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 claims are entitled to an effective filing date of 04/12/2021.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2, 6-22, and 25-46 are cancelled. Claims 52-55 are new. Claims 1, 3-5, 23-24 and 47-55 are pending. Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 23-24 and 47-55 are under consideration in this action.
The § 112(a) new matter rejection of claim 1, 3, 11-14, 16, 23-24 and 47-51 is withdrawn in light of the amendment filed 10/29/2025.
The § 112(a) enablement rejection of claims 1, 3, 11-14, 16, 23-24 and 47-51 is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 23, and 49-50 as being anticipated by Wu with evidence from Huang and NOAA is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
(New rejection necessitated by amendment) Claims 24, 51 and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the product" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 24 recites “the aerobic microorganism produces the product”, which is indefinite because it is unclear which product is being referenced. Claim 51 depends from claim 24 and recites “wherein the aerobic microorganism produces the product from ethanol made by the anaerobic bacterium”. Thus, it is further unclear which product is being referenced in claim 51. To obviate this rejection, claim 24 may replace “the product” with “a product”.
Claims 54-55 depend from claim 24 and are rejected for the reason set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
(Maintained and extended to new claims 52-55) Claims 1, 3, 23-24, 47- 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US 2017/0260552), in view of Wu (Microbial cell factories, 2016, 15, 1-11), with evidence from Yasid (Homeostasis of metabolites in Escherichia coli on transition from anaerobic to aerobic conditions and the transient secretion of pyruvate. Royal Society open science 2016, 3(8), pp.160187) and Kato (Anaerobe tolerance to oxygen and the potentials of anaerobic and aerobic cocultures for wastewater treatment. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering 1997, 14, pp.395-407).
Regarding claims 1 and 47, Haas teaches a mixed culture of a first and second microorganism in an aqueous medium, wherein the second microorganism is selected from a group that includes aerobic microorganisms and the first microorganism is selected from a group that includes Clostridium ljungdahlii. See claims 1, 2 and 5. example 3, Haas teaches a method of culturing Clostridium ljungdahlii (an anerobic bacterium) and Escherichia coli (an aerobic microorganism). See example 3 in paragraph [0087]. For the joint production phase, E. coli and C. ljungdahlii are grown in an environment with a gas mixture composed of 65% H2, 33% CO2, and 2% O2 at 37ºC (i.e. a microaerobic environment). See paragraphs [0089] and [0092]. Gas is trapped in the culture medium using a frit, i.e. a porous ring, which is mounted in the center of the reactors of a sparger [0092]. Haas suggests that the aqueous culture medium may comprise oxygen that is dissolved by any means known in the art, such as a continuous gas flow (i.e. continually sparged) [0025-0026]. The environment of Haas is considered a microaerobic environment because the environment contains 2% oxygen at 37ºC. Haas implies that a gas pre-treatment to remove trace O2 is unnecessary, because Haas discloses that C. ljungdahlii can tolerate the presence of O2 [0092][0083][0032]. Evidentiary reference Yasid discloses that E. coli grows by aerobic respiration in the presence of oxygen (lines 1-2 of page 2). Evidentiary reference Kato adds that aerobic bacteria can protect anaerobes from O2 exposure, as oxygen can be rapidly consumed (see the first six lines on page 8). Thus, together the evidence of Yasid and Kato show that E. coli inherently consumes any present oxygen in a culture. The oxygen condition established in the E. coli and C. ljungdahlii culture is considered to be a low-oxygen condition because the anaerobic C. ljungdahlii grew. See [0092-0094]. For clarity, Haas indicates that C. ljungdahlii grew in the culture because Haas discloses that there was an increase in acetate, which is a product of C. ljungdahlii; and because Haas states that the E. coli and C. ljungdahlii are “grown” [0092]. Specifically, Haas discloses that after the cultivation period the results showed that there is an increase in acetate from 330 mg/l to 378 mg/l. See paragraph [0094].
In summation, Haas teaches a method for culturing anaerobic C. ljungdahlii, comprising culturing in a microaerobic environment the anaerobic bacteria C. ljungdahlii (relevant to instant claim 47) and an aerobic microorganism E. coli; wherein the microaerobic environment may not require pre-treatment to remove trace O2; the microaerobic environment is continually sparged with O2; and the aerobic E. coli microorganism of Haas inherently consumes oxygen such that the low-oxygen condition established is suitable for C. ljungdahlii growth. Yasid and Kato provide evidence for the inherent ability of E. coli to consume oxygen and establish a low-oxygen condition for anaerobic bacteria.
Haas does not explicitly teach a microaerobic environment that does not require gas pre-treatment to remove trace O2 (relevant to instant claim 1).
Wu discloses that strict anaerobes need special equipment and complicated operation to eliminate oxygen in the culture medium. See the first passage on page 2. Wu teaches a symbiotic system of Clostridium acetobutylicum TSH1and Bacillus cereus TSH2. Fermentation is performed statically at 37˚C without anaerobic treatment. See the ‘culture conditions’ section on page 9. Wu discloses that cells grow well and produce acetate, butanol and ethanol (ABE) in the symbiotic system with continuous air sparing. See the first passage on page 6 and the abstract for the indication that the sparging was continuous. Wu discloses that B. cereus TSH2 consumes dissolved oxygen in the culture and offers an anaerobic condition for C. acetobutylicum TSH1. See the first full paragraph in the left column on page 4.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to recognize that the removal of trace O2 is not required in the fermentation of Haas, because Haas suggests that C. ljungdahlii can tolerate O2 to an extent, and because Wu suggests that an aerobic microorganism may consume the dissolved oxygen in the culture to offer an anaerobic condition. One would be motivated to skip the unnecessary step to save money because Wu suggests complicated operations to eliminate oxygen in the culture medium can increase the total cost. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Haas suggested culturing the two strains in the presence of O2 and explicitly discloses that C. ljungdahlii could grow in the presence of 0.15% O2 and form typical products, such as acetate (see paragraph [0083]). Moreover, there would be a reasonable expectation of success because Wu demonstrates a co-culture with an anaerobic Clostridium bacterium and an aerobic microorganism that does not require an anaerobic treatment
Regarding claim 3, Haas teaches culturing C. ljungdahlii and E. coli in an environment containing a gas mixture of H2, CO2, and O2 and suggests that CO and/or CO2 may be used as a carbon source. See paragraphs [0092] and claim 1 on page 11.
Wu discloses that cells grow well and produce acetate, butanol and ethanol (ABE) in the symbiotic system with continuous air sparing (e.g. gas containing O2, CO, H2, and CO2). See the first passage on page 6 and the abstract
Regarding claim 23 and new claim 52, Haas teaches a method of producing at least one substituted or unsubstituted organic compound, the method comprising contacting a mixed culture of a first and second microorganism with oxygen and a carbon source comprising CO and/or CO2 , wherein the first microorganism is an acetogenic microorganism, such as Clostridium ljungdahlii, capable of converting the carbon source to acetate and/or ethanol; and the second microorganism, such as E. coli, is capable of metabolizing acetate and/or ethanol to the substituted or unsubstituted organic compound; wherein the substituted or unsubstituted organic compound may be selected from a list that includes amino acids. See claims 8, and 12-14 of Haas. Oxygen and the carbon source are provided to the aqueous medium in a continuous gas flow (i.e. continually sparged). See claim 9. The continuous gas flow has a concentration of oxygen at a range of 0.01 to 10% by weight. See claim 11. In example 3, Haas teaches a joint production phase in which both growth cultures, E. coli and C. ljungdahlii are grown in 2% O2 (a microaerobic environment). See paragraph [0092]. Haas implies that a gas pre-treatment to remove trace O2 is unnecessary, because Haas suggests that C. ljungdahlii can tolerate the presence of O2 [0092][0083][0032]. Yasid and Kato provide evidence for the inherent ability of E. coli to consume oxygen and establish a low-oxygen condition for anaerobic bacteria. See lines 1-2 of page 2 of Yasid and the first six lines on page 8 of Kato. Thus, Haas teaches a method of producing an amino acid product comprising culturing in a microaerobic environment anaerobic bacteria and an aerobic microorganism wherein the microaerobic environment does not require gas pre-treatment to remove trace O2; the microaerobic environment is continually sparged with O2 through continuous gas flow; the E. coli aerobic microorganism inherently consumes oxygen in the culture to allow growth of the anaerobic bacteria; the E. coli aerobic microorganism produces the product; and the aerobic bacteria are of the genus Clostridium.
Wu discloses that in the symbiotic system TSH06, not only cell growth (e.g. cell density) but solvent producing (e.g. ethanol) ability is enhanced. See the last paragraph in the right column on page 3 and figure 1B.
Regarding claim 24 and new claim 54, Haas teaches a synthesis gas culture (i.e. syngas fermentation) method, comprising culturing in an environment containing 2% O2 (e.g. a microaerobic environment) anaerobic C. ljungdahlii and aerobic E. coli [0088][0095-0096][0100]. Haas implies that a gas pre-treatment to remove trace O2 is unnecessary, because Haas suggests that C. ljungdahlii can tolerate the presence of O2 [0092][0083][0032]. Haas suggests that O2 is sparged into the medium, because Haas teaches trapping gas in the culture medium via a frit on a sparger, and suggests that oxygen can be dissolved in the medium by any means known in the art, such as a continuous gas flow (i.e. continually sparging). See paragraphs [0092] and [0025-0026]. Moreover, the E. coli is considered to inherently consume the oxygen present in the culture to an extent that allows the anaerobic C. ljungdahlii to grow, because Haas teaches growing E. coli with C. ljungdahlii [0092-0094]. Haas discloses that the second microorganism, such as E. coli, is capable of metabolizing acetate and/or ethanol to the substituted or unsubstituted organic compound (e.g. product). See claims 8, 13-14. Thus, Haas teaches a syngas fermentation method.
Wu discloses that in the symbiotic system TSH06, not only cell growth (e.g. cell density) but solvent producing (e.g. ethanol) ability is enhanced. See the last paragraph in the right column on page 3 and figure 1B.
Regarding claim 48, Haas teaches a mixed culture of a first and second microorganism. See claim 1. The second microorganism is selected from a group that includes aerobic microorganisms. See claim 2. The first microorganism is selected from a group that includes C. ljungdahlii and Eubacterium limosum. See claim 5.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to replace the C. ljungdahlii bacterium in example 3 of Haas discussed above with the Eubacterium limosum. A person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Haas indicates that C. ljungdahlii and Eubacterium limosum are interchangeable as a first microorganism in a mixed culture with an anaerobic microorganism.
Regarding claim 49, Wu teaches the relative abundance of C. acetobutylicum TSH1 and B. cereus TSH2 at different inoculation ratios. As shown in figure 4, the relative abundance of the aerobic B. cereus TSH2 increases from hour 0 to hour 4 at each inoculation ratio. See figure 4 and the caption below. Thus, Wu indicates that the aerobic microorganism increases in cell density.
Regarding claim 50, Wu discloses that C. acetobutylicum TSH1 becomes the dominant species and accounts for 99.85% of the whole population in solventogenic phase. Increasing inoculation ratio of B cereus TSH2 affects butanol producing ability of the symbiotic system, but the relative abundance of each strain is not affected in the final broth, and C. acetobutylicum TSH1 is the dominant species no matter how the inoculation ratio is changed. See the last paragraph of the conclusion section on page 9 and figure 4 above.
Regarding claim 51, Haas teaches a method of producing at least one substituted or unsubstituted organic compound, the method comprising contacting a mixed culture of a first and second microorganism with oxygen and a carbon source comprising CO and/or CO2 , wherein the first microorganism is an acetogenic microorganism, such as Clostridium ljungdahlii, capable of converting the carbon source to acetate and/or ethanol; and the second microorganism, such as E. coli, is capable of metabolizing acetate and/or ethanol to the substituted or unsubstituted organic compound; wherein the substituted or unsubstituted organic compound may be selected from a list that includes amino acids. See claims 8, and 12-14 of Haas.
Regarding new claim 53, Haas teaches a mixed culture of a first and second microorganism. See claim 1. The second microorganism is selected from a group that includes aerobic microorganisms. See claim 2. The first microorganism is selected from a group that includes C. ljungdahlii and Eubacterium limosum. See claim 5.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to replace the C. ljungdahlii bacterium in example 3 of Haas discussed above with the Eubacterium limosum. A person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Haas indicates that C. ljungdahlii and Eubacterium limosum are interchangeable as a first microorganism in a mixed culture with an anaerobic microorganism.
Regarding new claim 55, Haas teaches a mixed culture of a first and second microorganism. See claim 1. The second microorganism is selected from a group that includes aerobic microorganisms. See claim 2. The first microorganism is selected from a group that includes C. ljungdahlii and Eubacterium limosum. See claim 5.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to replace the C. ljungdahlii bacterium in example 3 of Haas discussed above with the Eubacterium limosum. A person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Haas indicates that C. ljungdahlii and Eubacterium limosum are interchangeable as a first microorganism in a mixed culture with an anaerobic microorganism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered, but they are unpersuasive.
103 rejection over Haas in view of Wu with evidence from Yasid and Kato
Applicant argues that the cited art does not teach or suggest the specific pairing of organisms and culture conditions in amended independent claims 1, 23 and 24. The amended claims require in combination: (1) a defined anaerobe limited to Clostridium ljungdahlii and Eubacterium limosum, (2) a defined aerobe limited to E. coli, (3) a microaerobic environment that does not require gas pre-treatment to remove trace O2, (4) continuous O2 sparging and (5) oxygen removal in situ by the aerobic E. coli to enable growth of the oxygen-sensitive acetogen. See the last full paragraph on page 7 of the remarks. Applicant asserts that Haas broadly describes mixed cultures of acetogenic and non-acetogenic microorganisms, but does not disclose the claimed microaerobic regime that forgoes gas pre-treatment while continuously sparing the culture with O2. Nor does Haas disclose the particular pairing of C. ljungdahlii or E. limosum with E. coli let alone that E. coli function as an in situ oxygen sink to permit growth of the acetogen under continuous O--2 influx. Wu likely does not teach the claimed co-culture under continuous O2 sparging without gas pre-treatment. Yasid’s general proposition that aerobic microorganisms consume oxygen adds no teaching about maintaining obligate anaerobes during sustained O2 sparging, and Kato does not address C. ljungdahlii or E. limosum in defined co-cultures under microaerobic control. See the paragraph spanning pages 7-8.
This argument is not persuasive because Haas and Wu meet every claimed limitation including the claimed components (1)-(5) described by Applicant above. Regarding components (1) and (2), Haas teaches a co-fermentation of Clostridium ljungdahlii and E. coli [0087] and further suggests that C. ljungdahlii is interchangeable with E. limosum [claim 5 of Haas]. Regarding component (3), Haas implies that a gas pre-treatment to remove trace O2 is unnecessary, because Haas discloses that C. ljungdahlii can tolerate the presence of O2 [0092][0083][0032]; and Wu provides motivation for neglecting a gas pre-treatment because Wu suggests that eliminating oxygen in the culture medium can increase the total cost. Regarding component (4), Haas, in example 3, teaches trapping gas in a culture medium using a frit, i.e. a porous ring, which is mounted in the center of the reactors of a sparger [0092], and Haas teaches continuous gas flow [0025-0026]. Moreover, regarding component (5), Haas implies that the C. ljungdahlii is “grown” in the presence of E. coli. See example 3 [0092] of Haas. Evidentiary references Yasid and Kato provide evidence that indicates that E. coli inherently consumes any oxygen in a culture. Thus, Haas and Wu meet every claimed limitation absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues that to the extent that the rejection relies on general propositions that aerobes consume oxygen (Yasid) or that aerobic niches may protect anaerobes in complex sludges (Kato), these statements do not supply the missing claim elements nor provide a reasonable expectation that obligate acetogens will maintain robust growth and product formation during continuous O2 sparging in a defined, two-member culture without gas treatment. Nor does Wu suggest using E. coli specifically to create a stable microaerobic environment for C. ljungdahlii or E. limosum. See the first full paragraph on page 8 of the remarks.
This argument is not persuasive because Yasid and Kato are not relied upon for teaching any claimed element. In example 3, Haas teaches a co-fermentation of Clostridium ljungdahlii and E. coli [0087] where cultivation is carried out in a pressure-tight glass bottle with a premixed gas composition that includes 2% O2 [0092]. Yasid and Kato are relied upon as evidentiary references because the combined teachings of Yasid and Kato suggest that E. coli inherently consumes any present oxygen in a culture. Independent claims 1, 23 and 24 require the aerobic microorganism to consume oxygen in the culture to allow growth of the anaerobic bacterium. The instant specification teaches, in example 2, a co-cultivation of C. ljungdahlii and E. coli in bioreactors sparged with 1% O2 See lines 4-5 on page 16. There is no evidence of record indicating that the E. coli of Haas is structurally or functionally distinct from the instantly claimed E. coli such that the E. coli of Haas would be incapable of consuming oxygen to an extent that allows for the growth of the C. ljungdahlii taught by Haas.
Applicant argues that the Office has not identified a teaching, suggestion or motivation based on the cited combination of references that would have led a skilled artisan to continuously sparge O2 into a co-culture containing an obligate anaerobe such as C. ljungdahlii or E. limosum, eliminate standard gas pre-treatment for oxygen removal and rely on E. coli respiration to maintain the acetogen’s growth. The routine practice in acetogen cultivation is to minimize oxygen exposure, often by pre-treating gases, scrubbing O2, or using strong reducing conditions. Haas does not depart from this paradigm or suggest that continuous O2 sparging can be tolerated. Wu does not address acetogen survival and productivity under sustained O2 delivery. Kato does not provide an enabling roadmap. In view of the oxygen sensitivities of acetogenic metabolism and the differences between methanogens in sludge consortia and acetogens in defined bioreactors, a one would have had no reasonable expectation of success. See the last paragraph on page 8.
This argument is not persuasive because mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). In paragraph [0032], Haas implies that aerotolerant microorganisms, such as Clostridium, are capable of living in the presence of oxygen, and Wu demonstrates a fermentation process in which an anaerobic treatment is unnecessary for a Clostridium bacterium. Haas states that “[t]hese bacteria [i.e. aerotolerant bacteria] live by fermentation alone, regardless of the presence of oxygen in their environment” [0032]. In paragraph [0075], Haas states that “Clostridium ljungdahlii is adapted to grow in an environment comprising oxygen”. Therefore, Haas implies that a gas pre-treatment to remove O2 is not necessary. Moreover, Wu suggests that eliminating oxygen in a culture medium for strict anaerobes can increase the total cost. See the first passage on page 2. Wu demonstrates a co-culture in which the aerobic microorganism consumes dissolved oxygen to sustain an anaerobic environment. See the first passage on page 4. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably recognized that the microaerobic environment of Haas does not require a gas pre-treatment to remove trace O2 in view of the teachings, motivation and suggestions of Haas and Wu.
Applicant argues that the present application and the Woolston Declaration previously submitted provide direct, quantitative evidence that is contrary to the art-based expectations and demonstrates unexpected properties. Applicant showed, using qPCR, that both anaerobe and E. coli increased substantially in biomass during co-cultivation under both heterotrophic and autotrophic conditions. In autotrophic operation, the OD reaches 6.5 with C. ljungdahlii comprising approximately 30% biomass. See figure 1 of the Woolston declaration. By contrast, Haas reports a maximum OD of 0.406 in example 2 during co-cultivation and does not disclose how much, if any C. ljungdahlii contributed. Moreover, Applicant argues that figures 4A-4B show that acetate and ethanol increase from 0g/L to above 1.5 g/L despite continuous O2 sparging, establishing that acetogenic metabolism proceeded vigorously under conditions that the art would have regarded as hostile to strict anaerobes. See the paragraph spanning pages 8-9 of the remarks.
This argument is not persuasive because in order to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, the results relied upon must be unexpected and of both statistical and practical significance, they must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support, and they must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02(b)-(e). The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 11/08/2024 is insufficient to overcome the rejection because the results disclosed in the declaration are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Exhibit A of the declaration teaches growing E. coli on glycerol as the primary carbon substrate with a range of continually sparged gas mixtures. After 4 hours, C. ljungdahlii is inoculated and the sparging of the gas is continued. Biomass samples are collected after 48h and analyzed by qPCR. When 60% H2, 35% CO2, and 5% air is supplied both strains grow robustly. The declaration suggest that it is surprising that the E. coli growth is highest in the co-culture actively growing C. ljungdahlii. See page 4 of the declaration. Exhibit A of the declaration is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims, because the instant claims do not limit the culturing method to the specific conditions described in the declaration. For example, the instant claims do not require the microaerobic environment to be supplied with 60% H2, 35% CO2, and 5% air, as set forth in the declaration. Furthermore, Applicant argues that figures 4A-4B [of the instant disclosure] show that acetate and ethanol increase from 0g/L to above 1.5 g/L despite continuous O2 sparging. However, the instant claims do not require acetate and/or ethanol to be produced. Rather, claim 51 requires the aerobic microorganism to produce the product from ethanol made by the anaerobic bacterium. Thus, the argument is not persuasive because the results relied upon are not commensurate in scope with the claims. For a more detailed response to the Woolston declaration see pages 14-16 of the final rejection mailed 12/27/2024.
Applicant asserts that the data is commensurate in scope with the pending claims in view of the amendment, which requires the specific organism pairings and operating regime that were tested. The record includes data for C. ljungdahlii with E. coli under continuous O2 sparging without gas pre-treatment and demonstrates the required functional outcome. The Declaration additionally documents the high O2 tolerance of E. limosum in the claimed microaerobic configuration, supporting the second recited acetogen. See the last full paragraph on page 9 of the remarks.
This argument is not persuasive for reasons discussed above. The declaration and the specification provide support for the specific organism pairings, i.e. the C. ljungdahlii with E. coli and the E. limosum with E. coli. However, the tested operating regimes referenced by Applicant are narrower compared to the instant claims, as discussed above. Thus, the results relied upon are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Conclusion
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 KIMBERLY C BREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-4:30, F 8:30-1:30 (EDT/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, LOUISE 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.
/K.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights