DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 4-7, 12 and 13 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-3, 8-11, 14 and 15) in the reply filed on 10/10/2025 is acknowledged.
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(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren et al (CN 111849956, English machine translation provided) with Liu (CN 107413841, English machine translation provided) and Razavi-Shirazi et al (US 2019/0071337) used as an evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Ren teaches the nanocomposite preparation, comprising a nanomaterial (nanometer material) (see pg. 2, a6th paragraph, Abstract) and an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) solution of a microorganism (microorganism is cultured and not separated, therefore the solution will contain EPS) (See pg. 2, 7th paragraph), wherein the nanomaterial is graphene oxide (GO) (adding graphene oxide) (see pg. 2, 7th paragraph, Abstract) or multi-walled carbon nanotubes (CNT); and the microorganism is Paracoccus aminovorans (P. aminovorans) HPD-2, deposited in China General Microbiological Culture Collection (CGMCC) Center, with a deposition number of CGMCC No. 2568 (see pg. 2, 2nd paragraph, 6th paragraph). Ren does not explicitly refer to EPS, however microorganism inherently produce EPS when cultured (see Liu pg. 4, Examples 1 and 2), therefore some EPS will inherently be present in the culture solution of Ren. Claim 1 does not limit the concentration of EPS in solution. Further the same steps to form the microbial solution are disclosed in the prior art (culturing in an LB culture medium until the OD6-00 is 1.0) (see Ren pg. 3, 8th paragraph) as used in the instant invention (see para. 0068 of published specification). As the same process for forming an EPS solution as disclosed by the instant invention is disclosed in the prior art EPS will inherently be present in the microbial solution of the prior art. Additionally Ren teaches that biological film will form (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph) and it is known in the art the biological films (biofilms) are made of EPS (see Razavi-Shirazi para. 0055).
Regarding Claim 8:
Ren teaches the method for remediating PAH-contaminated water and/or PAH- contaminated soil, comprising administering the nanocomposite preparation of claim 1 to PAH- contaminated water and/or PAH-contaminated soil (adding to the soil) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph, pg. 5 5th paragraph).
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.
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) 2, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ren et al (CN 111849956, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liu (CN 107413841, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 2:
Ren teaches the nanocomposite preparation of claim 1.
Ren is silent as to the EPS in the EPS solution has a concentration of 2 to 16 g/L. Ren further teaches that the solution is cultured to the same concentration (OD600) as disclosed in the instant invention (see Ren pg. 3, 8th paragraph, see para. 0068 of published specification), therefore the process would allow the same quantity of EPS to form.
Liu teaches that EPS is used to treat soil pollution (see Claim 1).
Ren and Liu are analogous inventions in the art of treating soil pollution. One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to adjust the EPS concentration in the EPS solution in order to treat the pollution present because it is known that EPS can be used to degrade pollutants (See Liu Claim 1). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 11:
Ren, as modified teaches the nanocomposite preparation of claim 2.
Ren does not teach a ratio between a mass of the nanomaterial and a volume of the EPS solution of the microorganism is 2 to 20 g: 1L. Ren teaches the mass percentage content of graphene oxide in the solution is 0.01%. Ren further teaches that there is a synergistic effect between the microbial solution and the graphene oxide (nanomaterial) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph). Therefore one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio between a mass of the nanomaterial and a volume of the EPS solution of the microorganism is 2 to 20 g: 1L in order to find a workable range of ratios in repairing soil. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 14:
Ren teaches the method of claim 8.
Ren is silent as to the EPS in the EPS solution has a concentration of 2 to 16 g/L. Ren further teaches that the solution is cultured to the same concentration (OD600) as disclosed in the instant invention (see Ren pg. 3, 8th paragraph, see para. 0068 of published specification), therefore the process would allow the same quantity of EPS to form.
Liu teaches that EPS is used to treat soil pollution (see Claim 1).
Ren and Liu are analogous inventions in the art of treating soil pollution. One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to adjust the EPS concentration in the EPS solution in order to treat the pollution present because it is known that EPS can be used to degrade pollutants (See Liu Claim 1). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ren et al (CN 111849956, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 3:
Ren teaches the nanocomposite preparation of claim 1.
Ren does not teach a ratio between a mass of the nanomaterial and a volume of the EPS solution of the microorganism is 2 to 20 g: 1L. Ren teaches the mass percentage content of graphene oxide in the solution is 0.01%. Ren further teaches that there is a synergistic effect between the microbial solution and the graphene oxide (nanomaterial) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph). Therefore one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio between a mass of the nanomaterial and a volume of the EPS solution of the microorganism is 2 to 20 g: 1L in order to find a workable range of ratios in repairing soil. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 10:
Ren teaches the method of claim 8.
Ren does not teach the nanocomposite preparation is 10% by dry weight of the PAH-contaminated soil. Ren teaches adding the preparation at 3 wt% (Ren does not disclose if this a dry weight) (see pg. 2, 2nd paragraph from bottom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the nanocomposite preparation at 10% by dry weight of the PAH-contaminated soil, because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found a workable range of concentrations to use. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding Claim 15:
Ren teaches the method of claim 8.
Ren does not teach a ratio between a mass of the nanomaterial and a volume of the EPS solution of the microorganism is 2 to 20 g: 1L. Ren teaches the mass percentage content of graphene oxide in the solution is 0.01%. Ren further teaches that there is a synergistic effect between the microbial solution and the graphene oxide (nanomaterial) (see pg. 3, 1st paragraph). Therefore one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio between a mass of the nanomaterial and a volume of the EPS solution of the microorganism is 2 to 20 g: 1L in order to find a workable range of ratios in repairing soil. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ren et al (CN 111849956, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Brigmon et al (USPN 7,915,027).
Regarding Claim 9:
Ren teaches the method of claim 8.
Ren does not teach the nanocomposite preparation is 2.5% by volume of the PAH-contaminated water body.
Brigmon teaches that PAHs can be present in groundwater and are known to be treatable biologically (see col. 1 lines 38-45).
Ren and Brigmon are analogous inventions in the art of biologically treating PAH contamination. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Ren to treat the PAH contaminated groundwater of Brigmon because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate materials to treat with the known method. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the concentration of nanocomposite preparation added to the water to 2.5% by volume in order to treat eth contamination present in the water. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 12/2/2025
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779