828,219, filed on 06/30/2010, now US8507233. Application 12/828,219 claims priority to Provisional Application 61/222,100, filed on 06/30/2009.
Amendment and Claim Status
In the reply filed on 09/22/2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 29, 45-49 and 54. Claims 13 and 39 were previously withdrawn and claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-21, 23-26, 28 and 33 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 22, 27, 29-32 and 34-54 are currently pending.
Claims 13 and 39 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 22, 27, 29-32, 34-38 and 40-54 are under examination.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 USC § 112(a) rejections over claims 1, 4, 10, 22, 27, 29-32, 34-38 and 40-54 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. However, it is noted the only support for ‘using the nano-scale control mechanism to facilitate growth of the hydrocarbon producing organism’ is the nanoparticles being used for controlled agitation or mixing of the water and growth medium as found in Paragraph [0036] of the instant Specification.
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections over claims 1, 4, 10, 22, 27, 29-32, 34-38 and 40-54 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and persuasive arguments.
Maintained Rejections (with modification as necessitated by amendment)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 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, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 22, 27, 29-32, 34, 37, 38, 40-44, 50 and 52-54 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vick et al. (WO 2008060571 A2, 05/22/2008) (Of Record) in view of Costas et al. (US 20110217748 A1, 09/08/2011, with priority to US 12/718,396 filed on 03/05/2010) (Of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Vick et al. disclose methods and compositions for production and purification of biofuel from plants and microalgae (Title). A process for recovering an oil product from an organism, comprising: (a) obtaining a crude extract from an organismal biomass; (b) applying said crude extract to a composition comprising a nanomaterial; and (c) recovering said oil product from said composition comprising the nanomaterial (Claim 1). The process of claim 1, wherein said organism is grown prior to step (a) (Claim 2). The nanomaterial effectively binds (typically in a non-covalent manner) numerous contaminants, and especially various hydrocarbons from the crude extract (Paragraph [0062]). The nanomaterial is a carbonaceous nanomaterial (Claim 13), wherein the nanomaterial comprises carbonaceous nanoparticles (Claim 17).
Vick et al. do not disclose using the nano-scale control to facilitate growth or using the nano-scale control to facilitate release or isolation of the hydrocarbon.
However, Costas et al. disclose growing algal cells in a bioreactor where nanoparticles may be present for all or a substantial part of the growth phase of the algae (Paragraph [0035]). After the algal culture has taken up the nanoparticles or they are present in the surrounding medium, it is then subjected to electromagnetic radiation (Paragraph [0037]). Costas et al. disclose when the algal cells are subjected to electromagnetic radiation it excites the nanoparticles (Paragraph [0041]), where exciting may include inducing ionic currents in the metal nanoparticles, inducing dipolar reorientation of the metal nanoparticles, or inducing a ferromagnetic effect in the metal nanoparticles (Paragraph [0012]).
It is noted in the instant Specification, magnetic nanoparticles are used to create desirable, precision controlled agitation or mixing of the water and growth medium (Paragraph [0035]). As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disclosure of Costas et al. of excited nanoparticles which induces ionic currents and dipolar reorientation, reading on movement of the nanoparticles, reads on a using the nano-scale control to facilitate growth as the movement of the nanoparticles would induce mixing which would create a desirable growth environment.
Costas et al. further disclose a system for recovery of a lipid, reading on a hydrocarbon, from an algal cell comprising: at least one algal cell comprising a lipid; a plurality of metal nanoparticles; an electromagnetic radiation generator, wherein the generator is operable to generate radio frequency or microwave radiation that excites the plurality of metal nanoparticles, resulting in lysis of the algal cell and release of the lipid from the lysed algal cell (Claim 13).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As such, although Vick et al. do not teach using the nano-scale control mechanism, or nanoparticles, to facilitate growth or using the nano-scale control mechanism to facilitate release or isolation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Costas et al. in the method of Vick et al. since both methods are directed to growth of an organism for the purpose of releasing hydrocarbons to produce a biofuel and utilization of nanoparticles to facilitate growth and utilization of nanoparticle to lyse the cells and release the hydrocarbons is a known and effective method as taught by Costas et al.
Regarding claim 4, Vick et al. disclose a process for producing a biofuel comprising (d) converting the purified oil product by transesterification into biodiesel or biogasoline (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 10, Vick et al. disclose the process of claim 1, wherein said organism is a plant (Claim 7), wherein said plant is an algae (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 22, Vick et al. disclose wherein said nanomaterial comprises carbonaceous nanoparticles (Claim 17).
Regarding claim 27, Vick et al. disclose it is generally preferred that the nanomaterial is a carbonaceous material fabricated from commercially available starting materials, including coal, tar, coke, graphite, carbonized organic matter, and/or carbonized synthetic fibers. Furthermore, suitable materials also include synthetic compounds, reading on a chemical agent, and especially synthetic aromatic compounds (Paragraph [0064]). Vick et al. does not explicitly state the chemical agent is bound to the nanoparticles making up the nanomaterial. However, it is known in the art that carbon and other chemicals come together to create a material through binding. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the nanomaterial, which was previously disclosed to contain carbonaceous nanoparticles, reads on a nano-scale control mechanism comprising at least one chemical agent bound to the nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 29, as mentioned above regarding claim 1, Vick et al. disclose the nanomaterial binds to hydrocarbons. Additionally, as mentioned regarding claim 27, the nanomaterial is comprised of carbonaceous nanoparticles bound to at least one chemical agent. Vick et al. does not explicitly state the chemical agent is delivered to the hydrocarbon. However, as Vick et al. disclose the nanomaterial binds to the hydrocarbon and the chemical agent is bound to the nanomaterial, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the nanomaterial binding to the hydrocarbon reads on delivering the chemical agent to the hydrocarbon.
Regarding claims 30, 31 and 32, Vick et al. disclose chemical disruption may be accomplished by using any chemical compound or mixture that breaks down intracellular plant structures and/or lyses the cells. Such chemicals may include a variety of acid, bases, hypotonic or hypertonic solutions. Enzymatic disruption may be accomplished by using any enzyme or enzyme mixture that breaks down intracellular plant structures and/or lyses the cells. Such enzymes include collagenases, ligninases or any other suitable enzyme (Paragraph [0049]). Therefore, Vick et al. disclose a cell lysis agent that is also a catalytic agent and an enzyme as the enzymes listed above catalyze the breakdown of intracellular plant structures and cause cell lysis.
Regarding claim 34, Vick et al. disclose methods and compositions for production and purification of biofuel from plants and microalgae (Title). Vick et al. disclose methods and compositions for production and purification of biofuel from plants and microalgae (Title). A process for recovering an oil product from an organism, comprising: (a) obtaining a crude extract from an organismal biomass; (b) applying said crude extract to a composition comprising a nanomaterial; and (c) recovering said oil product from said composition comprising the nanomaterial (Claim 1). The process of claim 1, wherein said organism is grown prior to step (a) (Claim 2). The disclosure of claim 2 reads on providing a hydrocarbon producing organism and growing said hydrocarbon producing organism. The disclosure of claim 1 (c) reads on releasing a hydrocarbon. The nanomaterial effectively binds (typically in a non-covalent manner) numerous contaminants, and especially various hydrocarbons from the crude extract (Paragraph [0062]). The nanomaterial is a carbonaceous nanomaterial (Claim 13), wherein the nanomaterial comprises carbonaceous nanoparticles (Claim 17). Additionally, wherein said nanomaterial comprises graphene (Claim 26). Graphene is a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice as evidenced by Chen et al. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the nanomaterial disclosed by Vick et al. reads on a functionalized matrix comprising a two-dimensional arrangement of functionalized particles. The graphene adsorbs, reading on being reversibly attached, the crude extract including the hydrocarbons (Paragraph [0045]). The graphene adsorbing the hydrocarbons also reads on isolating at least a portion of the released hydrocarbon under the broadest reasonable interpretation as the hydrocarbon adsorbing to the graphene isolated the hydrocarbons to the graphene.
Regarding claim 37, Vick et al. disclose a process for producing a biofuel comprising (d) converting the purified oil product by transesterification into biodiesel or biogasoline (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 38, Vick et al. disclose the graphene adsorbed the algae biomass, reading on the organism comprising an algae.
Regarding claim 40, Vick et al. disclose it is generally preferred that the nanomaterial is a carbonaceous material fabricated from commercially available starting materials, including coal, tar, coke, graphite, carbonized organic matter, and/or carbonized synthetic fibers. Furthermore, suitable materials also include synthetic compounds, reading on a chemical agent, and especially synthetic aromatic compounds (Paragraph [0064]). Vick et al. does not explicitly state the chemical agent is bound to the functionalized particles of the matrix. However, it is known in the art that carbon and other chemicals come together to create a material through binding. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the graphene, which was previously disclosed to contain carbonaceous nanoparticles, reads on a nano-scale control mechanism comprising at least one chemical agent bound to the functionalized particles of the matrix.
Regarding claims 41, 42 and 43, Vick et al. disclose chemical disruption may be accomplished by using any chemical compound or mixture that breaks down intracellular plant structures and/or lyses the cells. Such chemicals may include a variety of acid, bases, hypotonic or hypertonic solutions. Enzymatic disruption may be accomplished by using any enzyme or enzyme mixture that breaks down intracellular plant structures and/or lyses the cells. Such enzymes include collagenases, ligninases or any other suitable enzyme (Paragraph [0049]). Therefore, Vick et al. disclose a cell lysis agent that is also a catalytic agent and an enzyme as the enzymes listed above catalyze the breakdown of intracellular plant structures and cause cell lysis.
Regarding claim 44 and 52, Vick et al. disclose converting the purified oil product by transesterification into biodiesel or biogasoline (Paragraph [0018]). Additionally, Vick et al. disclose activated acid catalysts as part of the nanomaterial (Paragraph [0065]). Activated acid catalysts promote transesterification as evidenced by Tazikeh et al.
Regarding claims 45 and 46, Vick et al. do not disclose wherein using the nano-scale control mechanism to facilitate growth of the hydrocarbon producing organism in step (b) comprising exposing the nano-scale control mechanism to a magnetic field or wherein using the nano-scale control mechanism to facilitate growth of the hydrocarbon producing organism in step (b) comprising inducing agitation or mixing of a growth medium containing the hydrocarbon producing organism to facilitate growth of the hydrocarbon producing organism.
However, Costas et al. disclose a method of extracting lipids from algae by providing metallic nanoparticles to the algae cells then exciting the nanoparticles using electromagnetic radiation (Paragraph [0001]). Costas et al. further disclose growing algal cells in a bioreactor where nanoparticles may be present for all or a substantial part of the growth phase of the algae (Paragraph [0035]). After the algal culture has taken up the nanoparticles or they are present in the surrounding medium, it is then subjected to electromagnetic radiation, reading on a first activation comprising an electromagnetic field (Paragraph [0037]). Additionally, when the algal cells are subjected to electromagnetic radiation it excites the nanoparticles (Paragraph [0041]), where exciting may include inducing ionic currents in the metal nanoparticles, reading on inducing agitation, inducing dipolar reorientation of the metal nanoparticles, or inducing a ferromagnetic effect in the metal nanoparticles (Paragraph [0012]).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As such, even though Vick et al. do not disclose a utilization comprising exposure to a magnetic field, electric field or electromagnetic field, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method of Costas et al. in the method of Vick et al. as both are directed to growth of an organism and activation via electromagnetic radiation is a known and effective method as taught by Costas et al.
Regarding claim 47, Vick et al. do not disclose wherein the nano-scale control is used to facilitate growth by inducing turbulent flow in the growth medium.
However, Costas et al. disclose activation causing excitation which results in agitation and movement within the medium. It is noted in the instant Specification turbulence is used in conjunction with mixing, for example a nanoscale mixing process, such as magnetic nanoparticles, is configured to provide a magnetic field to induce turbulence and mixing (Specification, Paragraph [0057]). It is noted the limitation of a “turbulent flow” is only mentioned once and is notated as turbulent flows in the cell growth medium are created using magnetic nanoparticles or sub-micron beads (Specification, Paragraph [0049]).
As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disclosure of metal nanoparticles being excited resulting in movement within the cell medium reads on inducing a turbulent flow and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a turbulent flow would occur in the method of Vick et al. as they utilized the activation method of Costas et al., as mentioned regarding claims 45 and 46, which induces the turbulent flow.
Regarding claims 48 and 49, Vick et al. do not disclose utilizing the nano-scale control mechanism to facilitate the release or isolation of the hydrocarbon via exposure to a magnetic field.
However, Costas et al. disclose a system for recovery of a lipid, reading on a hydrocarbon, from an algal cell comprising: at least one algal cell comprising a lipid; a plurality of metal nanoparticles; an electromagnetic radiation generator, wherein the generator is operable to generate radio frequency or microwave radiation that excites the plurality of metal nanoparticles, resulting in lysis of the algal cell and release of the lipid from the lysed algal cell (Claim 13).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As such, even though Vick et al. do not disclose an utilizing exposure to a magnetic field, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method of Costas et al. in the method of Vick et al. as both are directed to releasing hydrocarbons from an organism and activation via electromagnetic radiation is a known and effective method as taught by Costas et al.
Regarding claims 50 and 53, Vick et al. disclose crude algal extract consisted of a hexane/lipid phase, which also contained dissolved pigments (chlorophyll molecules), beta-carotene and triglycerides. The crude extract was separated from the residual biomass via filtration (Paragraph [0078]). Additionally, the filtered hexane/lipid phase was contacted with graphene, reading on the nano-scale control mechanism, and after 5 seconds of contacting time, the hexane/lipid phase was adsorbed by the graphene. The graphene was centrifuged and a clear liquid oil product was released. This clear liquid phase consisted in a lipid-rich, reading on hydrocarbon, hexane solution lacking residual plant pigments, reading on cellular debris, and was confirmed by the clear change in color (Paragraph [0079]). As such, Vick et al. disclose separating cellular debris bound to the nano-scale control mechanism to isolate the hydrocarbon.
Regarding claim 54, Vick et al. disclose methods and compositions for production and purification of biofuel from plants and microalgae (Title). Vick et al. disclose methods and compositions for production and purification of biofuel from plants and microalgae (Title). A process for recovering an oil product from an organism, comprising: (a) obtaining a crude extract from an organismal biomass; (b) applying said crude extract to a composition comprising a nanomaterial; and (c) recovering said oil product from said composition comprising the nanomaterial (Claim 1). The process of claim 1, wherein said organism is grown prior to step (a) (Claim 2). The disclosure of claim 2 reads on providing a hydrocarbon producing organism and growing said hydrocarbon producing organism. The disclosure of claim 1 (c) reads on releasing a hydrocarbon. The nanomaterial effectively binds (typically in a non-covalent manner) numerous contaminants, and especially various hydrocarbons from the crude extract (Paragraph [0062]). The nanomaterial is a carbonaceous nanomaterial (Claim 13), wherein the nanomaterial comprises carbonaceous nanoparticles (Claim 17). Additionally, wherein said nanomaterial comprises graphene (Claim 26). Graphene is a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice as evidenced by Chen et al. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the nanomaterial disclosed by Vick et al. reads on a functionalized matrix comprising a two-dimensional arrangement of functionalized particles. The graphene adsorbs, reading on being reversibly attached, the crude extract including the hydrocarbons (Paragraph [0045]). The graphene adsorbing the hydrocarbons also reads on isolating at least a portion of the released hydrocarbon under the broadest reasonable interpretation as the hydrocarbon adsorbing to the graphene isolated the hydrocarbons to the graphene.
Vick et al. do not disclose utilizing a nano-scale control to facilitate growth or utilizing the nano-scale control to facilitate release or isolation of the hydrocarbon.
However, Costas et al. disclose growing algal cells in a bioreactor where nanoparticles may be present for all or a substantial part of the growth phase of the algae (Paragraph [0035]). After the algal culture has taken up the nanoparticles or they are present in the surrounding medium, it is then subjected to electromagnetic radiation, reading on a first activation (Paragraph [0037]). Costas et al. disclose when the algal cells are subjected to electromagnetic radiation it excites the nanoparticles (Paragraph [0041]), where exciting may include inducing ionic currents in the metal nanoparticles, inducing dipolar reorientation of the metal nanoparticles, or inducing a ferromagnetic effect in the metal nanoparticles (Paragraph [0012]). It is noted in the instant Specification, magnetic nanoparticles are used to create desirable, precision controlled agitation or mixing of the water and growth medium (Paragraph [0035]). As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disclosure of Costas et al. of excited nanoparticles which induces ionic currents and dipolar reorientation, reading on movement of the nanoparticles, reads utilizing the nano-scale control to facilitate growth as the movement of the nanoparticles would induce mixing which would create a desirable growth environment. Costas et al. further disclose a system for recovery of a lipid, reading on a hydrocarbon, from an algal cell comprising: at least one algal cell comprising a lipid; a plurality of metal nanoparticles; an electromagnetic radiation generator, wherein the generator is operable to generate radio frequency or microwave radiation that excites the plurality of metal nanoparticles, reading on an activation, resulting in lysis of the algal cell and release of the lipid from the lysed algal cell (Claim 13).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As such, although Vick et al. does not teach utilizing the nano-scale control to facilitate growth or to facilitate release or isolation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Costas et al. in the method of Vick et al. since both methods are directed to growth of an organism for the purpose of releasing hydrocarbons to produce a biofuel and activation of nanoparticles to facilitate growth and activation of nanoparticles to lyse the cells and release the hydrocarbons is a known and effective method as taught by Costas et al.
Claims 35, 36 and 51 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vick et al. (WO 2008060571 A2, 05/22/2008) (Of Record) in view of Costas et al. (US 20110217748 A1, 09/08/2011 with priority to US12/718,396 filed on 03/05/2010) (Of Record) and in further view of Christensen et al. (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1992) (Of Record).
The teachings of Vick et al. and Costas et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claims 35, 36 and 51, Vick et al. do not disclose wherein the matrix is configured to reversibly attach to the hydrocarbon producing organism through one or more surface determinants on a surface of the hydrocarbon producing organism or wherein the one or more surface determinants is antibodies.
However, Christensen et al. disclose an immunomagnetic capture technique where magnetic microbeads are coated with antibodies of target cells that allow for isolation of bacteria from aqueous solutions and heterogeneous suspensions (Page 1244, Left Column, Paragraph 2). This use of immunomagnetic beads allowed for the recovery of bacteria from oil field water (Abstract).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used magnetic microbeads coated with antibodies in the method of Vick et al. motivated by the desire to capture (attach) an organism since the method does not require a specific capture method and microbeads coated with antibodies is a known and effective capture method as taught by Christensen et al.
35 USC § 103 – Response to Arguments
In the reply filed on 09/22/2025, Applicant made multiple arguments, all of which will be addressed below.
Regarding note 1 in the footer on Page 10, a rejection was not made over claims 13 or 39 because both claims are currently withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments over instant claim 1, Applicant argued the nanomaterial in Vick et al. does not come into contact with the organism and points to Example 1 (Page 11, Last Paragraph).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In Example 2, Vick et al. specifically disclose the green algal biomass was crushed with a pestle and extracted with pure hexane. Graphene was then added to the extract (Paragraphs [0080] – [0086]). Thus, the graphene, reading on the nanomaterial, does come into contact with the organism as the organism was present in the extract.
Applicant further argued the nanomaterial of Vick et al. does not bind to cell surface features of an organism and states Costas et al. does not either (Page 12, Paragraph 2).
Applicant’s arguments have been filly considered but are not persuasive. Vick et al. specifically disclose Figure 1 showing an algae biomass/hexane mixture with the addition of graphene (Figure 1B) and the graphene that adsorbed the algae biomass/hexane mixture (Figure 1C) (Paragraph [0029]). Thus, Vick et al. disclose the algae biomass, reading on algae which are organisms, is adsorbed onto the graphene. Adsorption is when molecules adhere to the surface of something else. Therefore, the algal cells of the algae biomass adsorb, reading on bind, to the nanomaterial, the graphene. Thus, the primary reference, Vick et al., read on this limitation and it is not required of the secondary reference, Costas et al.
Applicant additionally argued Costas et al.’s description of the process contravenes the Examiner’s position and points to Paragraph [0035] of Costas et al. (Page 12, Last Paragraph).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. It is the Examiner’s position that this is an overgeneralization of Costas et al. as Costas et al. specifically disclose “nanoparticles may be present in bioreactor for all or a substantial part of the growth phase of the algae” at the end of Paragraph [0035]). Therefore the nanoparticles are in contact with the algae, the organism, in the bioreactor while growing. Moreover, Costas et al. specifically disclose growing the algal cells, wherein the nanoparticles may be present during the growth step where they may remain in the medium, be taken up by the algae cells, or both. The algal cells are subjected to electromagnetic radiation that excited the nanoparticles. The next step is cell lysis and releases of the lipids as the cell wall is disrupted, and finally recovery of the lipids (Paragraph [0041]). Additionally, it is noted the instant Specification notes magnetic nanoparticles are used to create agitation sufficient to induce lysis of the algae cell walls, thereby causing release of the hydrocarbons (Specification, Paragraph [0040]). The instant Specification does not disclose the agitation promotes growth of the algal cells, just that magnetic nanoparticles are used to create desirable, precision controlled agitation of the water and growth medium. It is further noted the instant Specification states turbulent flows are created using magnetic nanoparticles or beads (Specification, Paragraph [0049]). Thus, if the turbulent flow and mixing created by the nanoparticles are what is promoting growth, the turbulent flow and mixing would inherently promote growth in any medium comprising nanoparticles and algal cells when the nanoparticles are moved around causing a turbulent flow. Therefore, the nanoparticles of Costas et al. would inherently promote growth and then release of the hydrocarbon from the organism.
Regarding the arguments over independent claim 34, Applicant argued the carbon atoms in graphene would not have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be “particles” and the carbon atoms in graphene are not “functionalized” as the term would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (Page 14, Paragraphs 1-3).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Vick et al. specifically discloses the nanomaterial, being graphene, comprises carbonaceous nanoparticles. Further, Vick et al. disclose, as discussed above, that the materials may be derivatized with one or more heteroatoms, e.g., substituted, or substituents wherein the substitution involve substitution with a functional group (Paragraph [0064]). It is noted the instant Specification does not define a ‘particle’ or ‘functionalized.’ Therefore, the disclosure of Vick et al. reads on particles and functionalized.
Applicant further argued that the nanomaterial of Vick et al. does not attach to cells or hydrocarbon products (Page 14, Paragraph 4).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. It is unclear what Applicant is referring to in regard to hydrocarbon ‘products.’ Nevertheless, Vick et al. specifically disclose the nanomaterial effectively binds numerous contaminants, and especially various hydrocarbons, such as pigments (Paragraph [0062]). Therefore, the contaminants the nanomaterial of Vick et al. binds to are hydrocarbons. It is noted independent claim 34 only requires the matrix attach to the hydrocarbon producing organism or the hydrocarbon. Therefore, Vick et al. meet this limitation.
Regarding the arguments over instant claim 54, Applicant reiterated previous arguments such as neither of the cited prior art documents nanoparticles facilitate growth of a hydrocarbon producing organism and graphene is not a functionalized matrix.
These arguments have been addressed above and the Examiner’s reiterates, respectfully, that these arguments were not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4, 10, 22, 27, 29-32, 34-38 and 40-54 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY T WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-0683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/A.T.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653