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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-36 and species claim 32 and 35, in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the office action has not shown that there is a serious burden would be required to examine all of the claims; and there is no patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would not be a serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because as discussed the office action filed 01/15/2026 (pages 3-4), there would be a serious search and examination burden for Groups I and II and the species since: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Additionally, as discussed in the office action filed 01/15/2026 (page 4), the species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 33-34 and 36-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to recite “AMD” in an unabbreviated form to establish the acronym. 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.
Claims 9-10, 17-18, and 23 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.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation "the process" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation "the precipitation…the form…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to recite “the precipitation…the form” as “precipitation…a form”. Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to recite “the step” as “a step”.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation "the composition" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation "the composition" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites the limitation "the dairy industry" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 27-28, 30-32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Drobot (US 4293333 A) .
Regarding claim 1, Drobot teaches a bioremediation method (abstract teaches a process for recovering metals from aqueous media containing metal in solution using fungus, i.e. bioremediation method; note that the instant specification [0004] describes bioremediation as a process that uses biological organisms or materials to detoxify contaminants in environments such as water or soil; Drobot, column 3, lines 45-46 teaches fungi is cultured and metals removed; therefore, Drobot’s teaching of recovering or removing metal from aqueous media, i.e. detoxifying contaminants in environments, using fungus is a bioremediation method), comprising:
providing an alkalinizing acidophilic fungus (column 3, lines 58-65 teaches fungi that propagates in aqueous media having pH values ranging from 0.8 to 9.6 or higher, wherein as microbiological activity proceeds, the pH of the solution may gradually approach a value of 7-8, i.e. alkalinizing acidophilic fungus; Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II teaches using Trichoderma fungus in a test solution with an initial pH of 2.07 and filtrate pH of 7.93, therefore one or more of the fungi, such as Trichoderma fungus, are interpreted as the alkalinizing acidophilic fungi since they propagate or grow in acidic environments and cause pH to increase),
contacting an acidic liquid having a pH of 5 or lower with the alkalinizing acidophilic fungus (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II teaches Trichoderma fungus is tested with a test solution with heavy metals, the test solution having a pH of 2.07; therefore, the fungus is contacted with the test solution having a pH of 2.07), and
maintaining the acidic liquid under conditions sufficient to permit the alkalinizing acidophilic fungus to increase the pH of the acidic liquid (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II teaches the test was carried out at conditions that produced a filtrate with a pH of 7.93, i.e. the pH increased to 7.93; column 3, lines 58-65 teaches the fungi used in the process propagate, and as microbiological activity proceeds in acidic solutions, the pH of such solutions approach a pH of about 7-8; therefore, the acidic test solution was maintained under conditions sufficient to permit the alkalinizing acidophilic fungus to increase the pH of the acidic liquid).
Regarding claim 3, Drobot further teaches wherein the acidic liquid has a pH of 3 or lower (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II teaches fungi are tested with a test solution with heavy metals, the test solution having a pH of 2.07).
Regarding claim 6, Drobot further teaches wherein the acidic liquid comprises dissolved heavy metal/s (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II teaches the test solution includes heavy metals).
Regarding claim 8, Drobot further teaches the method of Claim 6, wherein the acidic liquid comprises one or more of dissolved copper, iron, nickel, cadmium, strontium, mercury, lead, arsenic, aluminum, lithium, zinc and/or manganese (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II teaches copper, iron, nickel, lead, and aluminum).
Regarding claim 9, Drobot further teaches the method of Claim 6,wherein the process results in the precipitation of dissolved heavy metal/s in the form of precipitated heavy metal/s (Table II and column 7, lines 47-64 teaches the process of fungi that increases the pH of the test solution results in separation, removal, and recovery of the precious metals by filtration; column 1, lines 36-31 teaches uses of fungus for metal precipitation is known in acidic industrial solutions; therefore, it is implied that the process results in precipitation of the dissolved heavy metals in the form of precipitated heavy metals since the increase of pH would cause precipitation of the heavy metals in order to be separated and recovered).
Regarding claim 10, Drobot further teaches the method of Claim 9, further comprising the step of collecting the precipitated heavy metal/s (Table II and column 7, lines 47-64 teaches the process of fungi that increases the pH of the test solution results in separation, removal, and recovery of the precious metals by filtration; therefore, it is implied that the process results in precipitation of the dissolved heavy metals in the form of precipitated heavy metals since the increase of pH would cause precipitation of the heavy metals in order to be separated and recovered, i.e. collected).
Regarding claim 12, Drobot further teaches wherein the acidic liquid is not buffered and/or wherein the pH of the acidic liquid is not adjusted prior to the addition of the fungus thereto (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 teaches the fungi was tested with a test solution and is silent on buffering or adjusting pH prior to adding the fungi; therefore, the acidic liquid is not buffered or the pH is not adjusted prior to addition of the fungi).
Regarding claim 14, Drobot further teaches wherein the fungus (column 3, lines 58-65 interpreted as one or more of the fungi that propagate or grow in acidic environments and cause pH to increase; column 7, line 22, Trichoderma fungus) comprises a single strain of alkalinizing fungus (column 7, line 22, Trichoderma fungus).
Regarding claim 15, Drobot further teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein the alkalinizing fungus is a yeast or a mold (column 7, line 22, Trichoderma fungus; column 2, lines 28-29 teaches Trichoderma is a black cephalosporial mold).
Regarding claim 27, Drobot further teaches wherein the fungus is native (column 7, lines 22-24 teaches the fungus was obtained from waste water, i.e. native).
Regarding claim 28, Drobot further teaches wherein the fungus is heavy metal resistant (column 7, lines 22-45 and Table II teaches the fungus was tested with a test solution including heavy metals, resulting in an increase of pH; column 3, lines 58-65 teaches the fungi used in the process propagate, and as microbiological activity proceeds in acidic solutions, the pH of such solutions approach a pH of about 7-8; therefore, the fungus is implied to be heavy metal resistant since it is able to propagate in the presence of heavy metals).
Regarding claim 30, Drobot further teaches wherein the fungus does not produce hydrogen sulfide (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II teaches using Trichoderma fungus in a test solution including heavy metals with an initial pH of 2.07 and filtrate pH of 7.93; note that the instant specification [0066] discusses Trichoderma as an alkalinizing fungus; since the method and fungus is identical to the claimed method and fungus, the fungus would have the same properties or functions of not producing hydrogen sulfide, see MPEP 2112.01(I)-(II); therefore, Drobot’s method is implied to include the fungus that does not produce hydrogen sulfide).
Regarding claim 31, Drobot further teaches wherein the fungus does not adsorb and/or sequester dissolved heavy metals (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II teaches using Trichoderma fungus in a test solution including heavy metals with an initial pH of 2.07 and filtrate pH of 7.93; note that the instant specification [0066] discusses Trichoderma as an alkalinizing fungus; since the method and fungus is identical to the claimed method and fungus, the fungus would have the same properties or functions of not adsorbing and/or sequestering dissolved heavy metals, see MPEP 2112.01(I)-(II); therefore, the Drobot’s method is implied to include the fungus that does not adsorb and/or sequester dissolved heavy metals).
Regarding claim 32, Drobot further teaches wherein the process is conducted in a bioreactor (Figure 1 teaches a bioreactor; column 6, lines 10-18 teaches fungi and removed metals are processed in the tank 6, i.e. bioreactor).
Regarding claim 35, Drobot further teaches wherein the pH of the acidic liquid is increased by at least about 3 pH units (column 7, lines 22-45 and Table II teaches the pH increased from 2.07 to 7.93 since the filtrate pH is 7.93; wherein the filtrate is implied to be the pH of the test solution after the test was carried out).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ertugrul et al. (Ertugrul et al., “Treatment of dye (Remazol Blue) and heavy metals using yeast cells with the purpose of managing polluted textile wastewaters”, ecological engineering 35 (2009) 128–134).
Regarding claim 2, Drobot fails to explicitly teach: wherein the fungus is a yeast.
Ertugrul teaches bioaccumulation of heavy metals by yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, i.e. alkalinizing acidophilic yeast (abstract; note that the instant application, specification, [0020] describes Rhodotorula mucilaginosa as an alkalinizing acidophilic yeast), has been investigated in media containing molasses as a carbon and energy source (abstract). Ertugrul teaches microorganisms, such as fungi and yeast, are known to be capable of uptake of pollutants such as heavy metals in waste water (page 129, left column, first full paragraph). Ertugrul teaches yeasts are a better raw biosorbent material for removal of heavy metal, can be easily cultivated into inexpensive growth media, and are readily available for bioremediation of wastes at lower pH values (page 129, left column, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to incorporate Ertugrul’s teachings of yeast for bioremediation (page 129, left column, first full paragraph – second full paragraph; abstract) to provide: wherein the fungus is a yeast. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving heavy metal removal as taught by Ertugrul (page 129, left column, second full paragraph).
Furthermore, since Ertugrul teaches bioremediation using fungi and yeast are known wherein yeast and fungi serve the same purpose of bioremediation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to substitute one known element (Drobot’s fungus) with another known element (Ertugrul’s yeast) to provide wherein the fungus is a yeast, and the results of the substitution (i.e. bioremediation of heavy metals) would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claims 4, 16, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Drobot fails to explicitly teach wherein the acidic liquid (Column 7, lines 22-line 30 and Table II, “test solution”) comprises sulphate ions.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25). Drobot teaches organic carbon nutrient source serves to support metabolism of fungi (column 3, lines 14-28), wherein nutrient compounds can include ammonium sulfate, i.e. sulphate ions (column 3, lines 29-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acidic liquid of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of incorporating nutrient compounds such as ammonium sulfate to support metabolism of fungi (column 3, lines 14-40) to provide: wherein the acidic liquid comprises sulphate ions. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving metabolism and growth of the fungi, therefore improving bioremediation.
Regarding claim 16, Drobot fails to explicitly teach wherein the fungus (in the embodiment of Column 7, lines 22-line 30) comprises a plurality of strains of alkalinizing fungus.
Drobot teaches recovering metal converted to the insoluble form from aqueous solutions of water soluble metal compounds by treating aqueous media containing metals in a water soluble form with one or more live filamentous fungi commonly called molds (column 1, lines 47-56). Drobot teaches a single fungus species or a mixture may be used in the process; the fungi usually are found admixed with one another in their natural environment (column 2, lines 41-43). Drobot teaches the fungi employed were all separated and propagated from biological growths naturally present in samples of waste waters from the metals refineries (column 8, lines 2-27). Drobot teaches fungi that propagates in aqueous media having pH values ranging from 0.8 to 9.6 or higher, wherein as microbiological activity proceeds, the pH of the solution may gradually approach a value of 7-8 (column 3, lines 58-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of employing a mixture of fungus species (column 1, lines 47-56; column 2, lines 41-43; column 3, lines 58-65) to provide: wherein the fungus comprises a plurality of strains of alkalinizing fungus. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing and improving microbiological activity of the acidic liquid for improved bioremediation.
Regarding claim 18, modified Drobot fails to explicitly teach: the method of Claim 16, wherein the composition comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing mold.
Drobot teaches recovering metal converted to the insoluble form from aqueous solutions of water soluble metal compounds by treating aqueous media containing metals in a water soluble form with one or more live filamentous fungi commonly called molds (column 1, lines 47-56). Drobot teaches a single fungus species or a mixture may be used in the process; the fungi usually are found admixed with one another in their natural environment (column 2, lines 41-43). Drobot teaches the fungi employed were all separated and propagated from biological growths naturally present in samples of waste waters from the metals refineries (column 8, lines 2-27). Drobot teaches fungi that propagates in aqueous media having pH values ranging from 0.8 to 9.6 or higher, wherein as microbiological activity proceeds, the pH of the solution may gradually approach a value of 7-8 (column 3, lines 58-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of employing a mixture of mold species (column 1, lines 47-56; column 2, lines 41-43; column 3, lines 58-65) to provide: the method of Claim 16, wherein the composition comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing mold. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing and improving microbiological activity of the acidic liquid for improved bioremediation.
Regarding claim 19, Drobot fails to teach: the method of Claim 1, further comprising contacting the acidic liquid with a plurality of compositions each comprising one or more strains of alkalinizing fungus.
Drobot teaches recovering metal converted to the insoluble form from aqueous solutions of water soluble metal compounds by treating aqueous media containing metals in a water soluble form with one or more live filamentous fungi commonly called molds (column 1, lines 47-56). Drobot teaches a single fungus species or a mixture may be used in the process; the fungi usually are found admixed with one another in their natural environment (column 2, lines 41-43). Drobot teaches the fungi employed were all separated and propagated from biological growths naturally present in samples of waste waters from the metals refineries (column 8, lines 2-27). Drobot teaches fungi that propagates in aqueous media having pH values ranging from 0.8 to 9.6 or higher, wherein as microbiological activity proceeds, the pH of the solution may gradually approach a value of 7-8 (column 3, lines 58-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of employing a mixture of fungus species, i.e. compositions each comprising one or more strains of alkalinizing fungus (column 1, lines 47-56; column 2, lines 41-43; column 3, lines 58-65) to provide: the method of Claim 1, further comprising contacting the acidic liquid with a plurality of compositions each comprising one or more strains of alkalinizing fungus. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing and improving microbiological activity of the acidic liquid for improved bioremediation.
Regarding claim 21, modified Drobot fails to teach: the method of Claim 19, wherein the at least one of said plurality of compositions comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing mold.
Drobot teaches recovering metal converted to the insoluble form from aqueous solutions of water soluble metal compounds by treating aqueous media containing metals in a water soluble form with one or more live filamentous fungi commonly called molds (column 1, lines 47-56). Drobot teaches a single fungus species or a mixture may be used in the process; the fungi usually are found admixed with one another in their natural environment (column 2, lines 41-43). Drobot teaches the fungi employed were all separated and propagated from biological growths naturally present in samples of waste waters from the metals refineries (column 8, lines 2-27). Drobot teaches fungi that propagates in aqueous media having pH values ranging from 0.8 to 9.6 or higher, wherein as microbiological activity proceeds, the pH of the solution may gradually approach a value of 7-8 (column 3, lines 58-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of employing a mixture of mold species (column 1, lines 47-56; column 2, lines 41-43; column 3, lines 58-65) to provide: the method of Claim 19, wherein the at least one of said plurality of compositions comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing mold. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing and improving microbiological activity of the acidic liquid for improved bioremediation.
Regarding claim 22, Drobot fails to explicitly teach: the method of Claim 1 (the embodiment of Column 7, lines 22-line 30), comprising adding a nutrition source to the acidic liquid.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25). Drobot teaches organic carbon nutrient source serves to support metabolism of fungi to increase growth rate (column 3, lines 14-28), wherein nutrient compounds can include nitrogen supplied from ammonium sulfate (column 3, lines 29-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of incorporating nutrient compounds to support metabolism of fungi (column 3, lines 14-40) to provide: the method of Claim 1, comprising adding a nutrition source (i.e. carbon and nitrogen source) to the acidic liquid. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving metabolism and growth of the fungi, therefore improving bioremediation.
Regarding claim 23, modified Drobot further teaches: the method of Claim 22, wherein the nutrition source is a nitrogen source (see above claim 22; modified Drobot provides a nitrogen source; Drobot, column 3, lines 29-40), optionally wherein the nitrogen source is soybean residues, effluent from the dairy industry, or an amino acid and / or protein- rich wastewater (interpreted as not require due to the “optionally” statement).
Regarding claim 24, modified Drobot further teaches: the method of Claim 22, wherein the nutrition source is a carbon source (see above claim 22; modified Drobot provides a carbon source; Drobot, column 3, lines 14-28), optionally wherein the carbon source is molasses (interpreted as not require due to the “optionally” statement).
Regarding claim 25, modified Drobot fails to explicitly teach: the method of Claim 22,wherein the nutrition comprised in a composition comprising the fungus.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25). Drobot teaches organic carbon nutrient source serves to support metabolism of fungi to increase growth rate (column 3, lines 14-28), wherein nutrient compounds can include nitrogen supplied from ammonium sulfate (column 3, lines 29-40). Drobot teaches fungus and nutrients may be incorporated into a contacting unit for processing of metals (column 4, lines 39-44). Drobot teaches fungus and nutrients capable of promoting growth of said fungus are incorporated into a fibrous element and said fibrous element containing said fungus and nutrients is brought into contact with said aqueous medium (claim 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of incorporating nutrient compounds to support metabolism of fungi (column 3, lines 14-40) and an element containing fungus and nutrients brought into contact with an aqueous medium (column 4, lines 39-44; claim 22) to provide: the method of Claim 22,wherein the nutrition comprised in a composition comprising the fungus. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving metabolism and growth of the fungi, therefore improving bioremediation.
Regarding claim 26, modified Drobot fails to teach: the method of Claim 22,further comprising adding a second nutrition source to the acidic liquid.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25). Drobot teaches organic carbon nutrient source serves to support metabolism of fungi to increase growth rate, such as formic acid, citric acid and other organic compounds (column 3, lines 14-28), wherein nutrient compounds can include nitrogen supplied from ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, aqua ammonia, or amino acids (column 3, lines 29-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of incorporating nutrient compounds such as carbon nutrient sources and nitrogen sources to support metabolism of fungi (column 3, lines 14-40) to provide: the method of Claim 22,further comprising adding a second nutrition source to the acidic liquid. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving metabolism and growth of the fungi, therefore improving bioremediation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (CN 113862163 A; cited in the IDS filed 06/22/2023; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Drobot fails to teach: the method of Claim 4, wherein the sulphate ions are present at a concentration ranging from 0.1 to 20 grams per liter of the acidic liquid.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25).
Gao teaches penicillium fungicides and their applications that have the function of removing heavy metal ions ([0001]). Gao teaches wastewater includes acidic mine drainage ([0055]), wherein the concentration of sulfate in the acidic mine wastewater is 500-5000mg/L, i.e. 0.5-5g/L ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acidic liquid of modified Drobot to incorporate Gao’s teachings of removal of heavy metals from wastewater such as acidic mine drainage that has sulfate concentrations of 0.5-5 g/L ([0055],[0057]) to provide: the method of Claim 4, wherein the sulphate ions are present at a concentration ranging from 0.1 to 20 grams per liter of the acidic liquid. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving bioremediation of known wastewater sources such as acidic mine drainage.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the sulphate ions are present at a concentration ranging from 0.1 to 20 grams per liter of the acidic liquid) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. removal of heavy metals from an acidic liquid), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the sulphate ions are present at a concentration ranging from 0.1 to 20 grams per liter of the acidic liquid would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling removal of heavy metals from known wastewater sources such as acidic mine drainage). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (CN 113862163 A; cited in the IDS filed 06/22/2023; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Drobot fails to teach: the method of Claim 6, wherein the dissolved heavy metal/s are present at a concentration of equal to or greater than about 500mg per liter of the acidic liquid.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25).
Gao teaches penicillium fungicides and their applications that have the function of removing heavy metal ions ([0001]). Gao teaches wastewater includes acidic mine drainage that is characterized by low pH, high concentration of sulfate, and high concentration of heavy metal ions ([0055]), wherein the concentration of sulfate in the acidic mine wastewater is 500-5000mg/L, i.e. 0.5-5g/L ([0057]). Gao teaches the concentration of heavy metals can be 5-500 mg/L or 5-1000 mg/L ([0057]). Gao teaches an embodiment of concentrations of heavy metals being 500 mg/L ([0094]). Gao teaches embodiments of experiments of removal of heavy metals at concentrations starting at equal to or greater than 500 mg/L ([0126]-[0144], tables 11-14 teaches experiments with Mn and Cu at 500, 1000, 2000 mg/L).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of recovering metals in industrial waste water (column 1, lines 18-25) and Gao’s teachings of removing heavy metals from waste water such as acidic mine drainage with high concentrations of heavy metals, including the range of at least 500 mg/L ([0055],[0057],[0094],[ 0126]-[0144], tables 11-14) to provide: the method of Claim 6, wherein the dissolved heavy metal/s are present at a concentration of equal to or greater than about 500mg per liter of the acidic liquid. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving bioremediation of known wastewater sources such as acidic mine drainage that includes high concentrations of heavy metals such as at least 500 mg/L.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. bioremediation of dissolved heavy metal/s are present at a concentration of equal to or greater than about 500mg per liter of the acidic liquid) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. removal of heavy metals from an acidic liquid), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing dissolved heavy metal/s are present at a concentration of equal to or greater than about 500mg per liter of the acidic liquid would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling removal of high concentration of heavy metals, e.g. at least 500 mg/L, from known wastewater sources such as acidic mine drainage). See MPEP 2143(A).
In an alternative interpretation of claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Koechkritz (DE19844171A1; cited in the IDS filed 10/20/2023; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, if it is determined that Drobot fails to explicitly teach the method of Claim 6,wherein the process results in the precipitation of dissolved heavy metal/s in the form of precipitated heavy metal/s, Koechkritz teaches biosorption processes using fungi ([0001]). Koechkritz teaches use of a mold that leads to increase in pH and adsorption of heavy metals onto growing fungal biomass; the increase in pH value leads to precipitation of metals as salts on the fungal biomass; and therefore acidic wastewater can be neutralized and metals removed ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Drobot to incorporate Koechkritz’s teachings of using fungi to increase pH to cause precipitation of metals to neutralize and remove heavy metals from acidic wastewater ([0001]-[0002]) to provide: the method of Claim 6,wherein the process results in the precipitation of dissolved heavy metal/s in the form of precipitated heavy metal/s. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving neutralizing and removal of heavy metals from the acidic liquid as taught by Koechkritz.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuehnle et al. (US 20150001149 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Drobot fails to teach: wherein the acidic liquid has a volume of about 10,000 liters or more.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25).
Kuehnle teaches improved wastewater treatment systems and methods utilizing a microbe (abstract); including removal of heavy metals from the water system, i.e. bioremediation ([0023]). Kuehnle teaches large-scale microbe cultivation in wastewater treatment basins ([0011]). Kuehnle teaches microbe culture techniques includes yeast ([0110]). Kuehnle teaches algae are scalable and have become increasingly useful for wastewater treatment purposes to remove heavy metals from a water system ([0040]). Kuehnle teaches high-density cultures produced under fermentation can be delivered to the site for mobile treatment of wastewater basins; wherein volume of growth medium may vary, including outdoor culture volumes of 20,000 L in bioreactors including enclosed ponds ([0112]). Kuehnle teaches eukaryotes cultured at desired working concentrations and added directly into wastewater basin including a 200,000L active volume ([0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acidic liquid of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of bioremediation of industrial waste water and Kuehnle’s teachings of bioremediation of wastewater including volumes of greater than 10,000L (abstract; [0011], [0023], [0112],[0137]) to provide: wherein the acidic liquid has a volume of about 10,000 liters or more. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving scaling of the bioremediation for acidic waste water of volumes of about 10,000 liters or more, therefore improving bioremediation of large volumes of waste water.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (CN 113862163 A; cited in the IDS filed 06/22/2023; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Drobot fails to explicitly teach: wherein the acidic liquid (column 7, lines 22-30, “test solution”) is wastewater, optionally AMD.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25).
Gao teaches penicillium fungicides and their applications that have the function of removing heavy metal ions ([0001]). Gao teaches wastewater includes acidic mine drainage ([0055]), wherein the concentration of sulfate in the acidic mine wastewater is 500-5000mg/L, i.e. 0.5-5g/L ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acidic liquid of modified Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teaching of recovery of metals in acidic industrial waste water (column 1, lines 18-25) and Gao’s teachings of removal of heavy metals from wastewater such as acidic mine drainage that has sulfate concentrations of 0.5-5 g/L ([0055],[0057]) to provide: wherein the acidic liquid is wastewater, optionally AMD. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving bioremediation of known wastewater sources such as acidic mine drainage.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the acidic liquid is wastewater, optionally AMD) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. removal of heavy metals from AMD), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the acidic liquid is wastewater, optionally AMD would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling removal of heavy metals from known wastewater sources such as acidic mine drainage). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claims 16 and 19 above, and further in view of Ertugrul et al. (Ertugrul et al., “Treatment of dye (Remazol Blue) and heavy metals using yeast cells with the purpose of managing polluted textile wastewaters”, ecological engineering 35 (2009) 128–134).
Regarding claim 17, modified Drobot fails to teach: the method of Claim 16, wherein the composition comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing yeast.
Drobot teaches recovering metal converted to the insoluble form from aqueous solutions of water soluble metal compounds by treating aqueous media containing metals in a water soluble form with one or more live filamentous fungi commonly called molds (column 1, lines 47-56). Drobot teaches a single fungus species or a mixture may be used in the process; the fungi usually are found admixed with one another in their natural environment (column 2, lines 41-43). Drobot teaches fungi that propagates in aqueous media having pH values ranging from 0.8 to 9.6 or higher, wherein as microbiological activity proceeds, the pH of the solution may gradually approach a value of 7-8 (column 3, lines 58-65).
Ertugrul teaches bioaccumulation of heavy metals by yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, i.e. alkalinizing acidophilic yeast (note that the instant application, specification, [0020] describes Rhodotorula mucilaginosa as an alkalinizing acidophilic yeast), has been investigated in media containing molasses as a carbon and energy source (abstract). Ertugrul teaches microorganisms, such as fungi and yeast, are known to be capable of uptake of pollutants such as heavy metals in waste water (page 129, left column, first full paragraph). Ertugrul teaches yeasts are a better raw biosorbent material for removal of heavy metal, can be easily cultivated into inexpensive growth media, and are readily available for bioremediation of wastes at lower pH values (page 129, left column, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of employing a mixture of fungus species (column 1, lines 47-56; column 2, lines 41-43; column 3, lines 58-65) and Ertugrul’s teachings of yeast for bioremediation (page 129, left column, first full paragraph – second full paragraph; abstract) to provide: the method of Claim 16, wherein the composition comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing yeast. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving heavy metal removal as taught by Ertugrul (page 129, left column, second full paragraph).
Furthermore, since Ertugrul teaches bioremediation using fungi and yeast are known wherein yeast and fungi serve the same purpose of bioremediation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to substitute one known element (Drobot’s fungus) with another known element (Ertugrul’s yeast) to provide the method of Claim 16, wherein the composition comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing yeast, and the results of the substitution (i.e. bioremediation of heavy metals) would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 20, modified Drobot fails to teach: the method of Claim 19, wherein at least one of said plurality of compositions comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing yeast.
Drobot teaches recovering metal converted to the insoluble form from aqueous solutions of water soluble metal compounds by treating aqueous media containing metals in a water soluble form with one or more live filamentous fungi commonly called molds (column 1, lines 47-56). Drobot teaches a single fungus species or a mixture may be used in the process; the fungi usually are found admixed with one another in their natural environment (column 2, lines 41-43). Drobot teaches fungi that propagates in aqueous media having pH values ranging from 0.8 to 9.6 or higher, wherein as microbiological activity proceeds, the pH of the solution may gradually approach a value of 7-8 (column 3, lines 58-65).
Ertugrul teaches bioaccumulation of heavy metals by yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, i.e. alkalinizing acidophilic yeast (note that the instant application, specification, [0020] describes Rhodotorula mucilaginosa as an alkalinizing acidophilic yeast), has been investigated in media containing molasses as a carbon and energy source (abstract). Ertugrul teaches microorganisms, such as fungi and yeast, are known to be capable of uptake of pollutants such as heavy metals in waste water (page 129, left column, first full paragraph). Ertugrul teaches yeasts are a better raw biosorbent material for removal of heavy metal, can be easily cultivated into inexpensive growth media, and are readily available for bioremediation of wastes at lower pH values (page 129, left column, second full paragraph). Ertugrul teaches a plurality of yeast strains known for removal of heavy metals (page 129, left column, first full paragraph – third full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of employing a mixture of fungus species (column 1, lines 47-56; column 2, lines 41-43; column 3, lines 58-65) and Ertugrul’s teachings of yeast strains for bioremediation (page 129, left column, first full paragraph – third full paragraph; abstract) to provide: the method of Claim 19, wherein at least one of said plurality of compositions comprises one or more strains of alkalinizing yeast. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing and improving heavy metal removal as taught by Ertugrul (page 129, left column, second full paragraph).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (CN 113862163 A; cited in the IDS filed 06/22/2023; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 29, Drobot fails to teach: the method of Claim 28, wherein the fungus, when contacted with an acidic liquid medium comprising cadmium at a level of 2mg per liter, copper at a level of 100mg per liter, lead at a level of 0.05mg per liter, iron at a level of 200mg per liter, nickel at a level of 0.2mg per liter and / or zinc at a level of 1000mg per liters retains its alkalinizing ability for 24 hours or longer.
Drobot teaches the invention provides a simple, low-cost method for recovering metals in industrial waste water, such as acidic solutions having a pH of less than 4 (column 1, lines 18-25). Drobot teaches a test was carried out for 40 hours (column 3, lines 22-30).
Gao teaches penicillium fungicides and their applications that have the function of removing heavy metal ions ([0001]). Gao teaches wastewater includes acidic mine drainage that is characterized by low pH, high concentration of sulfate, and high concentration of heavy metal ions ([0055]). Gao teaches the concentration of heavy metals can be 5-500 mg/L or 5-1000 mg/L ([0057]), specifically copper at a concentration of 5-100 mg/L, iron at a concentration of 5-500 mg/L ([0057]). Gao teaches after 248 removal rate of iron reached 79.15% and copper reached 48.73% ([0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and fungus of Drobot to incorporate Drobot’s teachings of recovering metals in industrial waste water for at least 24 hours (column 1, lines 18-25; column 3, lines 22-30) and Gao’s teachings of removing heavy metals from waste water such as acidic mine drainage with high concentrations of heavy metals, including copper at a concentration of 5-100 mg/L, iron at a concentration of 5-500 mg/L ([0055],[0057]) and removal of metal ions after 248 days ([0160]) to provide: the method of Claim 28, wherein the fungus, when contacted with an acidic liquid medium comprising copper at a level of 100mg per liter and/or iron at a level of 200mg per liter, nickel retains its alkalinizing ability for 24 hours or longer. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving bioremediation of known wastewater sources such as acidic mine drainage that includes high concentrations of heavy metals after at least 24 hours as taught by Gao.
Additionally, since Gao teaches copper levels of 5-100 mg/L and iron levels of 5-500 mg/L ([0057]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 mg/L and 200 mg/L respectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acidic liquid medium of Drobot to provide the method of Claim 28, wherein the fungus, when contacted with an acidic liquid medium comprising copper at a level of 100mg per liter and/or iron at a level of 200mg per liter, nickel retains its alkalinizing ability for 24 hours or longer. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. copper at 100 mg/L and iron at 200 mg/L) from the taught range of copper levels of 5-100 mg/L and iron levels of 5-500 mg/L ([0057]) (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
In an alternative interpretation of claim 30, claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20180237321 A1).
Regarding claim 30, if it is determined that Drobot fails to teach: wherein the fungus does not produce hydrogen sulfide, Sun teaches engineered yeast as a method for bioremediation of metal (title; abstract; [0006]-[0007]). Sun teaches yeast can be genetically modified to act as living agents that sequester and remove waste from the environment; and the added benefit is that yeast can be easily modified and self-propagate with minimal user intervention, making them a desirable engineerable platform which is cheap, scalable, and easily handled ([0191]). Sun teaches engineering yeast to react to specific heavy metals ([0219]-[0220]), wherein enzymes required in the sulfate-assimilation pathway can be knocked out to retard the conversion of sulfates to thiol metabolites allowing a build-up of hydrogen sulfide precursors; and in addition, nutrient sources can be varied to affect the production rate and quantity of produced hydrogen sulfide ([0221]). Sun teaches engineered yeast to produce or to not produce hydrogen sulfide (Fig. 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to incorporate the Sun’s teachings of engineering yeast for bioremediation of metal and engineered yeast including yeast that do not produce hydrogen sulfide to provide: wherein the fungus does not produce hydrogen sulfide. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving and optimizing bioremediation of desired metals.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. bioremediation and fungus that does not produce hydrogen sulfide) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. bioremediation), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing fungus that does not produce hydrogen sulfide would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling improving and optimizing bioremediation of desired metals). See MPEP 2143(A).
In an alternative interpretation of claim 31, claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drobot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al., “Using yeast to sustainably remediate and extract heavy metals from waste waters”, Nature Sustainability volume 3, pages 303–311 (2020); herein, “Sun 2020”)
Regarding claim 31, if it is determined that Drobot fails to teach: wherein the fungus does not adsorb and/or sequester dissolved heavy metals, Sun 2020 teaches engineered yeast to produce sulfide to remove heavy metals and offers a platform for metal re-extraction through precipitation (abstract; page 6, right column, second full paragraph). Sun 2020 teaches yeast cultures are able to survive at pH as low as 3-4 (page 5, section “Considerations and feasibility…”). Sun 2020 teaches If the scale and breadth of the yeast market can be tapped for bioremediation purposes, specifically the precipitation and conversion of heavy metals, then the potential impact on heavy-metal waste management can be profound (page 5, section “Considerations and feasibility…”). Sun 2020 teaches removal of metals via precipitation with yeast, where metals precipitate in solution, i.e. the yeast does not adsorb or sequester the dissolved heavy metals (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fungus of Drobot to incorporate Sun 2020’s teachings of engineered fungus as a biological alternative to traditional chemical precipitation for precipitation and removal of heavy metals to provide: wherein the fungus does not adsorb and/or sequester dissolved heavy metals. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving removal of heavy metals and re-extraction of metals through precipitation.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. bioremediation with a fungus wherein the fungus does not adsorb and/or sequester dissolved heavy metals) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. fungus growth and bioremediation of metals), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the fungus does not adsorb and/or sequester dissolved heavy metals would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling removal of heavy metals and re-extraction of metals through precipitation rather than adsorbing or sequestering). See MPEP 2143(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (Wang Y, Yi X, Shao Z. Biological purification of acidic Fenton effluent by a fungal consortium without pre-neutralization upon base addition: Microbial screening and performance. Chemosphere. 2020 May;247:125977. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.125977. Epub 2020 Jan 20. PMID: 32069735; cited in the IDS filed 10/20/2023) teaches acid-tolerant microbes were screened and used for purification of acidic Fenton effluent to achieve pH increase; wherein the microbes includes yeast (abstract). Wang teaches Fenton is exhibiting great advantages in the removal of bio-refractory organic pollutants (page 1, right column). Wang teaches yeasts show great advantages in the industrial wastewater treatment, because they endure high salinity and exhibit extremely high COD removal rate (column 2, first full paragraph). Wang teaches a culture medium used includes yeast (section 2.1). Wang teaches acid-tolerant microbes were screened from activated sludge of a wastewater treatment plant using acidic culture medium with an initial pH of 3, wherein after culturing, numerous microorganisms had survived while the pH of the medium has risen up to 8 (section 3.1.1, first paragraph). Wang teaches yeast and mold were responsible for obvious COD removal and pH increase (section 3.1.2, last paragraph).
Das et al. (Das BK, Roy A, Koschorreck M, Mandal SM, Wendt-Potthoff K, Bhattacharya J. Occurrence and role of algae and fungi in acid mine drainage environment with special reference to metals and sulfate immobilization. Water Res. 2009 Mar;43(4):883-94. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.046. Epub 2008 Dec 11. PMID: 19110292; cited in the IDS filed 06/22/2023) teaches fungi initiated remediation of acid mine drainage (abstract). Das teaches fungi including yeast were isolated from highly acidic and metal rich acid mine drainage (page 885, third full paragraph).
Qahtan et al. (US 20190126210 A1) teaches an oil-water separation membrane for removal of contaminants (abstract), such as heavy metals ([0131]). Qahtan teaches the system includes a vessel with an internal cavity with a volume of 50-10000L and in another embodiment for industrial plant-scale purification, the internal cavity has a volume of 10000L-500000L ([0106]).
Franssen et al. (US 20180361444 A1) teaches compositions and methods for remediation of contaminated liquids, such as contaminated water sources, by a biocatalyst (abstract). Franssen teaches yeast may be used in a bioremediation composition and/or method to remove contaminants from a solid or a liquid ([0061]). Franssen teaches microbes in bioremediation composition may be acid-resistant such that acidic pH adjusting agents can be used in the composition ([0043]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights