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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the papers filed on 04 June 2026.
CLAIMS UNDER EXAMINATION
Claims 1-9 and 12-13 are pending and have been examined on their merits.
PRIORITY
The Applicant claims priority to KR10-2021-1-1931, filed on 03 August 2021.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The previous rejections have been withdrawn due to claim amendment.
REJECTIONS
New grounds of rejection have been necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. (previously cited; Methods of Microbially Producing Acids and Minerals And Uses Thereof. US2018/0245102 2018) in view of De Sousa et al. (Recovery of elemental sulphur from anaerobic effluents through the biological oxidation of sulphides, Environmental Technology. Published online: 28 Jun 2016), Okwuani Developing a vacuum thermal stripping – acid absorption process for ammonia recovery from anaerobic digester effluent. Water Research Vol. 106, 1 December 20196, pages 108-115) and De Leon et al. (previously cited; Bacterial cultures of acidithiobacillus thiooxidans and their use in the treatment of materials containing sulfur compounds. US20150361513) as evidenced by Krieken et al. (Novel Biosulfur Formulations. WO2012053894A2 2012).
Lloyd teaches a method of producing ammonium sulfate.
A microbial culture that produces sulfuric acid is placed in a bioreactor in an aqueous environment ([0193]). An aqueous or liquid sulfur supply is added to the bioreactor ([0027] [0193]). Liquid ammonia is added to the bioreactor ([0130] [0193]). Lloyd teaches culturing the microbial culture with the sulfur and ammonia to produce sulfuric acid that reacts with the ammonia to produce ammonium sulfate. See [0193]. Lloyd teaches a continuous process ([0121]).
Regarding the microbes: The art teaches Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans ([0039]), Thiobacillus, Thiomicrospira and/or Sulfolobus can be used to produce sulfuric acid and/or ammonium sulfate ([0056]). Lloyd teaches any microbe that can consume or process sulfur can be used in the process of producing sulfuric acid ([0050]). The art teaches the microbes can reduce “elemental sulfur” ([0050]). As evidenced by Van Der Kreiken, elemental sulfur is biosulfur (see page 4, last paragraph).
Regarding culturing: Lloyd teaches the use of culture media for the sulfur oxidizing bacteria ([0042]).
Regarding the ammonia: Lloyd teaches ammonia can be obtained from an organic source [0106]). The bioreactor as an ammonia inlet ([0106])
Regarding biosulfur (elemental sulfur): Lloyd teaches elemental sulfur can be introduced to any of the disclosed bioreactors ([0102]).
The deficiencies of Lloyd are:
Lloyd does not teach anaerobic fermentation of a liquid organic waste to obtain a biosulfur-containing liquid and aqueous ammonia, separating the components and adding to the sulfur-oxidizing microbial reactor.
Lloyd does not teach a culture medium comprising ammonium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, potassium phosphate and calcium chloride.
De Souza treats domestic wastewater using an anaerobic reactor (see first three lines of Abstract on page 1, bridging first 4 lines on page 2). The wastewater is from a domestic sewer (see page 5, 5, lines 3-4). This is interpreted to contain an organic liquid waste. The art teach SO (elemental sulfur) is produced in the effluent (see page 2, line 2). The art teaches elemental sulfur is recovered (see page 10, second paragraph, first two lines). The art teaches recovered elemental sulphur can be used in industrial processes (page 4, third paragraph).
Ukwuani teaches anaerobic digestion is used to treat municipal and organic waste (first sentence of Introduction on page 108). Ammonia has to be removed or recovered to maintain stable operation of anerobic digesters (page 108, last sentence of left column bridging first sentence of right column). Ammonia recovery extracts ammonia from digestate and produces marketable products (page 108, right column). The art teaches ammonia recovery (see page 109, right column, section 2.1). The art teaches recovered ammonia can be recirculated to digesters (page 109, left column, third paragraph).
It is noted the art teaches “liquid dairy manure” in anaerobic digesters (same section). Liquid dairy manure is broadly interpreted to read on a wastewater.
De Leon isolates, maintains and uses cultures of Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans in the treatment of materials containing sulfur-compounds, such as contaminated and/or spent catalysts with elemental sulfur (S) (Abstract). The art teaches a medium comprising (NH4)2SO4 (ammonium sulfate) , KH2PO4 (potassium phosphate) , MgSO4 (magnesium sulfate) and CaCl2 (calcium chloride) ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art by anaerobically digesting organic wastewater to produce biosulfur and ammonium. De Sousa teaches biosulfur can be recovered from anaerobic digestion effluent. Ukwuani teaches ammonia can be recovered from anaerobic digestion effluent. One would have been motivated to separate biosulfur and ammonia from digestion effluent since De Sousa and Ukwuani teach both products can be converted for subsequent use. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since De Souza and Ukwuani teach biosulfur and ammonia can be recovered from effluent obtained by anaerobic digestion of municipal wastewater. One would have expected similar results since both references are directed to recovering anaerobic digestion products.
It would have been obvious to use biosulfur and ammonia obtained from an anaerobic digestion in the system taught by Lloyd. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd teaches using an anaerobic digestate as a substrate in the disclosed system.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Lloyd teaches any sulfur containing material that has the potential to be processed by microbes to result in a different molecule or element that includes sulfur can be used, and any source of ammonia can be used. The skilled artisan would continuously add the ammonia in Lloyd’s method since the art teaches the production of ammonium sulfate can be a continuous process. One would have expected similar results since the references are directed to methods utilizing biosulfur and ammonia.
It would have been obvious to use a medium comprising the claimed components in the method taught by Lloyd. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd cultures sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and De Leon teaches culturing sulfur oxidizing bacteria on a medium comprising the claimed components. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since De Leon teaches sulfur oxidizing bacteria can be cultured on medium comprising the claimed components. One would have expected similar results since both references use sulfur oxidizing bacteria. Therefore claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Claim 3 is a product by process limitation that does not distinguish the claimed biosulfur from the biosulfur taught in De Sousa. See MPEP 2113. Because De Sousa teaches biological desulfurization, it is broadly interpreted to encompass a desulfurization facility. Therefore claim 3 is included in this rejection.
DeSousa teaches domestic wastewater. Because this wastewater reads on the wastewater treatment plant recited in the specification (see [0039] of PG Pub), it is interpreted to read on an organic liquid waste. Even arguendo it is not, Okwuani teaches liquid dairy waste (an organic waste water). Claim 12 is included in this rejection.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd in view of De Sousa, Okwuani and De Leon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (previously cited; Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide by Sulfate-Resistant Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans AZ11. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering. Volume 101, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 309-314).
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of the prior art are reiterated. Lloyd teaches sulfur oxidizing bacteria. Lloyd teaches A. thiooxidans. The art is silent regarding the strain of A. thiooxidans AZ11 with the claimed deposit number.
Lee teaches the following (Abstract):
Toxic H2S gas is an important industrial pollutant that is applied to biofiltration. Here, we examined the effects of factors such as inlet concentration and space velocity on the removal efficiency of a bacterial strain capable of tolerating high sulfate concentrations and low pH conditions. We examined three strains of Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans known to have sulfur-oxidizing activity, and identified strain AZ11 as having the highest tolerance for sulfate
Lee teaches the growth and sulfite oxidation characteristics of A. thiooxidans AZ11, MET and TAS grown in the presence of 50 g l–1 elemental sulfur are shown in Fig. 1. After 10d, the DCWs of A. thiooxidans AZ11, MET, and TAS were 0.41, 0.36, and 0.44gl–1, respectively. The concentration of sulfate, the final oxidation product of elemental sulfur, was highest (74 gl–1) in cultures containing strain AZ11 (page 310, right column, first paragraph of Results and Discussion).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art by using the claimed deposited strain. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd suggests culturing sulfur with A. thiooxidans and Lee teaches A. thiooxidans AZ11 can be cultured with sulfur. One would have been motivated to do so since Lee teaches this strain has the highest tolerance for sulfate. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Lloyd teaches any sulfur oxidizing bacteria can be used in the disclosed method. One would have expected similar results since both references culture A. thiooxidans with sulfur. While Lee is silent regarding the deposit number, Examiner notes it has the same properties as the claimed strain (e.g., the ability to oxidize sulfate). It is noted no sequence has been provided for the claimed deposited strain. Because the strain taught by Lee has the same identifying characteristics as the claimed strain, they are interpreted to be the same. Even arguendo they are not, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the claimed deposit in the method rendered obvious by the prior art. KSR B teaches that it is rational to substitute one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. In the instant case, Lee teaches the use of A. thiooxidans AZ11, which has the same characteristics as the claimed strain. Therefore claim 2 is rendered obvious as claimed.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd in view of De Sousa, Okwuani and De Leon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rattanapan et al. (Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide Gas using Biofiltration - a Review. VOL. 9 NO. 1 (2012): 20TH ANNIVERSARY WALAILAK UNIVERSITY).
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of the art are reiterated. Lloyd teaches sulfur oxidizing bacteria. The art is silent regarding the temperature at which said bacteria are cultured.
Rattanapan reviews biofiltration removal of hydrogen sulfide (Abstract). Biofiltration is a process by which contaminated gases pass through the biofilter and pollutants are transported into the biofilm where they are utilized by microbes as a carbon source, an energy source (Abstract). Rattanapan teaches the sulfur bacteria encompass many genera such as Thiobacillus, Acidithiobacillus, Achromatium, Beggiatoa, Thiothrix, Thioplaca, Thiomicrospira, Thiosphaera, and Thermothrix to name a few (page 11, left column, last paragraph).
Temperature is also one of the most important variables in determining microbial growth rates and the types of species present in a microbial community (page 14, right column, last paragraph). The optimal temperature for various species range widely, but most biofiltration applications operate at temperatures in the mesophilic range (20 - 45 °C), with 35 - 37 °C often noted as the optimal temperature (same cited section).
It would have been obvious to culture sulfur oxidizing bacteria at 37°C. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd cultures sulfur oxidizing bacteria with sulfur and Rattanapan teaches 35-37 °C is the optimal temperature for most species of sulfur oxidizing bacteria when used in biofiltration application (hence, when sulfur oxidizing bacteria are cultured with sulfur). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Rattanapan teaches 35-37 °C is the optimal temperature for most species sulfur oxidizing bacteria. One would have expected similar results since both references are directed to species sulfur oxidizing bacteria. Therefore claim 4 is rendered obvious as claimed.
Therefore Applicant’s invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd in view of De Sousa, Okwuani and De Leon to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reed et al. (previously cited; Biological and Chemical Process Utilizing Chemoautotrophic Microorganisms for the Chemosynthetic Fixation of Carbon Dioxide and/or Other Inorganic Carbon Sources into Organic Compounds and the Generation of Additional Useful Products. US20170218407A1).
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of the art are reiterated. Lloyd teaches a reactor containing sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. The art does not explicitly teach the types of reactors recited in claim 5.
Reed teaches sulfur oxidizing bacteria can be used in reactions to produce sulfuric acid using sulfur ([0097]). It is of note the art identifies Acadianus, Thiosphaera, Thiobacillus, Beggiatoa, Sulfolobus and Thioplaca as sulfur oxidizing bacteria ([0036]). The art teaches the use of culture vessels which include, bubble columns; continuous stirred tank reactors; gas lift fermenters; immobilized cell reactors; and trickle bed reactors ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to try using a bubble column reactor, continuous stirred tank reactor, gas lift reactor, immobilized cell reactor or trickle bed reactor in the method taught by Lloyd. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd teaches a reactor is used to culture sulfur-oxidizing bacteria to produce sulfuric acid using sulfur and Reed teaches sulfur-oxidizing bacteria can be cultured in the cited reactors to produce sulfuric acid using sulfur. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Reed teaches the recite reactors can successfully be used with sulfur oxidizing bacteria. One would have expected similar results since both references use sulfur oxidizing bacteria that produce sulfuric acid using sulfur. Therefore claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claims 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lloyd in view of De Sousa, Okwuani, De Leon and Lee et al.
The teachings of Lloyd as set forth above are reiterated.
Lloyd does not teach anaerobic fermentation of an organic liquid waste to obtain a biosulfur-containing liquid and aqueous ammonia, and separating the components before adding to the sulfur-oxidizing microbial reactor.
Lloyd does not teach a culture medium comprising ammonium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, potassium phosphate and calcium chloride.
The teachings of De Sousa, Okwuani and De Leon are reiterated. The references do not teach the strain recited in claim 6. The teachings of Lee are reiterated as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art by anaerobically digesting organic wastewater to produce biosulfur and ammonium. De Sousa teaches biosulfur can be recovered from anaerobic digestion of wastewater. Ukwuani teaches ammonia can be recovered from anaerobic digestion of wastewater. One would have been motivated to separate biosulfur and ammonia from digestion effluent since De Sousa and Ukwuani teach both products can be converted for subsequent use. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since De Souza and Ukwuani teach biosulfur and ammonia can be recovered from an effluent. One would have expected similar results since both references are directed to recovering anaerobic digestion products.
It would have been obvious to use biosulfur and ammonia obtained from an anaerobic digestion in the system taught by Lloyd. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd teaches using an anaerobic digestate as a substrate in the disclosed system.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Lloyd teaches any sulfur containing material that has the potential to be processed by microbes to result in a different molecule or element that includes sulfur can be used, and any source of ammonia can be used. The skilled artisan would continuously add the ammonia in Lloyd’s method since the art teaches the production of ammonium sulfate can be a continuous process. One would have expected similar results since the references are directed to methods utilizing biosulfur and ammonia.
It would have been obvious to use a medium comprising the claimed components in the method taught by Lloyd. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd cultures sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and De Leon teaches culturing sulfur oxidizing bacteria on a medium comprising the claimed components. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since De Leon teaches sulfur oxidizing bacteria can be cultured on medium comprising the claimed components. One would have expected similar results since both references use sulfur oxidizing bacteria.
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art by using the claimed deposited strain. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd suggests culturing sulfur with A. thiooxidans and Lee teaches A. thiooxidans AZ11 can be cultured with sulfur. One would have been motivated to do so since Lee teaches this strain has the highest tolerance for sulfate. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Lloyd teaches any sulfur oxidizing bacteria can be used in the disclosed method. One would have expected similar results since both references culture A. thiooxidans with sulfur. While Lee is silent regarding the deposit number, Examiner notes it has the same properties as the claimed strain (e.g., the ability to oxidize sulfate). It is noted no sequence has been provided for the claimed deposited strain. Because the strain taught by Lee has the same identifying characteristics as the claimed strain, they are interpreted to be the same. Even arguendo they are not, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the claimed deposit in the method rendered obvious by the prior art. KSR B teaches that it is rational to substitute one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. In the instant case, Lee teaches the use of A. thiooxidans AZ11, which has the same characteristics as the claimed strain. Therefore claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Claim 7 is a product by process limitation that does not distinguish the claimed biosulfur from the biosulfur taught in De Sousa. Therefore claim 7 is included in this rejection
DeSousa teach municipal wastewater. Because this wastewater reads on the wastewater treatment plant recited in the specification (see [0039] of PG Pub), it is interpreted to read on an organic liquid waste. Even arguendo it is not, Okwuani teaches liquid dairy waste (an organic waste water). Claim 13 is included in this rejection.
Therefore Applicant’s invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. in view of De Sousa, Okwuani, DeLeon and Lee as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Rattanapan et al.
Claim 6 is rejected on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of the prior art as set forth above are reiterated. Lloyd contacts sulfur oxidizing bacteria with sulfur. The art is silent regarding the temperature at which said bacteria are cultured.
The teachings of Rattanapan as set forth above are reiterated. Rattanapan teaches sulfur oxidizing bacteria are contacted with sulfur during biofiltration.
It would have been obvious to culture sulfur oxidizing bacteria at 37°C. One would have been motivated to do so since Rattanapan teaches 35-37 °C is the optimal temperature for most species sulfur oxidizing bacteria when used in biofiltration application (hence, when sulfur oxidizing bacteria are contacted with sulfur). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Rattanapan teaches 35-37 °C is the optimal temperature for most species sulfur oxidizing bacteria. One would have expected similar results since both references are directed to species sulfur oxidizing bacteria. Therefore claim 8 is rendered obvious as claimed.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd in view of De Sousa, Okwuani, DeLeon and Lee as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Reed et al.
Claim 6 is rejected on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of the art are reiterated. Lloyd teaches a reactor containing sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. The art does not explicitly teach the types of reactors recited in claim 9.
Reed teaches sulfur oxidizing bacteria can be used in reactions to produce sulfuric acid using sulfur ([0097]). It is of note the art identifies Acadianus, Thiosphaera, Thiobacillus, Beggiatoa, Sulfolobus and Thioplaca as sulfur oxidizing bacteria ([0036]). The art teaches the use of culture vessels which include, bubble columns; continuous stirred tank reactors; gas lift fermenters; immobilized cell reactors; and trickle bed reactors ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to try using a bubble column reactor, continuous stirred tank reactor, gas lift reactor, immobilized cell reactor or trickle bed reactor in the method taught by Lloyd. One would have been motivated to do so since Lloyd teaches a reactor is used to culture sulfur-oxidizing bacteria to produce sulfuric acid using sulfur and Reed teaches sulfur-oxidizing bacteria can be cultured in the cited reactors to produce sulfuric acid using sulfur. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Reed teaches the recite reactors can successfully be used with sulfur oxidizing bacteria. One would have expected similar results since both references use sulfur oxidizing bacteria that produce sulfuric acid using sulfur. Therefore claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The arguments made in the response filed on 04 June 2026 are acknowledged.
Argument: The Applicant argues Lloyd nor Jianmin teach anaerobically fermenting an organic liquid waste to produce biosulfur-containing liquid and aqueous ammonia as now recited in claim 1. The Applicant argues the waste treated by Jianmin is a biogas.
Response to argument: New grounds of rejection have been made to address the amended claims.
CONCLUSION
No Claims Are 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE MOSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-7439. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached on (571) 272-0614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the APIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATALIE M MOSS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights