DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As previously set forth: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
As previously set forth: Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, in the reply filed on 7/9/24 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of poly[R-3-hydroxybutryate]depolymerase, incontinence product, crosslinked polyacrylate, particles in the reply filed on 7/9/24 is acknowledged, see response to the traversal 8/23/24.
Claims 2-5, 10-14, 18-20, 22-24, 26-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species,
Priority
As previously set forth: The claims have an effective date of the filing of the provisional application: 7/31/20
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant argues Willuweit is not directed towards breaking down polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) polymers and is rather drawn to removing harmful substances from bodies of water. Applicant argues one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to look to WIlluweit based on the disclosure of Desrousseaux or Ionescu.
The Examiner disagrees. Willuweit’s process immobilizes microorganisms in a matrix so that it can be stored for a certain amount of time and later trigger a process when added to water. This is analogous to Ionescu because Ionescu immobilizes/encapsulates and is analogous to Desrousseaux because Desrousseaux desires to bind microorganisms to a polymer support for later use. Thus, one would be motivated to look to Willuweit based on the disclosures of Desrousseaux and Ionescu.
Applicant argues one would not have been motivated to utilize a crosslinked polyacrylate in combination with the encapsulated microorganism absent improper hindsight. Applicant argues Willuweit is silent on the carrier being dehydrated and teaches a preference for the wall to be permeable to water. Applicant argues the crosslinked polyacrylate to would only be permeable if it was hydrated and one would thusly not be motivated to dehydrate, as taught by Ionescu. Applicant argues the dehydration fundamentally alters the release behavior, and, may result in reduced microorganism viability.
The Examiner disagrees. Crosslinked polyacrylate is a known matrix polymer for encapsulating enzymes, and, dehydrating such aids in transport/storage/viability. The dehydration of Ionescu is taught to be used for polymer carriers comprising microorganisms, thus, Applicant’s argues that dehydration would fundamentally alter release behavior and/or viability are not found persuasive. One would be motivated to dehydrate, and, would have a reasonable expectation of success given the teachings of the references. As such Applicant’s arguments herein are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues PHB is generic to poly-3 or poly-4-hydroxybutyrate depolymerase and not all PHB depolymerases act on solid polymer waste. Further, Applicant argues a broad genus does not render obvious a specific species.
The Examiner disagrees. The PHB is used for the same purpose as in the instant application, e.g. to degrade polymer material. Poly 3- is the most common isomer thereof but could include poly-4-. These are only 2 options of isomers. Applicant offers no evidence of a large list of possible species, nor unexpected results stemming from such. Thus, though the genus embraces 2 different species, the Examiner finds a proper prima facie case of obviousness exists.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 15, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desrousseaux (US 2019/0218360) in view of Ionescu (WO 2020/021549 wherein US 2021/0292738 is used as an equivalent document) and Willuweit (US 2004/0101944).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics
Desrousseaux discloses a process to degrade waste polyhydroxyalkanoate [0101-0102]. The depolymerase enzyme may be PHB depolymerase [0077]. PHB stands for polyhydroxybutyrate, wherein poly-3-hydroxybutrate is the most common isomer thereof but also may include the poly-4- isomer. Thus, though PHB depolymerase is generic to the poly-3- or poly-4- hydroxybutyrate depolymerase, since there few isomer options herein the Examiner finds such to embrace and render prima facie obvious the poly[r-3-polyhydroxybutyrate] depolymerase of claim 1.
Desrousseaux discloses a culture medium for the mixture of microorganisms with the waste polymer, discloses that enzymes can be bound to a polymeric support and discloses adding water to solubilize the enzymes [0081].
Desrousseaux does not disclose encapsulating the enzymes in a dehydrated crosslinked polyacrylate polymer. Ionescu discloses an encapsulated microorganism product comprising one or more microorganisms contained in a dehydrated polymer carrier. The encapsulated microorganism product is contacted with water to rehydrate when contacted with its environmental application (abstract, fig 2, [0008, 0022-0023, 0035, 0079]). The polymer carrier may be those of [0011] including polyvinyl alcohol, cellulose, chitosan, ect. Ionescu discloses the motivation to dehydrate the polymer carrier/microorganism so as to improve the transport/delivery/viability of the microorganism [0003-0004]. Thus, akin to Desrousseaux’s desire to bind microorganisms to a polymer support for later use.
Willuweit discloses microbiological cultures for triggering microbiological processes in water (title). Said processes include immobilizing a microorganism in a matrix (abstract) so that this can be stored for a certain amount of time and later trigger a process when added to water [0011], thus akin to Ionescu in immobilization/encapsulation and akin to Desrousseaux in the desire to bind microorganisms to a polymer support to later use. The polymer matrix may be cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, polyesters, chitosan [0027], all of which embrace the species of Ionescu, and also polyacrylate [0027]. The polymer matrix is optionally crosslinked [0028].
Wherein Willuweit discloses crosslinked polyacrylate as a known matrix polymer for encapsulating enzymes for later use/release, and, Ionescu discloses overlapping polymers thereof, and also discloses dehydrating such to aid in transport/storage/viability, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to include in Desrousseaux the use of a crosslinked polyacrylate polymer matrix, as taught by Willuweit, and, further dehydrating such, as taught by Ionescu, in order to improve the transport/storage/viability of the microorganisms. Since each reference desires activation/solubility/release/use of the microorganism in water, there is a reasonable expectation of success thereof. Further, Willuweit discloses that in some instances it is preferred to have polymers that degrade in order to release the microorganism [0025], one can also use polymers which do not degrade in water and which will serve as a carbon source for the microorganism to degrade [0026] and/or the preference for the microorganisms to multiply within the capsule so as to eventually result in the walls of the capsule bursting to release. Thus, no matter the polymer matrix chosen, one has a reasonable expectation that the microorganisms will be capable of release.
Elements above meet claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Ionescu discloses concentrations of 1-1x105 CFU of microorganisms encapsulated in a polymer matrix, and thusly teaches this to be a suitably known amount to encapsulate therein. Use of such in Desrousseaux is thusly prima facie obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 9, there is no amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate in claim 1 to base the calculation of claim 9 off of, nor is there a concentration of microorganisms in the encapsulated product. Desrousseaux discloses added 1 ml of a 0.1mg/ml enzyme [0147], adding 1 ml of an encapsulated product is thusly embraced, 1 ml being approx. 1 g, which meets claim 9.
Elements above meet claim 15. The encapsulated product is disclosed in Ionescu to be particle or fiber shape [0045,0059,0070], the use of such is prima facie obvious since they are suitably known shapes of encapsulating materials in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Since the composition requirements are met, the viability of claim 21 must be embraced by the references.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desrousseaux in view of Ionescu and Willuweit in further view of Noda (US 2002/0143116).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics.
Desrousseaux, Ionescu and Willuweit include elements as set forth above. Desrousseaux discloses waste polymers from fabrics and textiles and discloses waste polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer ([0101], [0102]), but is silent whether the polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer originates from incontinence products
Noda discloses incontinence products that are made of environmentally degradable fibers comprising polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) (abstract, [0002]) and that PHA is well known to be biodegradable in the presence of microorganisms ([0006]). The incontinence product comprises layers and the PHA is found in the top sheet and back sheet ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used Noda’s incontinence products comprising polyhydroxyalkanoate as the source of Desrousseaux’s polyhydroxyalkanoate since both references teach that polyhydroxyalkanoate polymers are degradable in the presence of microorganisms, and have thus arrived at the present claims with reasonable expectation of success.
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 ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights