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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 19, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (FR1909208, filed on 14 August 2019) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 17-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOMINGUEZ et al. (Ulva lactuca, A Source of Troubles and Potential Riches, 2019, hereinafter DOMINGUEZ) in view of KIM et al. (Isolation and Physiological Characterization of a Novel Algicidal Virus Infecting the Marine Diatom Skeletonema costatum, 2015, hereinafter KIM).
Regarding Claim 17, DOMINGUEZ discloses an observation that in the Mediterranean Sea, Ulva blooms are reported to disappear naturally during spring. Preliminary experiments suggest that a virus present in Mediterranean seawater may provide a natural and ecological means of controlling these blooms. Enzyme activity associated with viruses was observed on denatured Ulva tissues collected from the Bay of Marseille, with viral particles noted to reach sizes of up to 1 μm. Viral control of algal blooms has also been observed in other marine species, including Aureococcus on the U.S. east coast and Tetraselmis in Hawaii (Pg. 2, Para. 4).
A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to investigate methods for controlling or preventing Ulva blooms for at least the following reasons based on DOMINGUEZ’s disclosure. First, Ulva blooms are described as both a source of environmental trouble and a potential resource. Second, a virus present in Mediterranean seawater may provide a natural and ecological means of controlling these blooms. Third, viral control of algal blooms has been observed in other marine species. In view of this, a person skilled in the art would reasonably look to practical processing techniques to obtain seawater fractions expected to contain viral activity for testing and application in bloom control.
However, DOMINGUEZ does not explicitly disclose filtering the seawater using a filter having a pore size of about 0.2 µm.
Consistent with DOMINGUEZ’s note that viral control of algal blooms has been observed in other marine species, KIM discloses isolating an algicidal virus (ScosV) infecting the marine diatom Skeletonema costatum. ScosV is a polyhedral virus having a diameter of 45 to 50 nm that causes lysis of host cultures (Abstract, Pg. 186).
Over 50 viruses or virus-like particles infecting marine eukaryotic algae have been isolated and characterized over the past two decades, and algal host virus systems have been established in laboratories. ScosV was isolated from coastal seawater, seawater samples were filtered through a 0.8 µm pore size filter, and S. costatum cultures inoculated with the filtered seawater were lysed by the filtrate. To confirm virus particles were present, a lysate of an S. costatum culture was filtered through a 0.2 µm pore size filter, and incubation with the viral lysate caused complete lysis of host cultures (Pg. 186, Col. 2 - Pg. 187, Col. 1).
A person skilled in the art would look to KIM’s established algal host virus isolation workflow when implementing DOMINGUEZ’s virus based Ulva bloom control concept, as this workflow verifies that an algicidal virus can have a particle size well below 0.2 µm and can cause complete lysis of host cultures, and provides a practical way to obtain a virus containing fraction by filtration while removing larger microorganisms that would interfere with isolating the viral effect, enabling controlled testing and application of viral activity for bloom control with predictable results (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate KIM’s algal host virus isolation and verification workflow into the viral control concept by DOMINGUEZ, including filtering the seawater using a filter having a pore size of about 0.2 µm.
Regarding Claim 18, modified DOMINGUEZ makes obvious a method for controlling harmful algal blooms of Claim 17. DOMINGUEZ discloses Ulva lactuca, a green macroalga responsible for green tides observed worldwide, particularly in shallow marine environments as a result of human activities (Abstract).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, modified DOMINGUEZ makes obvious a method for controlling harmful algal blooms of Claim 17. DOMINGUEZ discloses enzyme activity related to viral particle observed on denatured Ulva tissues in the Bay of Marseille (Pg. 2, Para. 4). While the specific coordinates are not expressly disclosed, it is reasonably interpreted that selecting seawater collection coordinates within the disclosed Bay of Marseille region corresponds to selecting a particular collection point within the disclosed sampling area, which is a routine collection choice.
Regarding Claim 21, modified DOMINGUEZ makes obvious a method for controlling harmful algal blooms of Claim 17. DOMINGUEZ discloses enzyme activity related to viral particle observed on denatured Ulva tissues in the Bay of Marseille (Pg. 2, Para. 4), but does not explicitly disclose that seawater is collected from the surface to a depth of at most 30 m. It is reasonably interpreted that collecting seawater from the surface to a depth of at most 30 m corresponds to sampling within the upper illuminated coastal water layer. This upper illuminated coastal water layer is the portion of the water column that receives sufficient light for photosynthesis, where phytoplankton and algae activity is concentrated, which is a routine collection depth choice.
Regarding Claim 22, modified DOMINGUEZ makes obvious a method for controlling harmful algal blooms of Claim 17. KIM discloses storing ScosV at 20°C, 15°C, 4°C, and −196°C and evaluating infectivity after 2 weeks and 4 months. Titers decreased after 2 weeks and fell below the detection limit after 4 months at 4°C, 15°C, and 20°C in the dark (Pg. 188, Col. 2 to Pg. 189, Col. 2). The disclosed storage temperatures overlap the claimed temperature range from about 4°C to about 30°C.
Regarding Claim 23 and 24, modified DOMINGUEZ makes obvious a method for controlling harmful algal blooms of Claim 17. DOMINGUEZ discloses that the active agent associated with Ulva bloom collapse is a virus, with enzyme activity observed on denatured Ulva tissues collected from the Bay of Marseille and the viral particle reaching sizes up to 1 μm (Pg. 2, Para. 4). KIM discloses isolating an algicidal virus (ScosV) having a diameter of 45 to 50 nm that causes lysis of host cultures (Abstract, Pg. 186).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed August 19, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 17 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is made in view of DOMINGUEZ and KIM.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/TAK L CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777