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 .
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. Figs. 13-16 include nucleotide sequences not identified by SEQ ID NO. The Brief Description of the Drawings on pages 4-5 of the specification also do not identify the nucleotide sequence by SEQ ID NO.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11 and 13-15) in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/13/2026.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 03/16/2022 (IN202221014245). A request was filed on July 28, 2023 to retrieve electronic priority applications, however there is no such priority document in the file wrapper. Applicants bear the responsibility for ensuring a copy is provided as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 03/13/2023 include graphs containing color, color photographs, as well as nucleotide sequences showing color.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because figure(s) 1-4 and 6-9 recite “Figure X” at the bottom of the page and each “view” is labeled as A and B, or in some cases A,B,C and D, for example. Per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), different views must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter and view numbers preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.”. For example, the correct label is FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B.
(u) Numbering of views.
(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1 and 3 are missing “a” before “salicylanilide based drug”; line 2 is missing “a” before “wild type of the algae”; line 3 is missing “the” before “presence”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 is missing “a” before “500 bp insertion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 is missing “a” before “300 bp insertion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 is missing “an” before “insertion-deletion mutation”, and is missing “the” before “730 nucleotide position” and “1070 nucleotide position”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 is missing “a” before “frameshift mutation”, and is missing “the” before “200 nucleotide position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9,11,13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a” is missing before “wild type of the algae” in all recitations in each of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 is missing “a” before “concentration”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-11 and 13-15 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 2-11 and 13-15 recite the limitation "the algae" in the preamble, and claims 2-5,8-10 and 13-15 also recite “the algae” in the body of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 recites both “mutant algae” and “wild type of the algae”. Therefore, in order to be completely clear on which algae is being referred to, the preamble and other recitations of “the algae” should either recite “the mutant algae” or “the wild type algae”.
In addition, in claims 8 and 15, the Markush grouping of “selected from a group comprising” is an improper Markush grouping of alternatives as the language “comprising” does not limit the group to a closed group of alternatives. In other words, the claims recite an open list of alternatives (comprises) and is not a closed group of alternatives. See MPEP 2173.05(h), “A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members”. Therefore, the examiner suggests reciting “selected from the group consisting of….”.
Written Description Rejection
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 1-11 and 13-15 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 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Instant claims 1,9-11 and 13-14 encompasses a large genus of mutant algae resistant to any salicylanilide based drug having improved productivity and improved photosynthetic efficiency compared to wild type algae in the presence of a salicylanilide based drug. The mutant algae encompasses any type of algae and any mutant of any length and in any location in any gene of the algae. Claim 2 limits the mutation to at least 2 mutations in a gene encoding putative proton symporter protein 3 and claim 3 limits to at least one mutation encoding putative cytochrome p450 protein 4 however this encompasses an insertion or deletion of at least one nucleotide at any location of the recited genes. Claim 4 limits to at least 500 bp insertion in a gene encoding putative aquaporin protein 1, and claim 5 limits to at least 300 bp insertion in a gene encoding putative aquaporin protein 2 and encompasses the insertion at any location of the recited genes; claim 6 limits to an insertion-deletion mutation at about 730 nucleotide position and at about 1070 nucleotide position in the putative proton symporter protein 3 gene; claim 7 limits to a frameshift mutation at about 200 nucleotide position of the putative cytochrome p450 protein 4. Claim 6 recites specific species of microalgae. Claim 15 recites specific species of the salicylanilide based drug that the mutant algae is resistant to.
Regarding the state of the art, Sim et al. (US 20180100206, Published 12 April 2018), teach that as one of the methods of improving photosynthetic efficiency of microalgae, a method of decreasing a chlorophyll antenna size has been used (paragraph 0005). Sim et al. teach that 100 or more genes participate in and regulate photosynthesis mechanism which is one of the most complicated biochemical mechanisms and a large number of proteins and coenzymes are required for an electron transport system, carbon dioxide fixation and synthesis of photosynthetic pigments (paragraph 0005). Therefore, Sim et al. teach the large genus of genes, proteins and enzymes involved in photosynthesis, and which has complicated biochemical mechanisms.
The instant specification discloses that the wild type agal cells are Picochlorum strain (page 6, lines 25-27). The instant specification discloses the mutant algae comprises at least 2 mutations in a gene encoding putative proton symporter protein 3, as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 (page 8, lines 21-23) and the mutant algae comprises an insertion-deletion mutation at about 730 nucleotide position and at about 1070 nucleotide position in the gene (page 8, lines 27-30); the mutant algae comprises at least one mutation in a gene encoding putative cytochrome P450 protein 4 as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 3 and comprises a frameshift mutation at about 200 nucleotide position in the gene (page 9, lines 1-10); the mutant algae comprises at least 500 base pair insertion in a gene encoding putative aquaporin protein 1 in reading frame, and in an embodiment the putative aquaporin protein 1 of the mutant algae is set forth as SEQ ID NO: 5 (page 9, lines 16-20); and the mutant algae comprises about 340 bp insertion at about 250 nucleotide position in reading frame of a gene encoding putative aquaporin protein 2 and in an embodiment the gene encoding putative aquaporin protein 2 of the mutant algae is set forth as SEQ ID NO: 7 (page 9 lines 32-34, to page 10 line 1).
Instant Example 1 discloses that the wild type cells were treated with EMS for 1 hour, and the salicylanilide based drug they were exposed to was Niclosamide (Example 1, page 18). Figure 5 shows improved volumetric productivity of the mutant algae compared to wild type algae based on about 1,2 and 5 ppm of Niclosamide, and shows the mutant algae is resistant to salicylanilide based drug such as Niclosamide compared to wild type algae. Figures 11 and 12 show improved volumetric productivity of the mutant algae compared to wild type algae at about 2 and 5 ppm of Niclosamide, oxyclozonide, Rafoxanide and Closantel and that the mutant algae are resistant to salicylanilide based drug compared to wild type algae. Figures 8 and 9 show improved growth of the mutant algae at about 2 and 5 ppm of Niclosamide, oxyclozonide, Rafoxanide and Closantel that the mutant algae are resistant to salicylanilide based drug compared to wild type algae. Figure 6 shows improved photosynthetic efficiency/health of the mutant algae at about 1,2 and 5 ppm of Niclosamide, and Table 1 page 12 shows that the mutant algae has improved nitrogen content in presence of salicylanilide based drug such as Niclosamide and is found to be about 10-14% higher in the mutant algae comprised to wild type algae.
The specification discloses the microalgae species as Picochlorum, SEQ ID NOs: 1,3,5 and 7 as the specific mutation of each gene, as well as the salicylanilide based drug being Niclosamide, oxyclozonide, Rafoxanide or Closantel which meet the written description and enablement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. However, claims 1-11 and 13-15 are directed to encompass a genus of algae, genus of mutations in a genus of genes, and genus of salicylanilide based drugs which only correspond in some undefined way to specifically instantly disclosed algae species, species of mutations in the recited genes and species of salicylanilide based drugs. The recited genus of algae, genus of mutations in a genus of genes, and genus of salicylanilide based drugs do not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to lacking chemical structural information for what they are and chemical structures are highly variant and encompass a myriad of possibilities. The specification provides insufficient written description to support the genus’s encompassed by the claim. Note: MPEP 2163.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, (Fed. Cir. 1991), makes clear that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116.)
Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1892 (CAFC 2004), further supports this by stating that:
The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. A description of an anti-inflammatory steroid, i.e., a steroid (a generic structural term) described even in terms of its functioning of lessening inflammation of tissues fails to distinguish any steroid from others having the same activity or function. A description of what a material does, rather than of what it is, usually does not suffice…. The disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described. (Emphasis added).
With the exception of the above specifically disclosed microalgae, SEQ ID NOs of the specific mutants of the specific genes, and the specific salicylanilide based drugs, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed species, derivatives, analogs, etc., regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. The chemical structure itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Circ. 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016, (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993), claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence. Finally, University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) held that:
...To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
Furthermore, to the extent that a functional description can meet the requirement for an adequate written description, it can do so only in accordance with PTO guidelines stating that the requirement can be met by disclosing “sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics,” including “functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure.” Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle, 68 USPQ2d 1424, 1432 (DC WNY 2003).
The specification does not disclose a core structure of the mutation in a genus of genes for a genus of microalgae that would result in the functional limitations of the mutant algae being resistant to a salicylanilide based drug and having improved productivity and improved photosynthetic efficiency as compared to wild type algae in the presence of a salicylanilide based drug, or wherein the nitrogen content in the algae is improved by at least 10% as compared to wild type algae, or wherein the algae has at least 2 fold reduced atp depletion as compared to wild type algae. The specification does not disclose a sufficient number of species of microalgae that have the recited mutations in the specific genes that result in the recited functional limitations above. It is not clear based on the state of the art or the instant specification if all species of algae comprise the recited and disclosed genes encoding the putative proton symporter protein 3, putative cytochrome p450 protein 4, putative aquaporin protein 1, or putative aquaporin protein 2, and if any mutation in any gene or any of these recited genes would result in the mutant algae as being resistant to a salicylanilide based drug and having improved productivity and photosynthetic efficiency.
Therefore, only the microalgae species Picochlorum, SEQ ID NOs: 1,3,5 and 7 as the specific mutation of each gene, as well as the salicylanilide based drug being Niclosamide, oxyclozonide, Rafoxanide and Closantel, but not the full breadth of the claim(s) meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The species specifically disclosed are not representative of the genus because the genus is highly variant. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 USC § 112 is severable from its enablement provision. (See page 1115.)
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 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 1,8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20180100206, Published 12 April 2018) in view of Van Ginkel et al. (Algal Research 50, Published 29 June 2020, 101975).
Claim Interpretation: As seen in instant claim 15, niclosamide is a salicylanilide based drug, and therefore art teaching an algae resistant to niclosamide reads on an algae resistant to a salicylanilide based drug.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Sim et al. teach a microalgae PTS42 (KCTC18499P) mutant of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii with improved phototaxis and photosynthetic efficiency (paragraphs 0008-0009,0072, claim 1), and which has increased biomass productivity (claim 3, paragraph 0072). Sim et al. teach the mutant was prepared by insertional mutation of a gene including a hygromycin (antibiotic)-resistance sequence randomly inserted into the wild type strain cells (paragraph 0045). Sim et al. teach that in the PTS42 mutant strain the photosystem operating efficiency was improved by about 20% as compared to the wild type strain (paragraph 0058), and that biomass productivity was improved by about 1.8 times or more as compared to the wild type strain (paragraph 0064).
Sim et al. does not teach that the mutant algae is resistant to a salicylanilide based drug.
Before the effective filing date, Van Ginkel et al. taught that algal biofuels have the advantages of high areal productivity, high oil content and the ability to be cultivated using non-potable water on non-arable land, however, algae can be grazed by a wide variety of organisms, particularly in open pond systems (Abstract). Van Ginkel et al. taught that a key to algal crop protection is treating algae cultures with chemicals that are differentially toxic to the grazers, yet harmless to the algae at the treatment concentrations, but the problem is to match the right control agent to the algae species being mass cultured since there are dozens of algae species and hundreds of grazing species (page 2, left column). Van Ginkel et al. taught niclosamide acts by uncoupling oxidative phosphorylation and thus may inhibit algal grazers (page 2, left column). Van Ginkel et al. taught a study using Chlorella kessleri as the model freshwater algal producer, Brachionus calyciflorus as the freshwater rotifer and Colpoda sp. as the freshwater ciliate model algal grazers, and used various pesticides, including niclosamide (NC), and results showed that C. kessleri was not affected by niclosamide (Results and discussion, page 3, right column). Van Ginkel et al. taught to keep algal biodiesel production as a sustainable source of biofuels, organisms which contaminate algal ponds need to be controlled. The pesticides QN, NC, TFM, ROT and pH were used to eliminate contaminating organisms. C. kessleri was not affected by TFM and NC at concentrations up to 39 and 31 μM (page 7, right column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have modified the microalgae mutant Chlamydomonas reinhardtii of Sim et al. with the teaching of Van Ginkel et al. in order to provide a microalgae mutant that is resistant to niclosamide in order to control organisms that contaminate algal ponds during culture. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as this would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and because both Sim et al. and Van Ginkel et al. pertain to improvement of microalgae used for producing biofuels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the microalgae mutant Chlamydomonas reinhardtii of Sim et al. with the teaching of Van Ginkel et al. regarding algae that is not affected by niclosamide for controlling contaminating organisms in the culture because Van Ginkel et al. taught the need to keep algal biodiesel production as a sustainable source of biofuels, organisms which contaminate algal ponds need to be controlled, and treating algae cultures with chemicals that are differentially toxic to the grazers, yet harmless to the algae at the treatment concentrations and the need to match the right control agent to the algae species being mass cultured, and taught that C. kessleri was found to not be affected by niclosamide.
Accordingly, the limitations of claims 1,8 and 15 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-3:30 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, Ram R Shukla can be reached at 571-272-0735. 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.
/STEPHANIE L SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1635
/ABIGAIL VANHORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1636