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 .
This application is a CIP of 16/589,227 10/01/2019 PAT 11,732,277.
DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant has elected Group I, claims 1-17 and Species 2, 4, and 6 without traverse as noted in the Applicant’s “Response to election/restriction” filed on 5/18/2026. Claims 3, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 18 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims without traverse. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, and 17 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Priority
The copy of the Applicant’s priority documents of “FRANCE 1801033 10/02/2018” and “FRANCE 1801034 10/02/2018” can found in the parent case 16/589,227
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6-8, 11-12, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1) in the instant case the element’s name for example: “Magnesium” on line 7 of claim 2; “Aluminum—Zirconium” on lins.4-8, and on lns12-14 of claim 6; “Magnesium” on line 6 of claim 8; “Vanadium—Oganesson” on lns12-14 of claim 12; and “cobalt, Molybdenum, and Manganese” on lins.3-7 of claim 16 should use low case.
2) The “more than 95, 99 or 99.9 % of iron” on line 5 and 7 of claim 2 need proper unit.
3) The “more than 90, 95-99% of iron and Mg” of claim 7 need proper unit.
4) In claim 12: a) “6) vanadium” and “ and ”11) Vanadium” indicate the same element; b) “12) Molydate” should be amended as “12) molybdenum”; c) “41) Californium, Einsteinium” should be separated; and d) “62 derivatives” is not an element.
5) Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “-“ on line 3 and line 5 should be deleted. Proper list number are suggested to indicates different groups. The “more than 50, 90, or 99%” on lines 3, 5, and 9 of claim 11 need proper unit.
6) Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “ 2.10-7 for As” should be amended as “2x10-7 for As”; same issue for limitation of Co, Ru, Se, Tl, Mo, Ca, K, Mn, and W.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, and 17 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance,
1) claim 1 recites the broad recitation “magnetosome composition comprises a metallic composition” (line 6 of claim 1), and the claim also recites “a magnetosome central part or magnetosome mineral or magnetosome core or optional magnetosome coating” (lns.3-5 of claim 1) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Since claims 2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, and 17 depend on claim 1, they are also rejected.
2) The term “high purity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is noted that claim 2 indicates magnetosome composition comprises more than 90 of iron and magnesium, which is suggested to add into the instant independent claim 1.
3) the claimed limitation of “more than 90, 90 or 99% of iron and magnesium” on line 8 of claim 2, “more than 90%” is considered as broad recitation. Since claim 2 need further amendment/clarification, claim 2 is not included in the following examinati
4) the claimed limitation of “magnetosome central part or magnetosome mineral or magnetosome core” in claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 10. The “magnetosome mineral” (broad recitation) may cover the “magnetosome central part” (narrower recitation) and magnetosome core” (narrowest recitation).
5) the claimed limitation : “the environment or material or liquid or excipient or water” on line 6 in claim 4, the environment is considered as the broadest limitation; the limitation “not feasible or not easy or not convenience” on line 12 in claim 4, “not convenience” is considered as the broadest limitation; the limitation of “preserve partly or fully” on line 14 of claim 4, “preserve partly” has a broader scope. Since claim 4 need further amendment/clarification, claim 4 is not included in the following examination.
6) the limitation of “iron is comprised partly or fully” on line 6 of claim 7, “iron is comprised partly” is considered as a broader scope; the limitation of “magnesium is comprised partly or fully” on line 8 of claim 7, “magnesium is comprised partly” is considered as a broader scope. The claimed limitation of “more than 50, 95 or 99% of iron and magnesium” on line 2 of claim 7, “more than 50%” is considered as broad recitation. Since claim 7 need further amendment/clarification, claim 7 is not included in the following examination.
7) the limitation of “not originating partly or fully” on line 6 of claim 11, “not originating partly” is considered as a broader scope; the limitation of “not originating partly or fully” on line 10 of claim 11, “not originating partly” is considered as a broader scope. The limitation of “more than 50, 95 or 99%” on line 3, 5, and 9 of claim 11, “more than 50%” is considered as broad recitation. Since claim 11 need further amendment/clarification, claim 11 is not included in the following examination.
Proper amendments are necessary.
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 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, 6, 10, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al (NPL: Purified and sterilized magnetosomes from magneto-spirillum gryphiswaldense MER-1 were not toxic to mouse fibroblasts in vitro, letters in applied Microbiology, Vol.45, No.1, July 1, 2007, pages 75-81, listed in IDS filed on 6/23/2023, thereafter NPL-1) in view of Gao et al (CN 1379085 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’085).
Regarding claim 1, NPL-1 teaches a purified and sterilized magnetosomes composition with component of the Fe3O4 magnetite produced by magneto-tactic bacteria (Abstract, Figs.1-3, material and method on page 76, and results on page 77 of NPL-1), which reads on the claimed high purity magnetosomes with metallic composition produced by magneto-tactic bacteria as claimed in the instant claim. NPL-1 does not specify at least one metal originates from the “ore-growth and/or growth and/or fed-batch medium”. CN’085 teaches a separating and purifying magnetotactic bacterium and its preparation method of the small magnetic body (Abstract and claims of CN’085). CN’085 teaches that the main element of magnetosomes is composed of iron (Fe), silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), carbon (C), chlorine (Cl), oxygen, magnesium. And CN’085 teaches magnetotactic bacteria MB YN magnetic bodies for preparing method comprises the magnetotactic bacteria expanding culture, purified magnetotactic bacteria, removing the supernate, and collecting the precipitate to obtain the magnetotactic bacteria MB-YN-derived nano-material-magnetosomes (claims and examples of CN’085). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain metal originates from the “ore-growth and/or growth and/or fed-batch medium” as demonstrated by CN’085 for the purified and sterilized magnetosomes composition of NPL-1 in order to obtain the desired high purity magnetosomes with metallic composition. Regarding the claimed one of properties i)-xix) in the instant claim, which is recognized as features fully depended on the magnetosomes composition and manufacturing process. NPL-1 in view of CN’085 teaches the same magnetosomes composition with the same metal element and manufactured by the same magnetotactic bacteria as disclosed in the instant invention, the claimed properties would be highly expected for the magnetosomes composition of NPL-1 in view of CN’085. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Regarding claim 6, the metal elements disclosed by NPL-1 (Fe) and CN’085 (Fe, Al, Cu, and/or Mg) reads on the claimed composition as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, NPL-1 provides TEM image of the purified magnetosomes (Fig1-2 of NPL-1), which reads on the claimed limitations in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 13-14, this claimed is recognized as a Product-By-Process claim. The claimed product is manipulated by the purified magnetosome itself. The claimed process steps in the instant claims 13-14 do not add patentable weight for the instant claim. MPEP 2113[R-1].
Regarding claim 17, NPL-1 indicates purified magnetosome with nano scale particles (Fig.1-2 of NPL-1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights