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 .
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17-20, 22-27, 33-34, 36-41, 43-50, 52-127 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 28-29, 35, 42 and 51 and newly presented claim 128 are still at issue and are present for examination.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 21, 30-32 remain withdrawn but once allowable subject matter is identified, they will be rejoined with the elected invention.
Applicants' arguments filed on 3/27/26 have been fully considered and are deemed to be persuasive to overcome some of the rejections previously applied. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 28-29, 35, 42, 51 and 128 remain 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 1 (and its dependent claims 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 28-29, 35, 42, 51 and 128) according to previous office action. The term “multi” according to Merriam-Webster dictionary refers to more than two. Also, a search of “multi-phase solution” on the internet discloses the following:
A multi-phase solution (or multiphasic liquid) is a mixture containing three or more immiscible phases Wikipedia. These can include combinations such as:
Nonpolar solvent / aqueous phase
Nonpolar solvent / polar solvent / salt / water
Nonpolar solvent / water-soluble polymer / salt / water
Multiple organic solvents, polymers, salts, and/or water Wikipedia.
However, instant claim 1 only mentions two phases. Applicant must clarify what the other phases of the multi-phase solution are (i.e. are they liquid, solid or vapor or something else) and what they are comprised of. It is also noted that in [0015], applicant has given an example of “a multi-phase” solution, but no explicit definition of said phrase can be found in the disclosure and therefore, the metes and bounds of said phrase remains unknown.
Applicant also needs to explain when in step (c) of claim 1, first phase is isolated from the second phase, what happens to the other phases of the “multi-phase solution” of step (b).
In response to this rejection, applicant argues that he/she has amended claim 1 to recite “to form a multi-phase solution comprising a “first phase” and a “second phase”. This response however, does not clarify the issue raised above and in the previous office action and remains for applicant to consider.
In addition, applicant is claim 1 recites inconsistent units of concentration. For example, in claim 1 part (b) applicant mentions glucose concentration in wt.% but in parts (e) and (g) of said same claim, the concentrations recited are in “g/L”, rendering the claim confusing. Applicant is advised to use a consistent unit for reciting concentrations at least in a single claim, to avoid confusion.
Finally, in claim 1 (f), The phrase “a concentration of glucose in fermentation broth…” is confusing. The term “a” is generic and it is unclear how many different concentrations of glucose are embraced in said part of claim 1. Applicant may consider substituting said term with “the”.
Claims 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 28-29, 35, 42, 51 and 128 are rejected merely for depending from claim 1.
Claim 16 is 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. In claim 16, line 1, the term “a” appears to be unnecessary.
Claim 29 is 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. In dependent claim 29, it is unclear how may “bottoms” the tank has. Applicant has provided no drawings for this invention. By reciting “a bottom of the tank” in claim 29, it is implied that the tank may have more than one bottom. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 42 and 51 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. In dependent claims 42 and 51, it is unknown which “fermentation product” is referred to. The “fermentation product” of step (f) or the “fermentation product” of step (h).
No claim is allowed.
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 MARYAM MONSHIPOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-0932. The examiner can normally be reached full-flex.
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.
/MARYAM MONSHIPOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights