DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment submitted on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13 and 15-24 remain pending in the instant application. Claims 13, 16, and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1-12 and 14 are canceled.
Claims 21-24 remain withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 13 and 15-20 are the subject of this office 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to recite “at least one” instead of “the microorganism” in lines 5-6, 8, and 13-17 in claim 13, line 2 in claim 16, and line 1 of claim 20 overcomes the rejection of claims 13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Step (c) in claim 13 should recite an action verb, such as performing, at the beginning of the step. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licamele (US2013/0164834; of record) in view of Shelford et al. (Biogeosciences 2018, Vol. 15, p.809-819; of record) and Hacker et al. (US2013/0157277; of record), as evidenced by Kawasaki et al. 2013 (Appl. Environ. Microbiol., Vol. 79(23), p.7160-7168; of record).
Licamele teaches systems and methods for the removal of contaminants from liquid culture of cyanobacteria, reading on methods of culturing cyanobacteria in an aqueous culture medium (see Abstract, paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and [0022]-[0024], and Figs. 4-5). Licamele teaches the contaminants include competitors, bacteria, fungi, invasive algae other than the primary algae type of the culture, and zooplankton, reading on contaminating microorganisms developing naturally in the aqueous culture medium (see paragraphs [0002], [0028] and [0029]). Licamele further teaches the systems support both mixotrophic and heterotrophic culturing, reading on by heterotrophy or mixotrophy (see paragraphs [0102], [0105], and claims 13 and 18). Licamele further teaches contaminant removal and separation systems comprise mechanical filtration, reading on physically separating the microorganism of interest and the contaminating microorganism (see paragraphs [0027], [0031], [0094], and [0095], and Figs. 4-5). The contaminant removal system can remove contaminants from the liquid algae culture and leave a substantial portion of the primary algae type remaining in the liquid algae culture returned to the culturing vessel for continued growth of the primary algae type (see paragraphs [0032], [0043], [0053], [0086], and [0093]-[0095], and Figs. 4-5). Licamele further teaches the contaminant removal systems include methods to treat any portion of the fluid from the algae culturing vessel to achieve the desired level of contaminant removal as well as splitting the liquid algae culture into fractions for processing (see paragraphs [0043] and [0097]). Thus, Licamele is considered to teach an equivalent method for cultivating a cyanobacterium microorganism, by heterotrophy or mixotrophy, in an aqueous culture medium with contaminating microorganisms developing naturally, comprising sampling a portion of the aqueous culture medium comprising the microorganism of interest and the contaminating microorganisms, the microorganism of interest being a cyanobacterium; physically separating the microorganism of interest and the contaminating microorganism in the portion of aqueous culture medium by using filtration, and reintroducing the microorganism of interest separated at step (b) into the aqueous culture medium comprising the microorganism of interest.
Licamele does not teach at least one of a chemical lysis and a thermal lysis of the contaminating microorganisms thus separated to produce a lysate comprising an organic carbon, reintroducing the lysate into the aqueous culture medium comprising the microorganism of interest and the contaminating microorganisms to supply digestible source of nutrition to the microorganism of interest alone or in mixture with the reintroduced microorganism of interest.
Shelford teaches that nutrient recycling is an important link between phytoplankton, of which cyanobacteria are an example, and heterotrophic bacterioplankton in the ocean (see p.809, left column, 2nd passage). Upon death, bacteria release dissolved organic material (DOM) rich in free and combined amino acids that are taken up and metabolized by bacteria (see p.809, passage bridging left and right columns). Shelford teaches that the mixotrophic growth of the cyanobacterium Synechococcus in a non-axenic (with contaminants), aqueous, and semi-continuous culture was enhanced when cultured with bacterial lysate, that phytoplankton in culture and in environmental samples take up N from bacterial lysates, and that ammonium produced through bacterial remineralization of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) enables that uptake (see p.810, left column, 2nd passage, p.813, left column, 2nd-- passage, 2nd paragraph, and passage bridging left and right columns, p.814, right column, last passage, and p.815, right column, last passage). While Shelford focused their attention on DON found in DOM, Kawasaki provides evidence that heterotrophic bacteria are major contributors to the DOM pool in the ocean and the contributions of bacterially derived carbon to particulate organic carbon (POC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) pools are in the range of 20 to 40% in open oceans (see p.7160, left column, 1st paragraph). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the bacterial lysate of Shelford to also comprise DOC and POC. Therefore, Shelford discloses an equivalent of lysis of microorganisms to produce a lysate comprising organic carbon and reintroducing the lysate into the aqueous culture medium of Synechococcus growing with contaminants (non-axenic) to supply a digestible source of nutrition to the organism of interest, as claimed in steps (c) and (d).
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 lysed the contaminating microorganisms and reintroduced the lysate into the culture medium to provide a digestible source of nutrients, as taught by Shelford, after separating the cyanobacteria from the contaminating organisms by mechanical filtration, as taught by Licamele, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to because Shelford teaches that heterotrophic bacteria provide nutrients that enhance the growth of cyanobacteria and many nutrients are released upon cell death and lysis of the heterotrophic bacteria. Thus, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been modifying common practices in the cultivation of cyanobacteria with a reasonable expectation of success.
Shelford does not teach wherein the lysis is at least one of a chemical lysis and a thermal lysis.
Hacker discloses devices and methods for detecting microbial contaminants, such as bacteria and fungi, in fluids utilizing filtration devices for the capture and processing of microorganisms from fluids, and improved methods for recovery, lysis, and detection of microorganisms based on a combination of physical disruption with small beads and lysis solutions (see Abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0006], and [0012]). Hacker further discloses a detergent-based lysis solution is used to lyse the captured microorganisms during bead beating, which reads on a chemical lysis (see paragraphs [0013], [0038], [0041], and [0043]-[0044]).
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 the devices and method for detecting microbial contaminants in fluids by filtration and lysing the contaminating microbes by bead beating and detergent-based lysis, as taught by Hacker, for the filtration and lysis of contaminants and return of the lysate to the culture medium in the method of culturing cyanobacteria, as taught by Licamele and Shelford, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been substituting known methods of filtering and lysing contaminant microbes from fluid culture medium, yielding predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the devices and methods taught by Hacker are directed to contaminant microbes and Licamele also seeks to remove contaminant microorganisms from the culture medium intended to culture cyanobacteria.
Regarding claim 15, Licamele teaches an adjustable operating parameter that may be optimized is the total organic carbon in the liquid algae culture (see paragraph [0046]). It would be obvious to further supply the liquid algae culture with more organic carbon in order to provide the cyanobacteria growing the liquid algae culture medium with additional nutrients.
Regarding claim 16, this limitation can be interpreted as not being required to be performed if the predetermined time is 0s and the method of claim 13 is carried out instantly.
Regarding claim 18, Licamele teaches the liquid culture may comprise microalgae and cyanobacteria and teaches the microalgae may be cyanobacteria (see Abstract and paragraph [0023]). Thus, it is understood that the liquid culture may comprise multiple cyanobacteria, reading on different microorganisms of interest. Therefore, multiple cyanobacteria may be subjected to the method of culturing cyanobacteria as taught by Licamele in view of Shelford and Hacker and set forth in the rejection of claim 13, where the multiple cyanobacteria are selected, reading on claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have repeated the steps (a) – (d) taught by Licamele in view of Shelford and Hacker, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because it is a common laboratory practice to repeat steps of a process in an attempt to optimize the process and it would have yielded predictable results. Further, Licamele teaches multiple turnovers of the liquid algae culture through the contaminant removal system which reads on repeating the contamination removal steps from the liquid culture of cyanobacteria.
Therefore, claims 13, 15-16, and 18-19 are prima facie obvious.
Maintained Rejection: Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licamele (US2013/0164834; of record) in view of Shelford et al. (Biogeosciences 2018, Vol. 15, p.809-819; of record) and Hacker et al. (US2013/0157277; of record), as evidenced by Kawasaki et al. 2013 (Appl. Environ. Microbiol., Vol. 79(23), p.7160-7168; of record), as applied to claims 13, 15-16, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Islam et al. 2017 (Micromachines, Vol. 8(45), p.1-19; of record).
Licamele in view of Shelford and Hacker, as evidenced by Kawasaki, teach the invention of claim 13 as outlined in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 17, Licamele in view of Shelford and Hacker do not teach concentrating the contaminating microorganisms separated in the portion of aqueous culture medium.
Islam teaches a method for automated and reagent-free concentration and electrical lysis of bacteria in a microfluidic device using a nanoporous membrane (see Abstract). Islam teaches the main advantage of direct application of electrical pulses to concentrate and lyse cells is that it is rapid and does not require any reagents (see p.2, last paragraph).
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 combined the method for concentrating and lysing bacterial cells, as taught by Islam, with the bead beating and detergent lysis of filtered contaminants, as taught by Licamele in view of Shelford and Hacker above, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Islam teaches the method is rapid and would have been combining methods of lysis, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2144.06(I) sets forth that is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known for the same purpose, in this case, lysis of cells. Thus, claim 17 is prima facie obvious.
Maintained Rejection: Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licamele (US2013/0164834; of record) in view of Shelford et al. (Biogeosciences 2018, Vol. 15, p.809-819; of record) and Hacker et al. (US2013/0157277; of record), as evidenced by Kawasaki et al. 2013 (Appl. Environ. Microbiol., Vol. 79(23), p.7160-7168; of record), as applied to claims 13, 15-16, and 18-19 above, and further in view of O’Flaherty (Growth of Aphanizomenon Flos-Aquae in Defined Media, Thesis, Oregon State University 1968; of record).
Licamele in view of Shelford and Hacker, as evidenced by Kawasaki, teach the invention of claim 13 as outlined in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 20, Licamele, Shelford, and Hacker do not teach wherein the microorganism of interest is the cyanobacterium Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (AFA).
O’Flaherty teaches the culturing and maintaining of a strain of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae Born. et Flah. and teaches that bacteria-free (contaminant free) cultures of AFA were not obtained (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 cultured AFA Born. et Flah., as taught by O’Flaherty, in the methods for the removal of contaminants from liquid culture of cyanobacteria, as taught by Licamele, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to because O’Flaherty teaches AFA Born et Flah is incapable of growing contaminant free and Licamele teaches a method for the removal of contaminants from liquid cultures of cyanobacteria, yielding predictable results. Therefore, claim 20 is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Applicant’s Remarks, see p.6, 1st paragraph,-p.7, 5th paragraph, Applicant argues that Licamele does not teach or suggest step (b) of claim 13. Applicant further argues Licamele teaches removing contaminating microorganisms by foam fractionation methods as depicted in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraphs [0027], [0032], [0035], [0040], [0055], and [0059]. Applicant argues that Licamele’s foam-fractionation process does not equate to Applicant’s claimed step (b), since it is a separation method and not a filtration method. Applicant further argues the contaminant-rich foam produced by the foam-fractionation process is not practical for use in chemical lysis. Applicant further argues Licamele’s foam-fractionation process does not allow for filtering specifically for contaminating microorganisms. Applicant further argues a POSITA consulting Licamele would not apply its teaching to arrive at the claimed invention, since Licamele points out that the foam-fractionation removes a portion of the microorganism of interest. Applicant further argues the apparatus embodiments that include a mechanical filter (i.e., reference 405, in Figs. 4 and 5) disclosed in Licamele are not taught or suggested to separate the microorganism of interest and contaminating microorganism. Applicant further argues the mechanical filter of Licamele is always used in combination with foam-fractionation device, a UV sterilizer, and an activated carbon filter prior to returning the liquid algae culture to the vessel. Applicant argues this arrangement of filters in Licamele does not allow for the retrieval of a fraction rich in competing organism that may serve as the basis for producing a lysate according to step (d) of pending claim 13. This is not found persuasive.
While Licamele discloses removal of contaminants from the aqueous culture medium by foam fractionation as Applicant argues, multiple other components that can be used with the contaminant removal system are also suggested. Page 5, 2nd paragraph, of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 7/17/2025 includes a citation to paragraph [0004] of Licamele for teachings regarding contamination removal, which suggests mechanical filtration. That is, Licamele specifically teaches the contaminant removal system may further include a mechanical filtration device in paragraph [0004]. Therefore, the POSITA would be able to substitute other means for contaminant removal that were disclosed in the Licamele reference for foam fractionation to yield predictable results of contaminant removal. Moreover, the teachings of Shelford provide a POSITA with motivation to lyse the contaminating microorganisms of a cyanobacterial culture and return the lysate produced to the culture medium to provide additional nutrients to the cyanobacteria being cultured. Specifically, Shelford teaches that nutrient recycling is an important link between phytoplankton, of which cyanobacteria are an example, and heterotrophic bacterioplankton in the ocean (see p.809, left column, 2nd passage). Upon death, bacteria release dissolved organic material (DOM) rich in free and combined amino acids that are taken up and metabolized by bacteria (see p.809, passage bridging left and right columns). Shelford teaches that the mixotrophic growth of the cyanobacterium Synechococcus in a non-axenic (with contaminants), aqueous, and semi-continuous culture was enhanced when cultured with bacterial lysate, that phytoplankton in culture and in environmental samples take up N from bacterial lysates, and that ammonium produced through bacterial remineralization of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) enables that uptake (see p.810, left column, 2nd passage, p.813, left column, 2nd-- passage, 2nd paragraph, and passage bridging left and right columns, p.814, right column, last passage, and p.815, right column, last passage). While Shelford focused their attention on DON found in DOM, Kawasaki provides evidence that heterotrophic bacteria are major contributors to the DOM pool in the ocean and the contributions of bacterially derived carbon to particulate organic carbon (POC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) pools are in the range of 20 to 40% in open oceans (see p.7160, left column, 1st paragraph). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the bacterial lysate of Shelford to also comprise DOC and POC, and the POSITA would have been motivated to provide lysate of separated contaminating microorganisms to a cyanobacterial culture to provide organic nutrients. Furthermore, the rejection set forth further relies on Hacker’s teachings to fulfil the limitation of physically separating the at least one microorganism of interest and the contaminating microorganisms in the portion of aqueous culture medium by using filtration and at least one of a chemical lysis of the contaminating microorganism thus separated to produce a lysate comprising an organic carbon. Specifically, the rejection states, “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 the devices and method for detecting microbial contaminants in fluids by filtration and lysing the contaminating microbes by bead beating and detergent-based lysis, as taught by Hacker, for the filtration and lysis of contaminants and return of the lysate to the culture medium in the method of culturing cyanobacteria, as taught by Licamele and Shelford, to arrive at the claimed invention” (see Action – paragraph bridging p.8-9). A POSITA is not an automaton and would be able to modify the teachings of Licamele according to the motivations provided by Licamele, Shelford, and Hacker, to arrive at the claimed invention and yield predictable results.
In Applicant’s Remarks, see p.8, 1st paragraph,-p.9, last paragraph, Applicant argues that it is the Examiner’s opinion that Shelford describes an equivalent of lysis of microorganisms to produce a lysate having organic carbon. Applicant further argues that the POSITA consulting Shelford would not have found any motivation or incentive to implement chemical or thermal lysing but would have resorted to viral-mediated transfer of Nitrogen. Applicant further argues that the POSITA would not have been motivated to replace Shelford’s lytic infection with thermal or chemical lysis because the POSITA knows the lysate obtained from thermal or chemical lysis cannot be equated with the lysate obtained from the lytic infection. Applicant reiterates the arguments present in the reply submitted 3/2/2025 with regards to the material and quality difference in lysis products obtained from different methods of lysing. Applicant argues alkaline chemical treatment, whether associated with thermal treatment or not, is generally reported to lead to the formation of inhibitors of microbial reactions, relying on previously provided Exhibit B. Applicant further argues lysate obtained by the action of bacteriophages results in the conservation of the biochemical composition of the lysed microorganism pointing to previously provided Exhibit C, and therefore, produces a more suitable nutrient substrate than thermo-chemical treatment, particularly via the action of alkaline molecules, which can produce microbial inhibitors. This is not found persuasive.
The rejection sets forth that Shelford teaches that nutrient recycling is an important link between phytoplankton, of which cyanobacteria are an example, and heterotrophic bacterioplankton in the ocean (see p.809, left column, 2nd passage). Upon death, bacteria release dissolved organic material (DOM) rich in free and combined amino acids that are taken up and metabolized by bacteria (see p.809, passage bridging left and right columns). Shelford teaches that the mixotrophic growth of the cyanobacterium Synechococcus in a non-axenic (with contaminants), aqueous, and semi-continuous culture was enhanced when cultured with bacterial lysate, that phytoplankton in culture and in environmental samples take up N from bacterial lysates, and that ammonium produced through bacterial remineralization of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) enables that uptake (see p.810, left column, 2nd passage, p.813, left column, 2nd-- passage, 2nd paragraph, and passage bridging left and right columns, p.814, right column, last passage, and p.815, right column, last passage). While Shelford focused their attention on DON found in DOM, Kawasaki provides evidence that heterotrophic bacteria are major contributors to the DOM pool in the ocean and the contributions of bacterially derived carbon to particulate organic carbon (POC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) pools are in the range of 20 to 40% in open oceans (see p.7160, left column, 1st paragraph). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the bacterial lysate of Shelford to also comprise DOC and POC, and the POSITA would have been motivated to provide lysate of separated contaminating microorganisms to a cyanobacterial culture to provide organic nutrients. As demonstrated above, the Examiner does not rely on opinion to demonstrate that the lysate comprises organic carbons and provides evidence of this feature by what is disclosed in Kawasaki. Applicant’s arguments with regards to a POSITA having no motivation to replace lytic lysis with chemical lysis are not persuasive because a POSITA is a person of ordinary creativity and understands that lysates can be obtained by various means as taught in the art. Furthermore, Applicant’s evidence does not demonstrate that replacement of lytic lysis with chemical or thermal lysis would prevent the lysate from having the beneficial nutrients described in Shelford and Kawasaki. The arguments submitted 3/2/2025 have been addressed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 7/17/2025. Moreover, Applicant’s arguments with regards to alkaline chemical lysis are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, as none of the claims explicitly limit the chemical lysis to alkaline lysis. Chemical lysis is broadly recited in the claims, and Applicant should consider limiting the lysis step to an alkaline chemical lysis to give weight to the arguments provided 3/2/2025 and herein.
In Applicant’s Remarks, see p.10, 1st paragraph,-p.11, 4th paragraph, Applicant argues that Hacker’s technical field relates to contamination monitoring and safety and does not relate to the technical field of the claimed invention: cultivation of microorganism. Applicant further argues that Hacker’s method is not designed to be used on microorganism cultures which are voluntarily cultivated, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consult Hacker to apply their teachings to microorganism cultivation. Applicant further argues that the lysis described by Hacker does not allow for reintroducing the lysate to supply a digestible source of nutrition, as required in claim 13, since Hacker demonstrates lysis with aggressive solutions that are microbial growth inhibitors. Applicant points to paragraph [0013] of Hacker and argues that Tween-20 inhibits growth on mixed bacteria populations, providing Exhibit D for evidence of such. Applicant further argues N-lauroyl sarcosinate is an antibacterial salt that would be detrimental, if not fatal, to the microorganism culture if it is introduced with the lysate and provides Exhibit E for evidence. Finally, Applicant argues sodium deoxycholate inhibits Gram-negative bacteria, providing Exhibit F for evidence. Applicant concludes that the exemplified lysing solutions in Hacker would be unthinkable to reintroduce a lysate using these solutions in a culture of microorganisms without compromising microbial growth. This is not found persuasive.
Applicant limits the technical field of Hacker to only contamination monitoring and safety and excludes the teachings of Hacker from the field of cultivation of microorganisms. Hacker explicitly discloses in paragraph [0002] that the present invention relates generally to detection of microbial contaminants in fluids, and more specifically to filtration devices for capture of microorganism and methods for recovery, lysis, and detection of microorganisms using such filtration devices. Furthermore, Hacker discloses in paragraph [0006] that the present disclosure provides a filtration device for capture and lysis of microorganisms from liquids, and methods for capturing, lysis, and detecting microorganisms using the provided devices. Even more, Hacker explicitly states in paragraph [0012] that the liquid can be a cell culture medium. Thus, Applicant severely limits the applicability of Hacker’s teachings and technical field. The culture medium disclosed in Licamele is an aqueous culture medium, i.e., a fluid/liquid, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the teachings of Hacker to be applicable and usable in the cyanobacterial cultivation method of Licamele. Applicant’s arguments that Hacker’s exemplary disclosures of chemical lysis solutions cannot be used to arrive at the claimed invention are not persuasive because the rejection doesn’t specifically limit the chemical lysis to any of Tween-20, n-lauroyl sarcosine sodium, or sodium deoxycholate. The rejection relies on detergent-based lysis solutions, which comprise more solutions than the three Applicant argues are incompatible with reintroduction to the culture medium. Moreover, none of Applicant’s evidence provided in Exhibits D-F demonstrate that the three chemical solutions are detrimental to specifically cyanobacteria, as required to be cultivated in claim 13, or specifically Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, as required in claim 20.
For these reasons, the rejections of claims 13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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, Louise W. Humphrey can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/J.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1657