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 of Group I, claims 14-15 and 35-40 in the reply filed on 07/13/2025 is acknowledged. Additionally, Applicant elected telephonically the species magnesium carbonate (claim 14), bricks (claim 15), salts (claim 35), Alphaproteobacteria (claim 36), Variovorax (claim 37), Sporosarcina pasteurii (claim 38), and a polymer (claim 40) on 08/15/2025. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
The instant application filed on 01/04/2023 is a CON of PCT/US2021/040537 filed on 07/06/2021 and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/048,844 filed on 07/07/2020. PRO 63/048,844 finds support for the instantly claimed invention; therefore, the effective filing date of the instant application is 07/07/2020.
Status of the Claims
Claims 16, 19-22, 24, and 29-34 have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 14-15 and 35-40 are pending and currently under examination (claim set filed 07/13/2025).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2024 and 08/31/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “second enzyme that form a carbonate material” should read “second enzyme that forms a carbonate material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b), Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 14-15 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 14 recites “microorganisms which express a first enzyme that dissolves a carbonate mineral and microorganisms which express a second enzyme that form a carbonate mineral”; however, it is unclear if Applicant is claiming one microorganism that expresses both the first and second enzyme, or if Applicant is claiming two different microorganisms, wherein one microorganism expresses the first enzyme and a second microorganism that expresses the second enzyme. For the purposes of applying prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim to be related to two different microorganism, wherein one microorganism expresses the first enzyme, and a second microorganism expresses the second enzyme.
Claim 14 recites “under conditions that promote activities of both the first enzyme and the second enzyme to dissolve the carbonate mineral into mineral ions or free carbon”; however, the second enzyme is claimed to be for formation of carbonate material. Therefore, it is unclear how presence of the second enzyme (along with the first enzyme) promotes activity that dissolves the carbonate material when its function is to form carbonate material.
Claims 15 and 35-40 are included in this rejection for depending on independent claim 14 and failing to rectify the noted deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), Written Description
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.
Claims 14-15 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites “first enzyme that dissolves a carbonate material” and “second enzyme that form a carbonate material”; however, these enzymes are described functionally by what they do, instead of what they are. Moreover, Applicant does not provide within the instant Specification descriptions and/or structures of these enzymes. With regard to the state of the art, Smith (US 2018/0118623; Date of Publication: May 3, 2018) teaches “urease and urea as a source of energy with an aggregate material such as, for example, sand. The enzyme catalyzes the production of ammonia and carbon dioxide, increasing the pH level of the composition. The rise in pH forms a mineral “precipitate,” combining calcium with carbon dioxide. Particles present in the mixture act as nucleation sites, attracting mineral ions from the calcium forming calcite crystals. The mineral growth fills gaps between the sand particles biocementing or bonding them together” (see, e.g., Smith, [0003]). Royne (WO 2017/220768; Date of Publication: December 28, 2017) teaches growing a microorganism that enzymatically generates “an acid in a CaCO3-containing preparation to decrease the pH of said preparation, thereby dissolving at least a part of the CaCO3 to produce a dissolved calcium carbonate preparation (DCCP)” and enzymatically generating an increase in the pH of said combined mixture of the DCCP with the particulate starting material “thereby causing at least a part of the dissolved CaCO3 to precipitate and bind together at least part of the particulate starting material and precipitated CaCO3, and optionally part of any undissolved CaCO3, to form the construction material (see, e.g., Royne, pg. 4, lines 1-8). Therefore, the state of the art broadly teaches multiple enzymes that can nucleate or degrade CaCO3. Moreover, there are potentially undiscovered enzymes that can dissolve or form a carbonate material. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this claim relates to all enzymes that dissolve a carbonate material and all enzymes that form a carbonate material, which the prior art does not teach. Therefore, these enzymes are broadly claimed based on their function, have no description in the instant Specification, and the state of the art does not fully teach and describe these enzymes, especially the ones that have not been discovered.
Claim 14 recites “under conditions that promote activities of both the first enzyme and second enzyme”; however, these conditions are described functionally by what they do, instead of what they are. Moreover, Applicant does not provide within the instant Specification descriptions regarding the conditions that are required to promote the activities of the first and enzymes to dissolve the carbonate material into mineral ions or free carbon. With regard to the state of the art, Royne (WO 2017/220768; Date of Publication: December 28, 2017) teaches decreasing the pH of the solution to dissolve the carbonate material and increasing the pH to precipitate the carbonate material (see, e.g., Royne, pg. 4, lines 1-8). Kucharski teaches “combining the starting material with effective amounts of (i) a urease producing micro-organism; (ii) urea; and (iii) calcium ions and wherein the effective amount of the urease producing organism provides a urea hydrolysis rate, under standard conditions, of 0.5-50 mM urea hydrolysed.min-1” (see, e.g., Kucharski, abstract). Smith (US 2018/0118623; Date of Publication: May 3, 2018) teaches “incubating the mixture under conditions that promote the formation of calcium carbonate” (see, e.g., Smith, [0014]). Therefore, the state of the art broadly teaches the conditions that promote activities of the first and second enzymes. Moreover, there are potentially undiscovered conditions that also promote the activities of the first and second enzymes. Furthermore, the BRI of this claim relates to all conditions that promote the activities of the first enzyme and the second enzyme to dissolve the carbonate material into mineral ions or free carbon. Therefore, thee conditions are broadly claimed based on their function, have no description in the instant Specification, and the state of the art does not fully teach and describe these conditions, especially the ones that have not been discovered.
Claims 15 and 35-40 are included in this rejection of depending on rejected independent claim 14 and failing to rectify the noted deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103, Obviousness
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royne (WO 2017/220768; Date of Publication: December 28, 2017 – cited in the IDS filed on 08/31/2023) and Sun (Study of magnesium precipitation based on biocementation; 2019 – cited in the IDS filed on 08/31/2023).
Royne’s general disclosure relates to methods of preparing biocement by employing microbial or enzymatic means to generate a first acid that dissolves CaCO3, followed by urea degradation and production of CO3 ions which increases the pH and leads to reprecipitation of CaCO3 (see, e.g., Royne, abstract). Moreover, Royne discloses that “The precipitation of CaCO3 acts as a cementation process which can bind together particulate materials to yield mortars, concretes and suchlike” (see, e.g., Royne, abstract).
Regarding claim 14 pertaining to a method of manufacturing a construction material, Royne teaches growing a microorganism that enzymatically generates “an acid in a CaCO3-containing preparation to decrease the pH of said preparation, thereby dissolving at least a part of the CaCO3 to produce a dissolved calcium carbonate preparation (DCCP)”, “combining the DCCP with a particulate starting material”, and enzymatically generating an increase in the pH of said combined mixture of the DCCP with the particulate starting material “thereby causing at least a part of the dissolved CaCO3 to precipitate and bind together at least part of the particulate starting material and precipitated CaCO3, and optionally part of any undissolved CaCO3, to form the construction material (see, e.g., Royne, pg. 4, lines 1-8). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the increased and decreased pH conditions produced by the enzymes allows for the formation of the construction material.
Regarding claim 15 pertaining to the construction material, Royne teaches that the construction material that can be produced from this method includes bricks (see, e.g., Royne, pg. 7, line 17).
However, Royne does not teach: contacting the aqueous medium with magnesium carbonate (claim 14(b)).
Sun’s general disclosure relates to the effects of magnesium carbonate, and concentration of Ca2+ and Mg2+, on urease activity (see, e.g., Sun, abstract). Moreover, Sun discloses that magnesium ions enhanced urease activity, while calcium ions significantly impaired urease activity during sand solidification (see, e.g., Sun, abstract). Additionally, Sun discloses that magnesium is an important part of biocementation processes because “magnesium carbonate has a cementing character like calcium carbonate, and the magnesium addition enables the microbe cementitious material to have the denser microstructure with lower porosity and the higher compressive strength (see, e.g., Sun, Introduction, pg. 1258).
Regarding claim 14 pertaining to magnesium carbonate, Sun teaches the addition of magnesium carbonate to form carbonate material because “magnesium carbonate has a cementing character like calcium carbonate, and the magnesium addition enables the microbe cementitious material to have the denser microstructure with lower porosity and the higher compressive strength (see, e.g., Sun, Introduction, pg. 1258).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture a construction material with microorganisms expressing a first and a second enzyme that dissolve and form a carbonate material, as taught by Royne, wherein the carbonate material comprises magnesium carbonate, as taught by Sun. One would have been motivated to do so because Sun teaches that magnesium is an important part of biocementation processes because “magnesium carbonate has a cementing character like calcium carbonate, and the magnesium addition enables the microbe cementitious material to have the denser microstructure with lower porosity and the higher compressive strength (see, e.g., Sun, Introduction, pg. 1258). Moreover, Royne teaches “preparing cement and cement- based products, and in particular a construction material based on or comprising a calcium carbonate cement, wherein enzymatic processes are used to generate changes in pH which induce dissolution and subsequently precipitation, or recrystallization, of calcium carbonate, thereby to render it functional as a cement. The calcium carbonate cement (precipitated/recrystallized calcium carbonate) is used to bind together a particulate starting material to form a construction material” (see, e.g., Royne, pg. 1, lines 1-9). Therefore, based on the teachings of Royne and Sun, it would have been obvious to produce a construction material with microorganisms expressing a first and a second enzyme that dissolve and form a carbonate material, wherein the carbonate material comprises magnesium carbonate because the magnesium carbonate allows the cementitious material to have a denser microstructure with lower porosity and higher compressive strength. One would have expected success because Royne and Sun both teach the production of construction materials through the use of microorganisms expressing enzymes.
Claims 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royne and Sun as applied to claims 14-15 above, and further in view of Kucharski (WO 2016/066326; Date of Publication: June 29, 2006).
The teachings of Royne and Sun, herein referred to as modified-Royne-Sun, are discussed above as it pertains to a method of manufacturing a construction material from enzymes produced by microorganisms.
However, modified-Royne-Sun does not teach: wherein the aqueous medium further comprises salts (claim 35); or wherein the microorganism is Sporosarcina pasteurii (claim 38).
Kucharski’s general disclosure relates to “a method of forming a high strength cement in a permeable starting material by combining the starting material with a urease producing microorganism, urea, and calcium ions (see, e.g., Kucharski, abstract). Moreover, Kucharski discloses that the method can be used to form high strength cement through the production of relatively high levels of calcite in the starting material (see, e.g., Kucharski, pg. 2, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 35 pertaining to the aqueous medium comprising salt, Kucharski discloses that the calcium ions may be provided in the form of a salt, such as calcium nitrate or calcium chloride (see, e.g., Kucharski, pg. 12, lines 16-17). Moreover, Kucharski teaches that it is preferable that “the calcium ions are provided as a mixture of calcium salts to prevent or reduce inhibitory effects caused by high concentrations of particular anions” (see, e.g., Kucharski, pg. 12, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 38 pertaining to the microorganism, Kucharski teaches that the microorganism is preferable Sporosarcina pasteurii (see, e.g., Kucharski, pg. 12, lines 6-7) because Sporosarcina pasteurii is naturally capable of producing urease (see, e.g., Kucharski, pg. 11, lines 29-31).
It would have been first obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture a construction material with microorganisms expressing a first and a second enzyme that dissolve and form a carbonate material comprising magnesium carbonate, as taught by modified-Royne-Sun, wherein an aqueous medium that comprises the microorganisms expressing the first and second enzymes contains salts, as taught by Kucharski. One would have been motivated because Kucharski teaches that it is preferable that “the calcium ions are provided as a mixture of calcium salts to prevent or reduce inhibitory effects caused by high concentrations of particular anions” (see, e.g., Kucharski, pg. 12, lines 18-19). Moreover, modified-Royne-Sun teaches that calcium ions, in the form of calcium salts, are added to the mix in order to CaCO3 when producing bio-cements (see, e.g., Royne, pg. 2, lines 16-18). Therefore, based on the teachings of modified-Royne-Sun and Kucharski, it would have been obvious to add salts to the mixture in order to produce CaCO3.
It would have been secondly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture a construction material with microorganisms expressing a first and a second enzyme that dissolve and form a carbonate material comprising magnesium carbonate, as taught by modified-Royne-Sun, wherein the microorganism is Sporosarcina pasteurii, as taught by Kucharski. One would have been motivated to do so because Kucharski teaches that Sporosarcina pasteurii is naturally capable of producing urease, which is an enzyme that hydrolyzes urea to produce high strength cement in the presence of calcium ions (see, e.g., Kucharski, pg. 11, lines 29-31). Moreover, modified-Royne-Sun teaches “microbial or enzymatic means first to generate acid which dissolves CaCO3, and then to degrade urea, producing CaCO3- ions which increase the pH and lead to the reprecipitation of CaCO3. The precipitation of CaCO3 acts as a cementation process which can bind together particulate materials to yield mortars, concretes and suchlike” (see, e.g., Royne, abstract). Therefore, based on the teachings of modified-Royne-Sun and Kucharski, it would have been obvious to use Sporosarcina pasteurii as the microorganism because it is naturally capable of producing urease for manufacturing high strength cement. One would have been motivated to do so because modified-Royne-Sun and Kucharski both teach the production of construction materials through the use of microorganisms expressing enzymes.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royne and Sun as applied to claims 14-15 above, and further in view of Cacchio (A Novel Approach to Isolation and Screening of Calcifying Bacteria for Biotechnological Applications; 2019).
The teachings of Royne and Sun, herein referred to as modified-Royne-Sun, are discussed above as it pertains to a method of manufacturing a construction material from enzymes produced by microorganisms.
However, modified-Royne-Sun does not teach: wherein the microorganism is an Alphaproteobacteria (claim 36).
Cacchio’s general disclosure relates to the study of “CaCO3 precipitation by different bacteria isolated from a rhizospheric soil in both solid and liquid media” (see, e.g., Cacchio, abstract). Moreover, Cacchio discloses that “through culture-depending studies, that bacteria belonging to Actinobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, and Alphaproteobacteria are the dominant bacteria involved in CaCO3 precipitation in this environment” (see, e.g., Cacchio, abstract). Additionally, Cacchio discloses that rhizospheric bacteria that exist in rhizospheric soil, such as Alphaproteobacteria, have strong CaCO3 depositor strains possibly due to the ammonification of amino acids and mineralization of organic acids by these strains (see, e.g., Cacchio, Section 4. Summary and Conclusions, pg. 22).
Regarding claim 36 pertaining to the microorganism, Cacchio teaches that bacteria bellowing to Alphaproteobacteria, which are considered rhizospheric bacteria, are dominant bacteria for producing CaCO3 within the rhizospheric soil environment (see, e.g., Cacchio, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture a construction material with microorganisms expressing a first and a second enzyme that dissolve and form a carbonate material comprising magnesium carbonate, as taught by modified-Royne-Sun, wherein the microorganism is Alphaproteobacteria, as taught by Cacchio. One would have been motivated to do so because Cacchio teaches that rhizospheric bacteria that exist in rhizospheric soil, such as Alphaproteobacteria, have strong CaCO3 depositor strains possibly due to the ammonification of amino acids and mineralization of organic acids by these strains (see, e.g., Cacchio, Section 4. Summary and Conclusions, pg. 22). Moreover, modified-Royne-Sun teaches “microbial or enzymatic means first to generate acid which dissolves CaCO3, and then to degrade urea, producing CaCO3- ions which increase the pH and lead to the reprecipitation of CaCO3. The precipitation of CaCO3 acts as a cementation process which can bind together particulate materials to yield mortars, concretes and suchlike” (see, e.g., Royne, abstract). Therefore, based on the teachings of modified-Royne-Sun and Cacchio, it would have been obvious to use Alphaproteobacteria as the microorganism to produce a construction material because Alphaproteobacteria have strong CaCO3 depositor strains. One would have expected success because modified-Royne-Sun and Cacchio both teach the production of construction materials through the use of microorganisms expressing enzymes.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royne and Sun as applied to claims 14-15 above, and further in view of Hammes (Key roles of pH and calcium metabolism in microbial carbonate precipitation; 2002).
The teachings of Royne and Sun, herein referred to as modified-Royne-Sun, are discussed above as it pertains to a method of manufacturing a construction material from enzymes produced by microorganisms.
However, modified-Royne-Sun does not teach: wherein the microorganism is Variovorax (claim 37).
Hammes’ general disclosure relates to “the general mechanisms of microbial carbonate precipitation” and “the occurrence of species- and environment-specific calcification” (see, e.g., Hammes, abstract). Moreover, Hammes discloses that microbiological carbonate precipitation commonly occurs in nature and all bacteria are capable of inducing carbonate precipitation (see, e.g., Hammes, Section 3, pg. 4). Additionally, Hammes discloses that bacteria can use passive or active calcification mechanisms in order to induce carbonate precipitation depending on the macro-environment surrounding the bacteria (see, e.g., Hammes, Section 3, pages 4-5).
Regarding claim 37 pertaining to the microorganism, Hammes discloses that Variovorax spp can undergo urea degradation in synthetic medium for calcite calcification (see, e.g., Hammes, Table 1, pg. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture a construction material with microorganisms expressing a first and a second enzyme that dissolve and form a carbonate material comprising magnesium carbonate, as taught by modified-Royne-Sun, wherein the microorganism is Variovorax, as taught by Hammes. One would have been motivated to do so because Hammes teaches that Variovorax spp can undergo urea degradation in synthetic medium for calcite calcification (see, e.g., Hammes, Table 1, pg. 5). Moreover, modified-Royne-Sun teaches “microbial or enzymatic means first to generate acid which dissolves CaCO3, and then to degrade urea, producing CaCO3- ions which increase the pH and lead to the reprecipitation of CaCO3. The precipitation of CaCO3 acts as a cementation process which can bind together particulate materials to yield mortars, concretes and suchlike” (see, e.g., Royne, abstract). Therefore, based on the teachings of modified-Royne-Sun and Hammes, it would have been obvious to use Varivorax as the microorganism to produce a construction material because Variovorax can degrade urea for calcite calcification. One would have expected success because modified-Royne-Sun and Hammes both teach the production of construction materials through the use of microorganisms expressing enzymes.
Claim 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royne and Sun as applied to claims 14-15 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2018/0118623; Date of Publication: May 3, 2018 – cited in the IDS filed on 08/31/2023).
The teachings of Royne and Sun, herein referred to as modified-Royne-Sun, are discussed above as it pertains to a method of manufacturing a construction material from enzymes produced by microorganisms.
However, modified-Royne-Sun does not teach: wherein the contacting of claim 14(b) includes addition of a binding agent (claim 39); or wherein the binding agent comprises a polymer (claim 40).
Smith’s general disclosure relates to “the manufacture of bricks, masonry and other solid structures using small amount of aggregate material that is pre-loaded with spores and/or vegetative bacterial cells” (see, e.g., Smith, abstract). Moreover, Smith discloses that the “method for manufacturing construction materials through induced cementation exhibits low embodied energy, and can occur at ambient pressure, and in a wide range of temperatures” (see, e.g., Smith, [0005]). Additionally, Smith discloses that “Biologically grown bricks and masonry do not require the traditional use of Portland cement mortar, which enables the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide by offering an alternative to the high-embodied energy traditionally manufactured construction materials. Employing cells to naturally induce mineral precipitation, combined with local aggregate and rapid manufacturing methods enables the production of a local, ecological, and economic building material for use throughout the global construction industry” (see, e.g., Smith, [0009]).
Regarding claims 39-40 pertaining to the binding agent, Smith teaches the addition of polymers as binding agents in order to promote “adhesion between spores and/or vegetative cells and aggregate via, for example, hydrophobic bonds, hydrophilic bonds, ionic bonds, non-ionic bonds, covalent bonds, van der Waal forces, or a combination thereof” (see, e.g., Smith, [0012], [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture a construction material with microorganisms expressing a first and a second enzyme that dissolve and form a carbonate material comprising magnesium carbonate, as taught by modified-Royne-Sun, wherein the carbonate material includes a binding agent, such as a polymer, as taught by Smith. One would have been motivated to do so because Smith teaches that the binding agent promotes adhesion between the microorganism(s) and the aggregate material (see, e.g., Smith, [0012], [0023]). Moreover, modified-Royne-Sun teaches “microbial or enzymatic means first to generate acid which dissolves CaCO3, and then to degrade urea, producing CaCO3- ions which increase the pH and lead to the reprecipitation of CaCO3. The precipitation of CaCO3 acts as a cementation process which can bind together particulate materials to yield mortars, concretes and suchlike” (see, e.g., Royne, abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the binding agent during formation of the construction material in order to have the microorganisms producing the enzymes for CaCO3 production to be in close contact with the aggregate material in order to produce the construction material. One would have expected success because modified-Royne-Sun and Smith both teach the production of construction materials through the use of microorganisms expressing enzymes.
Conclusion
Claims 14-15 and 35-40 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE IANNUZO whose telephone number is (703)756-5559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:30-6:00 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, 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.
/NATALIE IANNUZO/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/NGHI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653