DETAILED 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 .
Preliminary Remarks
The amendment filed on 11/18/2025 is entered. Claims 1-2 and 32 (withdrawn) are amended, claims 14-31 and 34-45 are canceled, no claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-13 and 32-33 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
The objection of claim 2 cited in the Office Action mailed on 06/18/2025 has been amended to overcome the cited objection. Therefore, the previously cited claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0245117A1-Bodo et al. (hereinafter Bodo).
Regarding claim 1, Bodo discloses a system (para. [0035], lines 3-7) for producing a biosurfactant (para. [0003], lines 1-3) from at least one strain of Bacillus subtilis (para. [0063], lines 1-3, and line 13), the system comprising: at least one reactor (reactor 100, para. [0032], line 2, Figs. 3A-B) arranged to receive a mixture of foamate (para. [0003], lines 1-3; and lines 8-10 reactor 100) and aqueous biosurfactant (para. [0013], lines 1-4) cultured from the at least one strain of Bacillus subtilis (para. [0013], lines 1-4; and para. [0063], lines 1-3; and line 13) the at least one reactor (reactor 100, Figs. 3A-B) being arranged to ferment the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant into a concentrated foamate of biosurfactant (para. [0003], lines 1-5; and para. [0032], lines 1-5), the at least one reactor (reactor 100, Figs. 3A-B) comprising: an oxygenation module (para. [0076], lines 7-9) arranged to oxygenate the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant;
Bodo discloses an agitation module (para. [0022], line 6; mixer 122, para. [0122], line 7, Figs. 3A-B) arranged to agitate the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant;
Bodo discloses a recirculation module (para. [0066], lines 4-7; para. [0105], lines 1-3) arranged to recirculate the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant;
and Bodo discloses the system further including a collection module (harvesting indicates collection, para. [0066], lines 6-7) in connection with the at least one reactor that is arranged to continuously collect the concentrated foamate of biosurfactant (paragraphs [0216-0219]).
wherein the recirculation module includes a draining pipe (para. [0006], lines 16-18) in connection with at least one drain formed in a base or a side wall of the at least one reactor (para. [0110]).
Regarding claim 3, Bodo discloses wherein the at least one reactor is a cylindrical vessel, with a base, a top and a side wall (reactor 100, shown in Figs. 3A-B, where reactor 100 is shown in the previously mentioned figures being cylindrical and having a top, bottom (base) and a side wall).
Regarding claim 4, Bodo discloses wherein, the at least one reactor has a height to a diameter ratio of 3:1 (shown in reactor 100, in Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 5, Bodo discloses wherein the recirculation module (para. [0066], lines 4-7; para. [0105], lines 1-3) includes: a pump (para. [0109], lines 2-3); para. [0022], lines 4-6) arranged to pump the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant drained into the draining pipe;
Bodo discloses a recirculation tank in connection with the draining pipe, the recirculation tank arranged to include at least one recirculation air diffuser to oxygenate the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant in the recirculation tank (para. [0032], lines 14-16; para. [0076], lines 7-9);
Bodo discloses a recirculation pipe arranged reintroduce the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant from the recirculation tank into the at least one reactor (para. [0110], lines 3-5; para. [0066], lines 4-8).
Bodo discloses a recirculation pipe arranged reintroduce the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant from the recirculation tank into the at least one reactor (para. [0110], lines 3-5; para. [0006], lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 6, Bodo discloses wherein the agitation module includes at least one agitation mechanism arranged to generate a flow path in the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant (para. [0022], line 6; mixer 122, para. [0122], line 7, Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 11, Bodo discloses wherein the concentration of the concentrated foamate of biosurfactant is in the range of 50 to 2000 ppm (para. [0015], lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 12, Bodo discloses wherein the oxygenation module includes at least one air diffuser arranged within the at least one reactor to supply air to the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant (para. [0076], lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 13, Bodo discloses wherein the air includes a mix of pure oxygen and pressurised air (para. [0076], lines 7-9; sparged air; para. [0122], line 2).
Therefore, the reference of Bodo meet the limitations of claims 1, 3-6, and 11-13.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0245117A1-Bodo et al. (hereinafter Bodo) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0037302 A1- Bralkowski et al. (hereinafter Bralkowski).
Regarding claim 2, Bodo teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Bodo teaches the use of the Bacillus subtilis in the system. However, Bodo does not explicitly teach at least one strain of Bacillus. subtilis is strain RSA-203 deposited with the ATCC on 9 January 2013 under Accession No. PTA-13451.
For claim 2, Bralkowski teaches an invention relating to o a method of producing biosurfactants, such as surfactin, comprising culturing at least one biosurfactant-producing microbe in a liquid culture medium comprising vinasse as a carbon source (para. [0001], lines 1-4), and Bralkowski teaches Bacillus subtilis strain RSA-203 where a sample of this microorganism was deposited at ATCC depository, 10801 University Boulevard, Manassas, Va. 20110-2209, United States of America on 9 Jan. 2013 (para. [0038]), which reads on the instant claim limitation of at least one strain of Bacillus. subtilis is strain RSA-203 deposited with the ATCC on 9 January 2013 under Accession No. PTA-13451.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Bodo to include at least one strain of Bacillus. subtilis is strain RSA-203 deposited with the ATCC on 9 January 2013 under Accession No. PTA-13451 as taught by Bralkowski. Further, Bralkowski teaches RSA-203 produces significant amounts of the bio surfactant surfactin (para. [0039], lines 1-2) in culture medium and foamate (para. [0039], lines 1-2).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0245117A1-Bodo et al. (hereinafter Bodo) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 10,801,003 B2-Jaques et al. (hereinafter Jaques).
Regarding claim 7, Bodo teaches the invention discussed above in claim 6. Further, Bodo teaches a reactor and at least one agitation mechanism includes an impeller connected to a rotation shaft. However, Bodo does not explicitly teach an agitation mechanism including an impeller connected to a rotation shaft located at the base of the at least one reactor.
For claim 7, Jaques teaches an invention relating to provide single-use bioreactors and methods, which allow the cultivation of mammalian cells (col. 6, lines 15-16) and Jaques teaches a rotatable shaft can be coupled to a bottom impeller (shaft 8 and lower impeller 6, col. 13, lines 59-60, Fig. 1A), which reads on the instant claim limitation of an agitation mechanism including an impeller connected to a rotation shaft located at the base of the at least one reactor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Bodo to include an impeller connected to a rotation shaft located at the base of the at least one reactor as taught by Jaques. Further, Jaques teaches the impellers can minimizing cell damage during rotation (col. 25, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 8, Bodo teaches the invention discussed above in claim 6. Further, Bodo teaches an agitation module, also discussed above. However, Bodo does not explicitly teach at least one baffle arranged to extend along at least partially the side of wall between the base and the top.
For claim 8, Jaques teaches an invention relating to provide single-use bioreactors and methods, which allow the cultivation of mammalian cells (col. 6, lines 15-16) and Jaques teaches at least one baffle configured to extend adjacent to the side wall of the bioprocess container in a longitudinal direction (col. 7, lines 48-50, Fig. 1A), which reads on the instant claim of at least one baffle arranged to extend along at least partially the side of wall between the base and the top.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Bodo to include at least partially the side of wall between the base and the top as taught by Jaques. Further, Jaques teaches baffles allows for the cultivation and propagation of mammalian cells (col. 18, lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 9, Bodo discloses wherein the flow path is a substantially circular path around a circumference of the at least one reactor (flow path is forms a circular path around the circumference of the reactor 100 via the agitation/mixer 122 shown in Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 10, Bodo discloses wherein the flow path is a substantially conical helix shape within the at least one reactor (flow path forms a conical helix via the mixer agitator/mixer 122 in reactor 100, Fig. 3B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On the top of page 5 of applicant’s remarks, applicant discusses the status of the claims. On the middle of page 5 of applicant’s remarks, applicant discussed the claim objection of claim 2, discussed above. On the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6 of applicant’s remarks, applicant asserts the primary reference, Bodo, does not teach or suggest a recirculation module arranged to recirculate the mixture of foamate aqueous biosurfactant. Applicant asserts the citation refers to continuous harvesting. In response, Bodo discloses the bioreactor or fermenter includes means to replenish (para. [0105], lines 47-48). Additionally, Bodo discloses the invention apply to all stages of biosurfactant processing , including fermentation, recovery, formulation, and storage (para. [0022], lines 1-3). Furthermore, the disclosure of Bodo discloses a biosurfactant and in particular, the invention describes methods and/or uses relating to control of foam in the production of an aqueous solution which may comprise one or more surfactants expressed by a microorganism para. [0013].
Additionally, applicant asserts “the method involves ‘collection insolubilized biosurfactant, rather than a concentrated foamate of biosurfactant as presently claimed”, where the latter argument pertains to the claimed collection module. In response, the latter argument is also not found persuasive as indicated above in the rejection, reactor of Bodo discloses liquid or foam containing hydrophobin can be harvested para. [0066, that is, collected. Furthermore, most of applicant arguments pertain to material operated on by the apparatus, in particular, the apparatus of Bodo includes all of the structures of the claimed invention, as discussed above in the rejection.
On page 6, paragraph 3 of applicant’s remarks, applicant cite claim 2 (rejected under U.S.C. 103) and the relied upon art, Brawlkowski and Jaques. Paragraph 4 of the same page, applicant recites claim 2 of the instant application. Applicant also recites claim 1 of the claimed invention in paragraph 5. On the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7, applicant asserts the primary reference, Bodo, fails to teach or suggest a recirculation module arranged to recirculate the mixture of foamate and aqueous biosurfactant or a collection module to continuously collect the concentrated foamate of biosurfactant. Further, applicant reiterates the argument discussed above for claim 1, pertaining to the Bodo reference. In response, the response to applicant’s argument regarding the Bodo reference is discussed above in this section.
On the bottom of page 7, applicant does not provide any actual arguments pertaining to the second and tertiary references, Bralkowski and Jaques. Rather applicant restates the argument for claim 1 in the 103 rejection. In response, the response to applicant’s argument regarding the Bodo reference is discussed above in this section. For the reasons discussed above in this section, independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-13 stand rejected.
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 LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/L.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799