DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/26/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/26/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (CN 113072861 B – English Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Ma discloses a method of precluding or minimizing bacterial biofilm-based corrosion (See translation- “fourthly, anti-bacterial-corrosion. nano-ceramic and ultra-fine active zinc oxide can effectively anti-bacterial bacteria, prevent sulfate reducing bacteria, mildew and other growth caused by corrosion of the inner wall of the pipeline”) of a carrier or holder of liquid petroleum (see English abstract – oil field pipeline is lined with a ceramic liner to prevent corrosion]) comprising: providing a hollow structure (oil field pipe) which will be exposed to a flow of liquid petroleum, said hollow structure (pipe) being formed of steel (see English translation – “the adaptability is wide. It is widely used for oil pipeline, gas pipeline, water injection pipeline, watering pipeline, injection pipeline and other special steel pipeline or old pipeline with special requirement for inner corrosion-proof pipe diameter Φ 50-525mm”), said hollow structure (pipe shown in figure 1) having an inner surface, said inner surface being coated or lined with a piezo-electric material that includes nano-ceramic and zinc oxide (See English abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Ma discloses wherein the material for the lining of the includes nano-ceramic and zinc oxide which are piezo-electric materials (see English abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the steel oil field pipe disclosed by Ma inherently has micro-crevices as these are properties of the steel pipes used in oil pipelines.
Regarding claim 8, Ma discloses that the anti-corrosion liner reaches 4mm in thickness in old pipelines (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, Ma discloses in claim 7 an anti-corrosion nano ceramic lined pipeline for an oil field and further discloses that the oil field pipelines are for passing crude oil (see claim 7 and background in English translation).
Regarding claim 11, Ma discloses bacterial cells and that the zinc oxide included in the anticorrosion liner of the steel pipe exerts antibacterial properties such as bacteriostasis (see English translation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Charlton et al. (WO 2005/111080 A2).
Ma is set froth above with regards to claim 1 but does not appear to disclose blocking and disrupting communication between bacterial cells in the biofilm by use of an agent of one or more of acyl-homoserine lactone analogs, lactonases, and acylases.
Charlton discloses a method of preventing or inhibiting biofilm formation by a population of bacteria, comprising administration to the population of an antibody to a lactone or lactone-derived signal molecule secreted by bacteria, in which the lactone signal molecule is a homoserine molecule or a peptide thiolactone molecule (see claims 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Ma and block and disrupt communication between bacterial cells in the biofilm by use of an agent of one or more of acyl-homoserine lactone analogs and lactonases as taught by Charlton in order to yield the predictable result of further inhibiting growth of the bacteria in the biofilm.
7. Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Woo (“Inhibitors of synaptic vesicle exocytosis reduce surface expression of postsynaptic glutamate receptors”.
Ma is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but does not appear to disclose wherein said blocking exocytosis among the bacteria cells is accomplished by use of an agent one or more of bafilomycin, botulinum toxin B, and tetanus toxin.
Woo discloses that it is known to inhibit synaptic vesicle exocytosis in bacteria with conventional tools such as bafilomycin A1, botulinum toxin B, or tetanus toxin (See page 343 and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Ma and inhibit synaptic vesicle exocytosis in bacteria with conventional tools such as bafilomycin A1, botulinum toxin B, or tetanus toxin as taught by Woo in order to prevent the spread of bacteria.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 4 and 6, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest a liquid petroleum carrier or holder made of steel that has micro-crevices having a width of less than approximately 10 pM and greater than approximately 50 pM or wherein said inner surface of said hollow structure includes micro-crevices having a width of less than approximately 10 pM and greater than approximately 50 pM, in the claimed environment.
Ma (of record) is considered the closest prior art and teaches a steel oil pipe having a liner covering the inside of the pipe to reduce biofilm but does not teach or even suggest micro-crevices having a width as claimed.
Claims 5 and 7 are indicated as allowable by virtue of their claim dependency.
.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. 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).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799