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 ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 04/01/2026 have been entered. Claims 10, 13-14, 17 and 21-22 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 10, “…a final concentration of 0.5-3% of said oxidizing agent volume/volume” is suggested to be changed to “… a final concentration of 0.5 to 3% by volume of said oxidizing agent”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 10, 13-14, 17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liddell et al (US 5,691,174, ‘174 hereafter).
Regarding claims 10, 13-14, 17 and 21-22, ‘174 discloses a method for providing a source of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) comprising heating a suspension of microorganisms containing PHA (Example 1); exposing said heated suspension of PHA-containing microorganisms to hydrogen peroxide as oxidizing agent (Example 1), which inherently has oxidation-reduction potential, pH and molar mass as recited in the present claim 13; and maintaining said heated suspension of PHA-containing microorganisms in contact with said oxidizing agent for 10 hours at a temperature of 80°C and pH at 7 (Example 1) to condition and lyse said microorganisms thereby releasing PHA and non-polymer cell mass (NPCM); wherein the PHA includes poly(3-hydrobutyrate), poly(3-hydrovalerate and its copolymer (Example 1), and the cell contains 71.5wt% PHAs of dry cell weight (Example 1). ‘174 does not expressly discloses that the final oxidizing concentration in the suspension being 0.5 to 3% by volume; however, ‘177 discloses that the amount of oxidizing agent depending upon the amount of non-plastic cellular material to be removed in the suspension, thus the final concentration of oxidizing agent is an effective variable in terms of the amount of the non-plastic cellular material need to be removed in the suspension. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the oxidizing agent in the suspension within the scope of the present claim so as to sufficiently remove the non-plastic cellular material and render a polyhydroxyalkanoate having desired purity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in light of Applicant's amendment.
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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights