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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 June 2025 has been entered.
CLAIMS UNDER EXAMINATION
Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined on their merits.
PRIORITY
The Applicant claims priority to KR10-2021-1-1931, filed on 03 August 2021.
REJECTIONS
New grounds of rejection have been necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite anaerobic fermentation to produce a “biosulfur containing liquid” and “aqueous ammonia”. Figure 1 provides support for anaerobic fermentation of an organic waste. Figure 1 discloses biosulfur is produced and 2) aqueous (liquid) ammonia is produced.
As evidenced by Kleinjan (Biologically Produced Sulfur. Top Curr Chem (2003) 230:167–188), sulfur compound oxidizing bacteria produce elemental sulfur (biosulfur) as sulfur globules, located either inside or outside the cell. Excreted sulfur globules are colloidal particles (first paragraph of page 167). As evidenced by the specification, biosulfur contains small particles (see page 2, line 7). Therefore biosulfur is composed of solid particles.
While Figure 1 provides support for biosulfur separated from aqueous ammonia, Figure 1 does not provide support for a liquid biosulfur that is separated from aqueous ammonia. While the specification provides support for biosulfur in a liquid form (page 2, lines 6-7) the paragraph that discloses this teaching is not directed to anaerobic digestion. This claim amendment presents new matter.
An amendment to the claims or the addition of a new claim must be supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1 and 6 recite anaerobically fermenting an organic waste to produce 1) a biosulfur-containing liquid and 2) aqueous ammonia. Therefore two products are produced by fermentation. The claim has been amended to recite the components are separated. The claim language is unclear because the first step recites two separate products (i.e., biosulfur-containing liquid and aqueous ammonia) are produced. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are included in this rejection.
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 and 3 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 Jianmin (previously cited; CN102816619B Method and device for recovery coupling of biological sulfur and carbon dioxide for producing biogas 2014) 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 barns or other animal housing units, whether scrubbed (e.g., gases removed) or un-scrubbed (e.g., gases not removed), or from the animal waste therefrom. In some instances, gases obtained from scrubbing can be used as an ammonia source, which can include scrubbed gases from barns or any other animal housing units, or from the animal waste therefrom [0106]). Therefore Lloyd teaches ammonia obtained from animal (organic) waste can be used. Examiner notes Figure 4 illustrates sulfuric acid (inlet 312) and ammonia (inlet 410) are added to a bioreactor to produce ammonium sulfate. Therefore ammonia is interpreted to be added to the sulfuric acid.
Regarding biosulfur (elemental sulfur): Lloyd teaches elemental sulfur can be introduced to any of the disclosed bioreactors ([0102]).
The following is also noted:
Lloyd teaches an anaerobic digester system which can receive animal waste (hence, organic waste) and contains anaerobic microbes ([0161]). The microbes digest the waste to produce digestate ([0161]). The digestate can be used as a reagent in the disclosed system ([0161]). The anaerobic digester of the waste can generate gases which can be provided to the bioreactors in the system. The gases can include a dihydrogen sulfide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3) ([0161]).
As set forth above, Lloyd teaches:
Lloyd teaches anaerobic fermentation of an organic waste, and using the product as a substrate in the disclosed bioreactors. Lloyd teaches fermented waste product can include H2S and NH3 (ammonia). Lloyd teaches ammonia and elemental sulfur (hence, biosulfur) can be added to the disclosed system. Lloyd teaches microbes are grown in a culture medium.
The deficiencies of Lloyd are:
Lloyd does not teach anaerobic fermentation of an organic 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.
Jianmin teaches bio-natural gas is produced by anaerobic fermentation of agricultural straw, human and animal waste, meal waste, industrial organic wastewater, etc. (see page 1, second paragraph of Background section). Bio-natural gas is derived from organic waste (same cited section). The art teaches a desulfurization process (page 3, paragraph 8).
Hydrogen sulfide is removed from a biogas, absorbed by an absorption liquid and converted to sulfide. Sulfide is oxidized to elemental sulfur (see page 2, paragraph 7). Jianmin teaches ammonia is also absorbed in the absorption liquid (see page 3, paragraph 8). The art teaches ammonia can be used as a nutrient source for sulfur oxidizing bacteria (same cited section).The art teaches “biological sulfur is settled in a sulfur precipitation tank 5” (see page 6, fifth paragraph). The art explicitly teaches the “the sulfur element is separated by the sulfur precipitation tank 5” (see page 3, sixth paragraph) Therefore the ammonia and sulfur are separated.
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 teaching of the prior art by using biosulfur and ammonia obtained from an anaerobic fermentation. Lloyd teaches adding a sulfur source and an ammonia source to a microbial reactor, and Jianmin teaches ammonia and biosulfur can be obtained from an anaerobic fermentation process. One would have been motivated to use ammonia and biosulfur obtained from anaerobic digestion 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 both 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 the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Because Jianmin teaches biological desulfurization, it is broadly interpreted to encompass a desulfurization facility. Therefore claim 3 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 Jianmin 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. Both Lloyd and Jianmin teach the use of sulfur oxidizing bacteria. Lloyd suggests the use of 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 Jianmin 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 and Jianmin teach the use of 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 Jianmin and De Leon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reed et al. (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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd in view of Jianmin , 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 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 Jianmin 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 teaching of the prior art by using biosulfur and ammonia obtained from an anaerobic fermentation. Lloyd teaches adding a sulfur source and an ammonia source to a microbial reactor, and Jianmin teaches ammonia and biosulfur can be obtained from an anaerobic fermentation process. One would have been motivated to use ammonia and biosulfur obtained from anaerobic digestion 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 both 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 Jianmin. Therefore claim 7 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 Jianmin, 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 Jianmin, 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 09 June 2025 are acknowledged. The Applicant argues Jianmin does not teach separating aqueous ammonia from their biosulfur, and adding the aqueous ammonia to sulfuric acid to produce ammonium sulfate. The arguments state Jianmin teaches ammonia is also absorbed in the absorption liquid taught by Jianmin.
Response to argument: Lloyd teaches adding ammonia to the disclosure bioreactors to produce ammonium sulfate. Lloyd teaches biosulfur can be added to the bioreactors.
Lloyd teaches anaerobic digestion of an organic waste to produce a substrate to add to the disclosed bioreactors. The deficiency of Lloyd is the reference does not explicitly teach anaerobic digestion to produce a biosulfur liquid and an aqueous ammonia.
Jianmin teaches anaerobic fermentation of an organic waste. Jianmin teaches a desulfurization process (page 3, paragraph 8). While Jianmin teaches ammonia is also absorbed in absorption liquid, the art explicitly teaches “biological sulfur is settled in a sulfur precipitation tank 5” (see page 6, fifth paragraph). The art explicitly teaches the “the sulfur element is separated by the sulfur precipitation tank 5” (see page 3, sixth paragraph). Jianmin teaches ammonia can be used as a nutrient source for oxidizing bacteria. Therefore the ammonia and biosulfur are separated. The arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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) 270-8439.
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 PAIR 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