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, claim 1-13 in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/25/2026.
Application Status
Claim 1-13 are under examination.
Claim 14 and 15 are withdrawn from examination.
Claim 1-13 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 the words, “Preparing”, “Applying”, “Forming” and “Adding” should be lower case; and in line 8, the recitation of “a product” should be “the product” since antecedent basis have been established in line 1;
in claim 1, line 8 the step of “adding the biomass…as an ingredient of a product for human consumption…” should be “adding the biomass…as an ingredient to the product for human consumption; and
and in claim 6 line 2, the phrase “a specific energy input” should be “the specific energy input” since antecedent basis have been established in claim 1, line 6.
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.
Claim 4 and 13 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the enzyme" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is not clear how an enzyme correlates to claim 1. It is not clear if Applicant intend the product or the microalgae contains an enzyme, or is an enzyme used in the method; hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation of “after…enzyme treatment” is confusing. The preceding claim 1 does not recite an enzyme treatment hence it is not clear as to how or when is an enzyme treatment occurred to meet the limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kale et al. (US 2014/0017754).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 3 and 6, Kale et al. (Kale) discloses a method of making intercellular products from microalgae, wherein the intracellular products added to food (‘’754, [0002]). Kale discloses the method comprising subjecting (applying) pulsed electrical field to an aqueous suspension of the microalgae (‘754, [0003], [0004], [0013], [0041]-[0042]). Kale discloses the aqueous suspension of the microalgae including Chlorella vulgaris (Chlorophyta) (‘754, [0057], [0058]).
Kale discloses the method comprising an energy of the pulsed electrical field in a range of from 0.1 to 100 joules (kJ) (‘754, [0131]). Kale is silent on the joules (kJ) per kg suspension. However, Kale discloses the method comprising adjusting operational parameters, including the energy (‘754, [0007]-[0008]) in the pulsed electrical field to the aqueous suspension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the operational parameters, the energy (‘754, [0007]-[0008]) in the pulsed electrical field to the aqueous suspension, including the claimed concentrations in claim 1 and 6, as taught by Kale to provide desired finished product.
With respect to the recitation of “forming a biomass of partially lysed microalgae”, as Kale uses like materials in a like manner as claimed, it would be therefore be expected the aqueous suspension of the microalgae will have the same characteristics claimed, particularly a formed biomass of partially lysed microalgae.
Regarding claim 5, Kale does not disclose the temperature of the aqueous suspension. However, Kale discloses the method comprising adjusting operational parameters, the temperature in the aqueous suspension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature including the cited range in the aqueous suspension, as taught by Kale to maintain the microorganisms in a desired condition.
Regarding claim 7, Kale discloses an amplitude in a range of 10 to 1,000 kV/cm (‘754, [0130]), which overlaps the cited range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Kale discloses an electrical field pulse duration from 1 nanoseconds to 100,000 nanoseconds (0.001 µs to 100 µs) (‘754, [0126]) which overlaps the cited range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Kale does not disclose a pulse number as cited. However, Kale discloses varying pulse patterns (‘754, [0127]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pulse number electrical field pulse duration in the including the cited range, based on sensory input such as, but not limited to, turbidity of the aqueous suspension, density of the aqueous suspension, composition of the aqueous suspension, and flow rate at taught by Kale (‘754, [0127],[0138],[0156])).
Regarding claim 10, Kale discloses the electrical field including an exponentially decaying, unipolar (‘754, [0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Kale does not disclose a particle size of the microalgae; however, as Kale uses like materials in a like manner as claimed, it would be therefore be expected the aqueous suspension of the microalgae will have the same characteristics claimed, particularly a mean particle size between 3 µm to 6 µm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 11, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at (571)270-3475. 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.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights