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 1-12) in the reply filed on 4 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15, 17-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4 May 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 241 820 (hereafter “EP’820”) in view of López-Garzón et al. (hereafter “López-Garzón”), further in view of KR101684805 (hereafter “KR’805”), and further in view of John et al., “L(+)-Lactic Acid Recovery from Cassava Bagasse Based Fermented Medium Using Anion Exchange Resins,” Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 51(6):1241-1248 (2008) (“JOHN ET AL.”). Claims 2 and 11 are further rejected in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 4,554,376, hereafter “US’376”) and EP0247436 (hereafter “EP’436”).
EP’820 teaches recovery of carboxylates/carboxylic acids from aqueous fermentation-related streams using an anion exchange resin and CO₂-expanded alcohol desorption. EP’820 discloses recovering carboxylates with an anion exchange resin and using CO₂-expanded alcohol for desorption, with recovery of the carboxylic acid without esterification being possible (EP’820, ¶[0021], p. 3, lines 230-238). EP’820 further teaches capturing the carboxylate by anion exchange and desorbing/protonating it with CO₂-expanded alcohols such as methanol or ethanol, so that the carboxylic acid is dissolved in the alcohol phase (EP’820, ¶[0022], p. 4, lines 254-262). EP’820 also teaches desorption at temperatures including 0-100°C, preferably 20-60°C, and recovery by evaporation, crystallization, or anti-solvent addition (EP’820, ¶¶[0046]-[0048], p. 6, lines 367-390).
EP’820’s examples show acetate recovered from fermentation broth using an anion exchange resin and desorbed using CO₂-expanded methanol at 20-22°C (EP’820, ¶¶[0074]-[0075], p. 8, lines 507-523; p. 9, lines 544-580). EP’820 further teaches lactate and succinate recovery using CO₂-expanded methanol (EP’820, ¶[0079], pp. 12-13, lines 764-803), and claims fermentation broth/wastewater sources, alcohols including methanol and ethanol, acetone as a co-solvent, and a preferred desorption temperature of 20-60°C (EP’820, claims 1-8, p. 15, lines 903-931).
EP’820 does not expressly teach that the alcohol eluent contains at least 0.1 M OH⁻ and at least 0.1 M of Na⁺, K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, or NH₄⁺, nor does EP’820 expressly teach precipitating a carbonate from that cation after CO₂ addition. D2 confirms that the same field involved recovery of fermentation-produced carboxylic acids and that known recovery approaches included adsorption, precipitation, cation removal, and final purification by crystallization or distillation (D2, p. 873, Abstract). The International Search Report also characterizes D2 as teaching adsorption of carboxylates on an anionic resin and desorption with a base such as NaOH or with a solvent such as MeOH (ISR, separate sheet, p. 1).
KR’805 supplies the missing alkaline alcohol/CO₂ carbonate precipitation feature. KR’805 teaches injecting CO₂ into a methanol solution containing dissolved NaOH to form sodium methyl carbonate, CH₃OCOONa(s), and water (KR’805, ¶¶[0020]-[0024], pp. 4-5, lines 179-187). KR’805 teaches that carbonate formed in the methanol solution is mostly produced as a precipitate and can be easily separated by filtration (KR’805, ¶[0013], p. 4, lines 156-162). KR’805 further teaches that, at or above 3.34 g NaOH/500 mL methanol, sodium methyl carbonate becomes supersaturated and precipitates as a solid (KR’805, ¶¶[0052]-[0054], pp. 7-8, lines 312-349). KR’805 also teaches filtering the carbonate precipitate and recovering methanol from the filtrate (KR’805, ¶¶[0071]-[0075], p. 9, lines 391-418).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify EP’820’s CO₂-expanded alcohol desorption process by including NaOH in the alcohol eluent because D2 identifies NaOH and MeOH as known desorption/recovery agents for carboxylates on anionic resins, and KR’805 teaches the predictable result of contacting NaOH/methanol with CO₂, namely formation of a removable sodium carbonate/sodium methyl carbonate precipitate. The combination would have predictably used OH⁻ to assist desorption/solubilization of the organic acid species from the resin and then used CO₂ to convert the Na⁺/OH⁻ component into a removable carbonate precipitate while reducing alkalinity. This is no more than the use of known alkaline alcohol elution and known CO₂-carbonation chemistry in EP’820’s organic acid recovery process, with each component performing its known function.
Claim 1 is obvious over EP’820, D2, and KR’805 for the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 is obvious because US’376 teaches separation and purification of amino acids using ion-exchange resin and crystallization and teaches controlling pH based on amino-acid isoelectric behavior (US’376, lines 106-108 and 118-121). Amino acids are organic acids containing carboxyl functionality, and applying the EP’820/D2/KR’805 recovery method to amino acids would have been an obvious use of known ion-exchange recovery chemistry.
Claim 3 is obvious because EP’820 expressly teaches recovery of lactic acid/lactate, which is a known organic acid having a pKa of about 3.86, i.e., pKa ≤ 4.0 (EP’820, ¶[0079], pp. 12-13, lines 764-803; EP’820, claim 4, p. 15, lines 912-916).
Claim 4 is obvious because EP’820 teaches use of an anion exchange resin for carboxylate capture (EP’820, ¶[0022], p. 4, lines 254-262), and JOHN ET AL. expressly teaches lactic acid recovery using Amberlite IRA-402 strong anion exchange resin and Amberlite IRA-67 weak anion exchange resin (JOHN ET AL., p. 1241, Abstract; p. 1243, lines 167-179).
Claim 5 is obvious because EP’820 teaches methanol and ethanol as alcohols for CO₂-expanded alcohol desorption (EP’820, ¶[0046], p. 6, lines 367-374), while JOHN ET AL. teaches use of methanol/water mixtures and evaluates methanol concentrations from 0% to 90% (JOHN ET AL., p. 1243, lines 209-228; p. 1245, Table 1). Selecting methanol or ethanol in the claimed 30-90 wt.% range would have been routine optimization of a known solvent composition.
Claim 6 is obvious because JOHN ET AL.’s methanol/water mixtures include 50% and 90% methanol, which correspond to 50% and 10% water, respectively, and therefore fall within the claimed 10-50 wt.% water and at least 40 wt.% solvent ranges (JOHN ET AL., p. 1245, Table 1).
Claim 7 is obvious because EP’820 teaches CO₂-expanded alcohol desorption at 20-22°C in the examples and further teaches preferred desorption temperatures of 20-60°C (EP’820, p. 9, lines 571-580; EP’820, ¶[0048], p. 6, lines 371-374). The prior-art temperatures overlap the claimed 5-40°C range.
Claim 8 is obvious because KR’805 teaches that the carbonate formed after CO₂ addition to NaOH/methanol precipitates and is separated by filtration (KR’805, ¶[0013], p. 4, lines 156-162; ¶¶[0071]-[0075], p. 9, lines 391-418).
Claim 9 is obvious because KR’805 teaches NaOH dissolved in methanol. NaOH supplies Na⁺ and OH⁻, satisfying the claimed Na⁺ cation (KR’805, ¶¶[0020]-[0024], pp. 4-5, lines 179-187).
Claim 10 is obvious because EP’820 teaches CO₂-expanded alcohol protonation/desorption of carboxylates to form the carboxylic acid, and EP’820 further teaches recovery by crystallization or evaporation (EP’820, ¶[0022], p. 4, lines 254-262; ¶[0056], p. 6, lines 389-390). KR’805 teaches that CO₂ reacts with NaOH/methanol to consume alkalinity and form carbonate precipitate (KR’805, ¶¶[0020]-[0026], pp. 4-5, lines 179-200). It would have been obvious to use controlled CO₂ addition to reduce pH/alkalinity and promote precipitation or separation of the organic acid.
Claim 11 is obvious because US’376 teaches separating amino acids based on different isoelectric points, including different pH values for glycine and glutamic acid (US’376, lines 118-121 and 137-141). EP’436 further teaches precipitating amino acids by adjusting pH to the isoelectric point (EP’436, p. 3, lines 194-211; p. 8, lines 473-491). In view of EP’820 and KR’805, which teach CO₂ as a pH/protonation/carbonation agent in alcohol-containing recovery systems, it would have been obvious to successively reduce the pH of an eluate using CO₂ to precipitate and separate two or more organic acid compounds at different precipitation points.
Claim 12 is obvious because EP’820 teaches carboxylate recovery from fermentation broth or wastewater-derived streams (EP’820, claims 1-2, p. 15, lines 903-910), and JOHN ET AL. teaches recovery of lactic acid from cassava-bagasse fermented medium, an agro-industrial waste-derived fermentation medium (JOHN ET AL., p. 1241, Abstract; p. 1246, lines 399-405).
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 because the claimed method merely combines known ion-exchange organic acid recovery, known alcohol-based desorption, known NaOH/methanol alkaline chemistry, and known CO₂-induced carbonate precipitation/separation, with each element performing its expected function and producing predictable results.
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 1 and 4 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.
Claim 1 recites that “the eluent (130) comprises at least 0.1 M of an cation selected from the group comprising Na⁺, K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺ and NH₄⁺.” The phrase “selected from the group comprising” renders the scope of the claim unclear. The phrase “selected from the group” ordinarily indicates selection from a closed set of listed alternatives, whereas “comprising” is an open-ended transitional term that permits inclusion of unrecited members. As written, it is unclear whether the claimed cation is limited to Na⁺, K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and NH₄⁺, or whether additional unlisted cations are also encompassed. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear.
Claim 4 recites that “the sorbent (120) is selected from the group comprising a weak anion exchange resin, a strong anion exchange resin, and an adsorbent.” This phrase is indefinite for the same reason. It is unclear whether the sorbent is limited to the listed alternatives or whether other unlisted sorbents are also included within the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 4 are unclear.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “providing the mixture (110) to a sorbent (150),” but later recites “passing an eluent (130) along the sorbent (120).” In addition, claim 1 also identifies CO₂ as “CO₂ (150).” Thus, the same reference numeral 150 appears to be used for both the sorbent and CO₂, while the sorbent is also identified by reference numeral 120. Although reference numerals do not limit the claim, the inconsistent numbering creates an informality that should be corrected.
Claim 1 is further objected to because the phrase “an cation” should be corrected to “a cation.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -6:30 pm).
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights