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 .
Non-Final Rejection
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1 and 15 are independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-19 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 Chen et al. (CN110467907B) pdf attached Google Patents translation.
Chen et al. teach a method for suppressing dust with a dust suppressing
composition comprising a biosurfactant contacting with a source of dust or airborne dust. See abstract teaching the dust suppressant is composed of carboxymethyl starch, carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium alginate, anhydrous calcium chloride, rhamnolipids, sophorolipids and water is sprayed on the dust surface, it can form a continuous consolidation layer with a certain strength on the surface, which has good weather resistance and rain resistance, can withstand extreme temperature environments for a long time, and has a certain degree of moisture retention. , so as to have better dust suppression and damage prevention effect.
Chen et al. figure 1 flow chart translated on pages 4-5 exemplifies the claim 1 steps of contacting a dust suppressing composition comprising a sophorolipid (see step six on page 4 or S106 on page 5) biosurfactant with a dust (see page 4, paragraph 10). Accordingly, the teachings of Chen anticipate the independent claim 1. Alternatively, even if the example described on pages 4-7 of the translation of Chen et al. are not sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to arrive at the claim 1 method of suppressing dust because Chen et al. teach contacting a dust suppressing composition comprising a sophorolipid biosurfactant with dust in general.
With respect to independent claim 15, Chen et al. claim 1 and figure 1 flow chart translated on pages 4-5 exemplifies the claim 15 dust suppressing composition comprising carboxymethyl starch, carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium alginate, anhydrous calcium chloride, rhamnolipids, sophorolipids (see step six on page 4 or S106 on page 5) biosurfactant and water. Accordingly, the teachings of Chen anticipate the independent claim 15. Alternatively, even if the example described on pages 4-7 of the translation of Chen et al. are not sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to arrive at the claim 15 dust suppressing composition because Chen et al. teach a dust suppressing composition comprising a sophorolipid biosurfactant and more traditional dust suppressing components, namely, carboxymethyl starch, carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium alginate, anhydrous calcium chloride, rhamnolipids, and water.
With respect to the source of dust required by claims 2-3 is met by Chen et al. teaching industrial/building construction and bulk material storage and transportation sources on page 2, 2nd to last paragraph. The sandy soil dust suppressing illustrated on page 6 meets the scope of claim 4. See 3rd paragraph from the bottom of page 6.
. With respect to claims 5-6 and 19, Chen et al. exemplify that their dust suppressant composition comprises carboxymethyl starch, carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium alginate, anhydrous calcium chloride, rhamnolipids, sophorolipids and water. See the description of the exemplary formulation on pages 4 & 5, top ½ of each page and abstract.
With respect to claim 7 see page 6, experiment 1, under section (2) describing one hour rainfall spraying meeting the claim 7 limitation to wherein the contacting step comprises spraying the composition for a time period of about 1 minute to about 1 year. Claim 7 limitation to wherein the dust suppressing composition is in liquid form is met by Chen et al. describing their exemplary formulation as a viscous liquid. See page 5, 5 paragraphs from the bottom of page 5.
Claims 10-13 and 16-18 limitations to wherein the biosurfactant is a sophorolipid and/or a yeast culture comprising a sophorolipid is met by Chen et al. teaching the sophorolipid is lactone type glycolipid anion biosurfactant generated by candida yeast. See 2nd to last paragraph on page 5.
Claim 14 limitation is met by Chen et al. teaching the dust inhibitor provides bonding, wetting, coagulation, moisture absorption, water retention and the like on dust particles. See page 3,ln.2-3.
Claims 1-6, 8-10,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (CN112812745A) Google Patents translation pdf attached.
Wang et al. teach a method for suppressing dust with a dust suppressing
composition comprising a biosurfactant contacting with a source of dust or airborne dust. See claim 2 teaching the dust suppressant is composed of sodium chloride, hydroxy ethyl cellulose, sodium alginate, rhamnolipids, sophorolipids in a foam spray (See page 4, 2nd paragraph) on coal dust in mine production work. See page 3, paragraph under Background).
Wang et al. examples translated on pages 4-6 guide one of ordinary skill to the claim 1 steps of contacting a dust suppressing composition comprising a sophorolipid (see example 1 on page 5) biosurfactant with a dust (such as from a coal mine explained on page 3).
Wang et al. do not exemplify claim 1 contact with dust, however, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to arrive at the claim 1 method of suppressing dust because Wang et al. teach contacting a dust suppressing composition comprising a sophorolipid biosurfactant with guidance to use in a area such as a coal mine where there is coal dust in general.
With respect to the source of dust required by claims 2-4 Wang et al. teach coal mining dust on page 3, paragraph 4 from the top.
. With respect to claims 5-6 and 8-9, Wang et al. teach sodium alginate and calcium chloride with rhamnolipids and sophorolipids in the foam formulation covering dust sources. See page 3, paragraph 4 from the top.
Claims 10 limitation to wherein the biosurfactant is a sophorolipid is met by Wang et al. teaching glycolipid biosurfactant lactone type sophorolipid in claim 2.
Claim 14 limitation is met by Wang et al. teaching the dust inhibitor provides bonding adhesion and wetting and the like on dust particles. See abstract and claim 5.
Claims 15, 19 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 Wang et al. (CN112812745A) pdf attached Google Patents translation.
Wang et al. is relied upon as set forth above. With respect to independent claim 15, Wang et al. exemplify a dust suppressing composition comprising sodium chloride, hydroxy ethyl cellulose, sodium alginate, rhamnolipids, sophorolipid biosurfactants. See claim 2 teaching the dust suppressant is composed of in a foam spray. See Figure 1 described on page 5 (top ½ of page, steps 1-3) and abstract and claim 2 used in example 1 on page 5-6. Accordingly, the teachings of Chen anticipate the independent claim 15.
Alternatively, even if the example in Figure 1 described on pages 4-7 of the translation of Wang et al. are not sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to arrive at the claim 15 dust suppressing composition because Wang et al. teach a dust suppressing composition comprising a sophorolipid biosurfactant and more traditional dust suppressing components, namely, sodium chloride, hydroxy ethyl cellulose, sodium alginate, rhamnolipids in general.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights