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 .
Claim Status
1. Claims 22, 26, 28, and 32-35 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Elections were made without traverse in the reply filed on March 17, 2025.
Claims 7-8, 10-15, 20-21, 23-25, 27, and 29-31 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments – Objections to the Specification
2. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 04, 2025 have been fully considered but do not overcome all of the objections of record.
Regarding the objection to the abstract of the disclosure failing to comment on a separate sheet, Applicant has not submitted an amended abstract in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b) nor has Applicant provided an argument traversing the objection. Accordingly, this objection is maintained.
Objections to the Specification
3. The specification of the disclosure is objected to because of the following reasons:
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments – Claim Objections
4. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 04, 2025 have overcome the objections of record.
Claim 31 is cancelled; therefore, any objections to this claim have been rendered moot.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
5. Claim 31 is cancelled; therefore, any rejections to this claim have been rendered moot.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 04, 2025 have overcome the rejections of record. However, said amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 04, 2025 have overcome the rejections of record. However, said amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
9. Claims 22, 26, 28, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beciri, D. (ANDREA – an air purifier which uses indoor plants to filter air. RobAid.com. 2009; (U)) in view of Zhang et al. (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018; 53(1): 325-331 (Applicant’s IDS)).
Regarding claim 22, Beciri teaches an air-purifying biofilter (p. 01, paragraph one): comprising (a) a planting structure comprising one or more houseplants wherein the transgenic houseplant is capable of removing a volatile organic compound from air (p. 01, paragraph two; p. 01, paragraph three; p. 01, paragraph four); and (b) an air flow device coupled to the planting structure and adapted to maintain airflow around the plants (p. 01, paragraph five; see drawings excerpted from p. 01, immediately below).
PNG
media_image1.png
142
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Beciri does not teach one or more transgenic houseplants stably transformed with an expression cassette comprising a first polynucleotide sequence encoding a mammalian cytochrome protein.
However, Zhang teaches an air-purifying biofilter (Abstract): comprising (a) a planting structure comprising one or more transgenic houseplants stably transformed with an expression cassette comprising a first polynucleotide sequence encoding a mammalian cytochrome protein wherein the transgenic houseplant is capable of removing a volatile organic compound from air (Abstract; p. 326, left column, fourth full paragraph; p. 326, “Vector Construction and Genetic Transformation”; p. 329, “Benzene Uptake by Transformed Pothos Ivy”; p. 329, “Chloroform Uptake by Transformed Pothos Ivy”); and (b) an air flow device coupled to the planting structure (p. 328, left column, “Benzene and Chloroform Uptake by Transformed Pothos Ivy”).
The combination of Beciri and Zhang teaches an air-purifying biofilter: comprising (a) a planting structure comprising one or more transgenic houseplants stably transformed with an expression cassette comprising a first polynucleotide sequence encoding a mammalian cytochrome protein wherein the transgenic houseplant is capable of removing a volatile organic compound from air; and (b) an air flow device coupled to the planting structure and adapted to maintain airflow around the plants.
The level of ordinary skill in the plant biotechnology art is high as evidenced by both Beciri and Zhang. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air-purifying biofilter of Beciri with the transgenic houseplant of Zhang because both Beciri and Zhang teach the use of houseplants to remove volatile organic compounds from the air, Beciri teaches the disclosed airflow device is suitable for use with any plant, and Zhang teaches that transgenic houseplants expressing mammalian cytochrome proteins demonstrate increased removal of volatile organic compounds (e.g., benzene and chloroform) from the air even without the addition of an air flow device capable of increasing mass airflow to the leaves of said plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would assume, with a high expectation of success, that combining the plant taught by Zhang with the air flow device taught by Beciri would enhance and/or increase the effectiveness of the air-purifying biofilter taught by Beciri; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the biofilter taught by Beciri with the plant taught by Zhang to enhance the biofilter’s ability to remove volatile organic compounds from the air. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention without any surprising or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 26, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Beciri teaches a 360% increase in the removal of volatile organic compounds from the air (p. 01, paragraph five). However, Beciri is silent regarding the room volume air change per hour. Zhang teaches a biofilter capable of about 80% or greater reduction in particulate in a room with air exchange with exterior spaces equal to one room volume air change per hour (p. 329, “Chloroform Uptake by Transformed Pothos Ivy”). Though Zhang does not explicitly address the recitation regarding one room volume air change per hour, there is no marked difference between the structure taught by Zhang and the biofilter recited by the claim. Accordingly, claim 26 is prima facie anticipated by the combination of Beciri and Zhang. See MPEP 2112.01 and In re Best 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 28, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Beciri teaches an enclosure surrounding the one or more transgenic houseplants (p. 01, paragraph two; see drawings excerpted from p. 01, above).
Regarding claim 32, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Beciri teaches the disclosed biofilter is suitable for use with any plant (p. 01, paragraph two). Beciri is silent to Epipremnum aureum. However, Zhang teaches Epipremnum aureum (Abstract).
Regarding claim 33, the teachings of Beciri and Zhang are as discussed above. Beciri does not teach a cytochrome P450 protein. However, Zhang teaches Cytochrome P450 2e1 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 35, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Beciri teaches the removal of formaldehyde (p. 01, paragraph five). Additionally, Zhang teaches the removal of benzene (p. 329, “Benzene Uptake by Transformed Pothos Ivy”) and chloroform (p. 329, “Chloroform Uptake by Transformed Pothos Ivy”).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention without any surprising or unexpected results.
10. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beciri, D. (ANDREA – an air purifier which uses indoor plants to filter air. RobAid.com. 2009; (U)), in view of Zhang et al. (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 325-331 (Applicant’s IDS)), as applied above in the rejection of claims 22, 26, 28, 32-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in view of Webster et al. (Biotechnology and bioengineering. 2017; 114(3):492-502 (previously cited)).
The combined teachings of Beciri and Zhang are as discussed above in the rejection of claims 22, 26, 28, 32-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 34, Beciri does not teach a mammalian cytochrome protein codon-optimized for plants.
However, Webster teaches codon-optimization for plant gene expression (pp. 496-498, “Strategies for Codon Optimization and Implications for Plant Molecular Pharming”), including cytochrome P450s (p. 498, left column, third full paragraph).
The combination of Beciri, Zhang, and Webster teaches a mammalian cytochrome protein codon-optimized for plants.
The level of ordinary skill in the plant biotechnology art is high as evidenced by Beciri, Zhang, and Webster. As stated above, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the air-purifying biofilter taught by Beciri with the transgenic houseplant expressing a mammalian cytochrome protein as taught by Zhang to improve the efficacy of the biofilter (see above). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the sequence encoding the mammalian cytochrome protein as taught by Zhang to comprise codons optimized for expression in plants as taught by Webster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is well-established in the art that modifying the codons within a sequence to comprise synonymous/silent substitutions that are preferentially expressed in the host species is beneficial for transgene expression (Webster; Abstract). Codon-optimization is routine and trivial for one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would reasonably predict that increasing the expression of mammalian cytochrome protein taught by Zhang would increase the activity of said protein and thus, would be motivated to do so to increase the ability of the transgenic houseplant to remove VOCs from the air.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention without any surprising or unexpected results.
Conclusion
11. No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED whose telephone number is (703)756-4779. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Amjad Abraham can be reached on (571)-270-7058. 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.
/DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663