DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment submitted 6/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 4 are currently amended. Claims 8, 11, and 15 are canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14 remain pending in the instant application.
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to U.S. National Stage Application No. PCT/BR2018/050158 filed on 5/16/2018 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/507,028 filed on 5/16/2017. The earliest effective U.S. filing date afforded the instantly claimed invention has been determined to be 5/16/2017, the filing date of the U.S. Provisional document.
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.
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.
Maintained Rejection: Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. 2013 (Mineral Engin., Vol. 45, p.67-72; of record) in view of Guo et al. 2014 (Bioresource Technology, Vol. 152, p.490-498; of record), as evidenced by Mishra et al. 2013 (“Ch. 5: Microbial Exopolysaccharides” The Prokaryotes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p.179-192; of record).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 13, and 14, Yang teaches a mineral flotation method that uses Rhodococcus erythropolis cells as a flocculant (see Title and Abstract). Yang teaches growing the Rhodococcus erythropolis strain (see p.68, left column, section 2.2). Yang teaches grinding samples of hematite ores in a porcelain ball mill and sieving the ground material which is not distinguishable from comminution of ore and preparation of pulp of limitation (see p.68, left column, section 2.1). Yang teaches the addition of reagents and conditioning, as well as flotation (which is not distinguishable from the step of conditioning the pulp with one or more reagents and the froth flotation limitations). See page 68 sections 2.2 and 2.3. Yang teaches adding the cell suspension after 2 minutes of conditioning have passed. Yang teaches that conditioning the pulp and flotation are performed at a pH ranging from 3 to 11 which is within the ranges recited in claims 13 and 14 (see p.69, right column, last two paragraphs and Fig. 5).
Yang does not teach performing a solid/liquid separation to separate a biomass comprising the bacteria from a liquid supernatant, extracting a bioreagent from the biomass, or wherein the one or more reagents comprise the bioreagent.
Guo teaches extracting different types of bioflocculants from Rhodococcus R3 bacteria (see Abstract, p.491, right column, 1st paragraph, and p.492, right column, 1st paragraph). Guo teaches extracting R3 from a sterilized sludge (biomass), wherein the sludge was sterilized by autoclaving (see p.492, left column, last paragraph). Guo teaches the extraction of capsular bioflocculant from bacterial pellets by centrifuging fermented broths of the R3 strain, removing the supernatant, re-suspending the pellet in a phosphate solution, heating the solution, centrifuging the solution, collecting the supernatant, and precipitating the capsular bioflocculant with 2 volumes of absolute chilled acetone to collect the precipitate (see p.492, right column, 1st paragraph). Guo teaches the concentration of capsular bioflocculant ranges from 24 to 38 mg/L, which is within the concentration range recited in claim 6 and thus reads on claim 6. Guo teaches extraction of a bioflocculant from bacterial biomass which reads on performing a solid/liquid separation to separate a biomass comprising the bacteria from a liquid supernatant and extracting a bioreagent from the biomass, as claimed. In regards to the limitation “wherein the bioreagent comprises intracellular compounds of the bacteria”, Mishra provides evidence that capsular exopolysaccharides, from which the capsular bioflocculant of Guo is obtained, comprise intracellular glucose compounds and that exopolysaccharides themselves are synthesized intracellularly, reading on this limitation (see p.181, right column, 1st passage and Figure 5.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the method for extracting capsular bioflocculant, as taught by Guo, to the R. erythropolis bacteria used as a flocculant, as taught by Yang, and to use the purified capsular flocculant in the method of Yang, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been applying a known bioflocculant extraction technique to provide purified bioflocculant to the method of Yang and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Guo teaches their method of purification in a Rhodococcus bacterium and Yang teaches using R. erythropolis as a bioflocculant, which would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the mineral flotation method recovers the minerals hematite and apatite from an ore containing these minerals (see Abstract, p.68, left column, 1st paragraph, and Figs. 3-6). Thus, Yang teaches the ore comprises the minerals hematite and apatite. Therefore, claim 2 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Yang teaches the mineral hematite includes mineral-gangues (mineral systems) hematite-quartz, hematite-kaolin, and hematite-apatite (see Table 1 and p.70, full right column). Thus, claims 3 and 12 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches performing flotation tests in flotation cells (see p.68, left column, 3rd paragraph). Thus, claim 9 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches froth flotation which is direct froth flotation as hematite is floated (see p.70, right column, 1st paragraph). Thus, claim 10 is prima facie obvious.
Maintained Rejection: Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. 2013 (Mineral Engin., Vol. 45, p.67-72; of record) in view of Guo et al. 2014 (Bioresource Technology, Vol. 152, p.490-498; of record), as evidenced by Mishra et al. 2013 (“Ch. 5: Microbial Exopolysaccharides” The Prokaryotes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p.179-192; of record), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Peng et al. 2014 (Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., Vol. 98, p.6847-6858; of record) and Moreau et al. 2003 (J. Amer. Oil Chemists Soc., Vol. 80, p.1063-1067; of record).
Yang and Guo teach the invention of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Guo teaches a chilled acetone extraction of capsular bioflocculant.
Yang and Guo do not teach wherein the solvent extraction process is a hot ethanol extraction process performed at temperature between about 100 and 140ºC.
Peng teaches cultivating Rhodococcus erythropolis to harvest bioflocculant from the bacterium using ethanol extraction (see Abstract and p.6851, right column, last passage). Peng teaches the Rhodococcus erythropolis bioflocculant extract is extracted by cold ethanol which is a form of solvent extraction (see Abstract and p.6851, right column, last passage).
Peng does not teach a hot ethanol extraction process performed at a temperature between about 100 and 140ºC.
Moreau compares various extraction solvents and methods, including ethanol, and finds that increasing the temperature of the solvents to 100ºC allowed for more of each lipid class to be extracted (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted ethanol extraction, as taught by Peng, for acetone extraction, as taught by Guo, and to perform the extraction at 100ºC, as taught by Moreau, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been applying extraction techniques known in the art to improve lipid class extraction and would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Peng teaches the ethanol extraction method in R. erythropolis.
Regarding claim 5, Guo teaches the extraction of capsular bioflocculant from bacterial biomass separated from liquid fermentation products, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Guo further teaches purifying the capsular bioflocculant (see p.492, right column, 1st paragraph).
Thus, claims 4 and 5 are prima facie obvious.
Maintained Rejection: Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. 2013 (Mineral Engin., Vol. 45, p.67-72; of record) in view of Guo et al. 2014 (Bioresource Technology, Vol. 152, p.490-498; of record), as evidenced by Mishra et al. 2013 (“Ch. 5: Microbial Exopolysaccharides” The Prokaryotes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p.179-192; of record), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Srdjan Bulatovic 2007 "Handbook of Flotation Reagents" (Chapter 1 - Classification of Flotation Reagents, p.1-3; of record).
Yang and Guo teach the invention of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 7, Yang and Guo does not teach the addition of a depressant reagent, a collecting reagent, and a foaming reagent in addition to the bioflocculant extract equivalent to a bioreagent.
Bulatovic teaches flotation reagents are the most important part of the flotation process and teaches depressants (depressant reagent), collectors (collecting reagents), and frothers (foaming reagents) (see p.1, 1st passage - 1st paragraph). Bulatovic teaches depressants are used to reduce conditions for hydrophobization of a particular mineral with the collector, or they can make the surface hydrophilic which governs the selectivity of the flotation process (see p.2 4th-5th paragraphs). Bulatovic teaches collectors selectively form a hydrophobic layer on a given mineral surface in the flotation pulp and thus provide conditions for attachment of the hydrophobic particles to air bubbles and recovery of such particles (see p.1 2nd paragraph). Bulatovic teaches frothers (foaming agents) are heteropolar surface-active compounds that lower the surface tension of water and have the ability to adsorb on the air bubble-water interface, increasing the film strength of the air bubbles, and providing better attachment of hydrophobic particles to the bubbles (see p.1 last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have also included depressant, collector, and frothing reagents, as taught by Bulatovic, with the addition of capsular bioflocculant extract in the mineral flotation process of Yang as modified by Guo to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because Bulatovic teaches these reagents are the most important part of the flotation process, each serving a critical purpose in selective mineral recovery. As such, their addition was routine in the art and would have yielded predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Bulatovic teaches these reagents are useful for flotation processes which Yang is directed to. Thus, claim 7 is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Applicant’s Remarks, see paragraph bridging p.4-5, Applicant argues that the prior art rejections over Yang in view of Guo are improper for failing to set forth an objective reason for why those skilled in the art would have made the modifications to Yang as set forth in the rejection. Applicant further argues that the Office fails to articulate why those skilled in the art would have applied the method for extraction taught by Guo to Yang, alleging Guo does not disclose or suggest that this method would provide anything useful for mineral flotation (see Applicant’s Remarks, p.5, 1st paragraph). Applicant further argues Yang does not disclose or suggest Rhodococcus erythropolis would be useful for mineral flotation. Applicant further argues The rational given in the rejection ignores that Guo is directed to providing bioflocculants for flocculation, and that flocculation is a different process from mineral flotation. Applicant argues it is unclear on what basis the Office is making the allegation given that Guo teaches extracting different types of bioflocculants from Rhodococcus R3 bacteria. Applicant submits there is no evidence on the record suggesting that those skilled in the art would have expected extracted material from Yang’s Rhodococcus erythropolis to provide anything useful for mineral flotation as presently claimed. Applicant argues there is no objective reason why those skilled in the art would have performed such an extraction technique on Yang’s Rhodococcus erythropolis in a method of mineral flotation, even if the existence of such extraction techniques were known to exist (see paragraph bridging, p.5-6). This is not found persuasive.
The rejection sets forth that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the method for extracting capsular bioflocculant, as taught by Guo, to the R. erythropolis bacteria used as a flocculant, as taught by Yang, and to use the purified capsular flocculant in the method of Yang, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been applying a known bioflocculant extraction technique to provide purified bioflocculant to the method of Yang and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Guo teaches their method of purification in a Rhodococcus bacterium and Yang teaches using R. erythropolis as a bioflocculant, which would yield predictable results. Yang teaches a mineral flotation method that uses Rhodococcus erythropolis cells as a flocculant (see Title and Abstract). Thus, it would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that bioflocculants are indeed useful in mineral flotation methods and not only flocculation methods as evidenced by Yang’s disclosure. In light of this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply to the teachings of Guo for extracting capsular bioflocculants from Rhodococcus cells to Yang’s R. erythropolis cells used as a flocculant in a mineral flotation method. The application of known techniques to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is an acceptable rational to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see MPEP § 2141(III)(D)). Therefore, the Office’s position on why Guo can be applied to the teachings of Yang is clear the claimed invention is prima facie obvious.
In Applicant’s Remarks, see p.6, 1st-2nd paragraphs, Applicant argues the art cited does not disclose or suggest a method of mineral flotation comprising the recited steps. Applicant argues the step of “extracting the bioreagent comprises autoclaving the biomass” as taught by Guo is done prior to extracting the bioflocculants from R3, and thus does not read on the recited step. This is not found persuasive.
Guo teaches extracting R3 from a sterilized sludge (biomass), wherein the sludge was sterilized by autoclaving (see p.492, left column, last paragraph). Even though the extraction is performed using a biomass that has been sterilized by autoclaving, it is considered to read on the recitation of “wherein extracting the bioreagent comprises autoclaving the biomass.” This recitation does not set a limit on exactly when the autoclaving must be done as long as it is performed as part of the extraction. From what is disclosed in Guo, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the step of extraction being carried out on sterilized sludge biomass includes that the sludge biomass is autoclaved. Moreover, it is prima facie obvious to rearrange the order the steps in processes in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)). Thus, Guo is considered to read on the recitation of “wherein extracting the bioreagent comprises autoclaving the biomass.”
In Applicant’s Remarks, see paragraph bridging p.6-7, Applicant argues that Mishra provides no indication that the intracellular glucose compounds would be useful for mineral flotation as presently claimed. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not demonstrated that intracellular glucose compounds are not useful for mineral flotation. In a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case (see MPEP § 2145). Furthermore, argument cannot replace evidence where evidence is necessary (see MPEP § 2145(I).
For these reasons, the claims remain prima facie obvious over Yang in view of Guo and as evidenced by Mishra as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN PAUL SELWANES whose telephone number is (571)272-9346. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Melenie L. Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.P.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/MELENIE L GORDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657