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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group II, claims 11-17, in the reply filed on 10/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/07/2025.
Claims 11-17 as amended on 10/07/2025 are under examination in the instant office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS form filed on 10/23/2022 is empty and has no contents.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Latin name of microorganism Chlorella vulgaris in the claims 11, 15 and 16 should be italicized; and the genus name should be written with starting capital letter.
Claims 12-17 contain typing errors. Claims 12-17 are drawn to the method but they recite dependency on claim 10 which is a product.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefinite
Claims 11-17 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.
Claim 11 (as amended 10/07/2025) recites twice the same (or similar) steps in a method of nutrient recycling; for example: see claim 11, lines 3-9; and see claim 11 last 7 lines. The repetition and/or relationship of these steps relatively to each other are not clear. Moreover, first step of applying (lines 3-5) is drawn to treatment of surface water environment contaminated with an algal bloom. However, the second step of applying (lines 6-7 from the end of the claim 11) appears to be drawn to treatment of a generic surface water environment. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Clams 12-17 are indefinite for being dependent on non-elected product claim 10. Thus, the recited limitations therein are not clear.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation "the glomalin” in the product of the method of preceding (and elected) claim 11.Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Percivall et al (”Phosphorous remediation using alginate/glomalin bio-beads: Examining structural cohesivity, nutrient retention, and reapplication viability”. Frontiers in Environmental Science; published 15 July 2022, 10:889940, DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2022.889940, pages 1-10) and Wang et al (“The research of nitrogen and phosphate removal ability by immobilized chlorella sp. in municipal sewage”, Guangdong Huagong (2013), 40(20), 137-138, STN English abstract accession number 2014:1731186 CAPLUS, page 1).
The cited reference by Percivall et al discloses a method of nutrient remediation and nutrient recycling by using alginate/glomalin bio-beads (or a biologically active bioremediation units “BABUs” within the meaning of the claims). The cited reference by Percivall clearly acknowledges that excess nutrient loading from agriculture and urban runoff into marine ecosystem is associated with harmful algal blooms or surface water environment contamination with algal bloom. The cited reference by Percivall clearly recognizes that sequestration of nutrients such as phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) from contaminated water and recycling them as soil amendment is environmentally and economically sustainable strategy to alleviate the problem (see abstract, page 1).
In particular, the method of Percivall comprises steps:
applying the bio-beads to the water environment with added P (P-enriched solution, see page 4 col. 2, par. 2);
waiting a period of time (up to 35 days, see table 4) for nutrient P capture;
removing the bio-beads loaded with P nutrient from the solution and placing them in soil in order to release the nutrients to the soil as a soil amendment and plant growth (see page 5, col. 1, par. 2, section “plant growth experiment”).
Thus, the cited method comprises same or substantially similar active steps as encompassed by the claimed method in a model water environment and soil. But the cited reference clearly teaches and suggests the use of the bio-beads in the method for applications in water contaminated with nutrient excess and algal bloom and further applying as soil amendment to soil. Thus, the cited method, which is practiced in a model environment, is an obvious variant of the claimed method.
The bio-beads of the cited reference are “biologically active bioremediation units BABUs” within the meaning of the claims. The cited bio-beads of the cited reference are made by mixing 3 components that are 1) sodium alginate, 2) Chlorella vulgaris and 3) glomalin; and the mixture of components is further submitted to spherization by dropping the mixture to calcium chloride solution at freezing temperature (see page 3, col. 2, section “preparation of beads”). The glomalin preparation is extracted from garden soil (page 3, col. 2, lines 1-9); and it is considered to be the same ingredient as claim-recited “soil extracted lignin and proteins SELP” within the meaning of the claims and when read in the light of specification, wherein SELP is a soil extract, the soil extract providing for both glomalin related proteins and lignin (par. 0030 of published application).
Thus, the cited bio-beads in the method of Percivall comprise the same 3 major components (sodium alginate, Chlorella vulgaris and soil extract which is glomalin or SELP). But the cited bio-beads in the method of Percivall are lacking chitosan.
However, the prior art teaches that adding chitosan to Chlorella and sodium alginate-containing beads improves efficiency of P removal form water comprising excess of P nutrients. For example: see abstract of Wang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was file to add chitosan to the bio-beads in the method of Percivall with a reasonable expectation of success in improving nutrient removal and recycling because the prior art teaches and suggests adding chitosan to Chlorella/sodium alginate-containing beads for improving efficiency of P removal from contaminated waters comprising excess of P nutrients.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Further, as applied to claim 12: in the cited method the bio-beads (or claimed BABU) act as soil amendment, thus, improve soil quality within the meaning of the claims.
As applied to claim 13: the cited reference by Percivall clearly recognizes nutrient recycling ability of bio-beads (see title and abstract).
As applied to claim 14: the bio-beads of cited reference by Percivall immobilize the algae Chlorella vulgaris.
As applied to claim 15: the bio-beads of cited reference by Percivall clearly comprise glomalin with Chlorella vulgaris.
As applied to claim 17: Percivall discloses that bio-beads are kept or stored in a nutrient solution (page 3, col. 2, line 6), which would be “spring water” (or water with minerals) for maintaining of photosynthetic microalga within the broadest reasonable meaning of the claims.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Percivall et al (”Phosphorous remediation using alginate/glomalin bio-beads: Examining structural cohesivity, nutrient retention, and reapplication viability”. Frontiers in Environmental Science; published 15 July 2022, 10:889940, DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2022.889940, pages 1-10) and Wang et aa (“The research of nitrogen and phosphate removal ability by immobilized chlorella sp. in municipal sewage”, Guangdong Huagong (2013), 40(20), 137-138, STN English abstract accession number 2014:1731186 CAPLUS, page 1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cai et al (“Nutrient recovery from wastewater streams by microalgae: Status and prospects”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 19 (2013), pages 36-369).
The cited reference by Percivall is relied upon as explained above for the disclosure of a method of nutrient remediation and nutrient recycling by using alginate/glomalin bio-beads (or a biologically active bioremediation units “BABUs” within the meaning of the claims), wherein the bio-beads comprise microalga Chlorella vulgaris which consumes, thereby, removes excess of nutrients from water enriched with nutrients.
The cited method is practiced in a model environment enriched in P nutrient but not in a real surface water environment contaminated with algae bloom. Thus, the cited reference does not explicitly teach ability of bio-beads comprising microalga Chlorella vulgaris to disperse the algae bloom.
However, the reference by Cai et al teaches that microalgae, including Chlorella vulgaris, are efficient in removing nitrogen and phosphorous nutrients from water environment, thereby, significantly reducing harmful plankton overgrowth by eliminating excess nutrients for uncontrolled harmful alga bloom (see abstract; see page 361, col. 2, last par; see page 364, col. 2).
Therefore, as applied to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to recognize the ability of bio-beads comprising microalga Chlorella vulgaris to disperse the algae bloom by removing nutrients and starving harmful algal bloom. Thus, invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
As applied to claim 16: the reference by Cai et al teaches that various microalgae including various species of Chlorella and other microalga (see table 3) are efficient in removing nitrogen and phosphorous nutrients from water environment, thereby, significantly reducing harmful algal bloom.
Therefore, as applied to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to include additional species of Chlorella and other microalga unto bio-beads of Purcevall in the method of nutrient remediation and nutrient recycling by using alginate/glomalin bio-beads because various species of Chlorella and other microalga are knonw and have been used for efficient removal of nitrogen and phosphorous nutrients from water environment.
Thus, invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA AFREMOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8.30am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (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 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.
Vera Afremova
January 20, 2026
/VERA AFREMOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653