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 Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 07OCT2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Benefit of domestic priority of application 63/119,788 filed on 12/01/2020 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 119e is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Various terms are discussed in the spec. at P10-13. More specifically:
“enriched hydrocarbon-degrading microbiome” refers to the culturing of a microbiome in a medium including a hydrocarbon for selection of microorganisms with increased tolerance and degradation capabilities for the hydrocarbon (spec. P10/L15-25). It is noted that such enrichment is equivalent to engineered/mutated microorganisms for oil or hydrocarbon degradation.
“aggregates” refers to the combination of a microbiome and a carrier that are agglomerated via a biofilm. Spec. P13-7-14; P17/L8-15.
“carrier” refers to a suitable substrate for a microbiome aggregate. Spec. P13/L12-14.
Product-by-Process Claims
Note that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP §2113). Claims 6-11 are interpreted as product-by-process claims and will be examined upon the merits of such claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 line(s) 1 sets forth the limitation “The composition or claim 2”, which should be corrected to - - The composition [[or]] of claim 2 - -
Regarding claim 2, the claim further specifies “a carrier”, which is part of the definition of “enriched hydrocarbon-degrading microbiome aggregates” (see claim interpretation above). Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 2 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-9,11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ROWSELL (US 5342525) in view of BARBATO et. al. 2019 “Cultivable hydrocarbon degrading bacteria have low phylogenetic diversity but highly versatile functional potential”.
Regarding claims 1-3,13, ROWSELL teaches a method for aiding microbial degradation of spilled oil (title) including a composition comprising:
a plurality of enriched hydrocarbon-degrading microbiome aggregates (mutated oil or hydrocarbon-consuming microorganisms with clay carriers; C1/L25-26,42-43,C2/L19-22,66-67 or elective cultures with screening for hydrocarbon digestion; C16/L38-44);
a carrier (e.g. a clay; C2/L66-67); and
a fluid medium (e.g. a liquid carrier or medium; C10/L25-27,49-51) wherein the carrier and the plurality of enriched hydrocarbon-degrading microbiome aggregates are suspended (a clay/microorganism formulation including a liquid carrier or medium will be a suspension or slurry, C17/L25, as small particles in a liquid such as water C11/L5-12; C13/L31-33,58-60);
whereby the composition is a dynamic microbiome composition wherein numbers of a plurality of microbial species are increasing and/or decreasing (note that live cultures are constantly growing and/or dying; see also C6/L5-6).
While ROWSELL does not specify a biofilm (see definition of enriched hydrocarbon-degrading microbiome aggregates above), it is noted that many micoorganisms attach to solid surfaces (such as clay particles) and form biofilms, especially in hostile conditions including pollutants (see BARBATO 2019 P46/right C/fourth paragraph). If not apparent that ROWSELL’s microbiome aggregates include a biofilm, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide for a biofilm to allow for easier and more efficient pollutant degradation (BARBATO 2019 P46/right C/fourth paragraph). The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of microbial bioremediation. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claim 4, ROWSELL teaches a C5-40 hydrocarbon (e.g. bioremediated cyclohexane, which is a C6 hydrocarbon; C5/L43-49).
Regarding claims 6-9,11-12, ROWSELL teaches e.g. a seawater (C9/L15) supplemented with a C5-40 hydrocarbon (e.g. cyclohexane or other oils such as crude oil; C5/L43-49) and a biofilm (see rejection of claims 1-3 above) including e.g. Pseudomonas (abstract). Note that the claims are directed towards a composition, not a method of making the composition (see product-by-process claims above).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ROWSELL (US 5342525) in view of BARBATO et. al. 2019 “Cultivable hydrocarbon degrading bacteria have low phylogenetic diversity but highly versatile functional potential” and evidenced by EPA EDBAC 2011.
Regarding claim 5, ROWSELL teaches e.g. a surfactant (e.g. alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride; C9/L4-5; see EPA EDBAC P5: “The ADBAC (Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chlorides) Category chemicals are similar to other cationic surfactants”).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ROWSELL (US 5342525) in view of BARBATO et. al. 2019 “Cultivable hydrocarbon degrading bacteria have low phylogenetic diversity but highly versatile functional potential” and BASSERES (US 5618725).
Regarding claim 10, ROWSELL does not teach the liquid medium is e.g. marine broth. However, BASSERES teaches oleophilic biodegrading additive and method of treating hybrocarbon polluted medium (title) including microorganisms that biodegrade of hydrocarbons (abstract; C2/L38-39) in a liquid medium including marine broth (C7/L34-35).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of ROWSELL with marine broth as taught by BASSERES in order to improve the growth of hydrocarbon-degradating microorganisms. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of microbial bioremediation. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ROWSELL (US 5342525) in view of BARBATO et. al. 2019 “Cultivable hydrocarbon degrading bacteria have low phylogenetic diversity but highly versatile functional potential”, and RAHSEPARA et. al. 2017 “Oil biodegradation: Interactions of artificial marine snow, clay particles, oil and Corexit” evidenced by JACKSON et. al. 2015. “Simulating aggregate dynamics in ocean biogeochemical models”.
Regarding claims 14-15, ROWSELL does not teach carrier comprises copepod carcasses or fecal matter etc. and/or krill carcasses or fecal matter etc. (collectively “marine snow”). However, RAHSEPARA teaches oil biodegradation: Interactions of artificial marine snow, clay particles, oil and Corexit (title) and that marine snow can enhance oil biodegradation in the abundance of dissolved oxygen by enhancing mass transfer by bringing the oil phase to the oil-degrading bacteria (“conclusion” P190/right C).
Note that marine snow includes copepod or krill carcasses or fecal matter etc. (see JACKSON P55/left C/second paragraph).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of ROWSELL with marine snow as taught by RAHSEPARA in order to improve bioremediation by hydrocarbon-degradating microorganisms. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of microbial bioremediation. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Examiner, Art Unit 1777