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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to the provisional applications 63/400,695, filed 8/24/2022, and 63/371,080, filed 8/11/2022. The priority date of 8/11/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’s filed on 9/27/2023 and 1/29/2024 (two on this date) are under consideration.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
1. Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d).
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specifically, see [00102], [00108] (3 instances), [00184] Table S1, and [00231] peptide structure and sequences.
2. Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specifically, Figures 23-25 and 27 display sequences without SEQ ID NO’s; the SEQ ID NO’s can be in the Figures themselves or their corresponding Figure legends.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term Tecan Spark ([00110]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: include an “and” between “the PEPS,” and “(b) the PEPS comprises” in line 2 so as to make clearer that both the (a) and (b) limitations are required in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method of complexing a peptide surfactant (PEPS) to a rare earth element (REE), wherein the PEPS comprises a REE-binding region that preferentially binds to one or more REEs, as well as a composition comprising a PEPS and a REE, wherein the PEPS comprises at least one lanthanide binding tag (LBT) comprising one or more residues arranged in a binding region that coordinates with an REE cation to form a PEPS-REE complex. The instant specification teaches that PEPS include a hydrophilic amino acid sequence that selectively binds an REE cation and a hydrophobic sequence that confers surface activity ([0008]). REEs are elements between Lanthanum and Lutetium on the periodic table, also known as Lanthanides. Yttrium and Scandium are often included in this category of elements as they share chemical and physical properties with the group that exist in nature with other Lanthanides (Ln3+) ([0091]). Thus, the PEPS, as recited in the claims, is being interpreted as comprising a hydrophilic amino acid sequence capable of binding to Lathanides, Yttrium, or Scandium (Lanthanides only, where specified) and a hydrophobic moiety.
Claim 6 recites the method of claim 1 further comprising effecting disposition of the PEPS-REE complex to an air/liquid interface. This claim is being interpreted as the complexing of PEPS to a REE in solution results in the incorporation of the complex into an air/liquid interface.
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 3, 4, 7, and 17-19 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 3 recites the PEPS further comprise at least one additional hydrophobic moiety in addition to the LBT, the at least one additional hydrophilic moiety… (emphasis added). This limitation makes the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the PEPS further comprises at least one additional hydrophobic moiety or at least one additional hydrophilic moiety. Further, by virtue of its dependency on claim 3, claim 4 is also hereby rejected for this same reasoning. For purposes of examination, the claims are being interpreted as the PEPS further comprises at least one additional hydrophobic moiety.
Claim 7 recites the method of claim 7. The scope of the claim is unclear because it depends from itself. For purposes of examination, claim 7 is being interpreted as depending from claim 6, which recites the PEPS-REE complex is at an air/liquid interface.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation "the air/liquid interface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because, as it currently stands, claim 7 depends on itself and does not have a prior recitation of “an air/liquid interface”.
This rejection could be overcome by amending claim 7 to depend from claim 6.Claim 17 recites the limitation "the air/liquid interface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “an air/liquid interface” in the claim or its parent claim. Further, by virtue of their dependency on claim 17, claims 18 and 19 are also hereby rejected for this same reasoning.
This rejection could be overcome by amending claim 17 to depend from claim 14.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are drawn to a method of complexing a peptide-comprising surfactant (PEPS) to a rare earth element (REE), wherein the PEPS comprises a REE-binding region that preferentially binds to one or more REEs, as well as a composition comprising said PEPS and REE cation, wherein the PEPS comprises at least one lanthanide binding tag (LBT) comprising one or more residues arranged in a binding region that coordinates with an REE cation to form a PEPS-REE complex. In essence, the claims require either a PEPS that binds to any REE, as recited in the method claims, or a PEPS comprising a LBT that binds to a lanthanide, as recited in the product claims. In both cases, the claims recite features of the PEPS by functional rather than structural language. There is nothing further in the claim to indicate the structural feature(s) required to meet this functional limitation, and describing an invention by function is insufficient to meet the written description requirement.
Per MPEP 2163(II)(3)(a), for some biomolecules, examples of identifying characteristics include a sequence, structure, binding affinity, binding specificity, molecular weight, and length. Although structural formulas provide a convenient method of demonstrating possession of specific molecules, other identifying characteristics or combinations of characteristics may demonstrate the requisite possession. As explained by the Federal Circuit, "(1) examples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description; (2) the written description standard may be met … even where actual reduction to practice of an invention is absent; and (3) there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure." Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366, 79 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1358, 76 USPQ2d at 1084 ("The Board erred in holding that the specifications do not meet the written description requirement because they do not reiterate the structure or formula or chemical name for the nucleotide sequences of the claimed chimeric genes" where the genes were novel combinations of known DNA segments.). However, the claimed invention itself must be adequately described in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. For example, disclosure of an antigen fully characterized by its structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or deposit in a public depository does not, without more, provide an adequate written description of an antibody claimed by its binding affinity to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1378, 124 USPQ2d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)("knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies"); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351-52, 97 USPQ2d 1870, 1877 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(patent disclosed the antigen the claimed antibody was supposed to bind, but did not disclose any antibodies with the specific claimed properties).
The instant specification teaches a PEPS includes a hydrophilic amino acid sequence that selectively binds an REE cation and a hydrophobic sequence that confers surface activity ([0008]). REEs are elements between lanthanum and lutetium on the periodic table, also known as lanthanides. yttrium and scandium are often included in this category of elements as they share chemical and physical properties with the group that exist in nature with other lanthanides (Ln3+) ([0091]). Thus, the PEPS, as recited in the claims, comprises a hydrophilic region capable of binding to any REE (or, as recited in the product claims, any lanthanide) that also encompasses a hydrophobic moiety. There are no limitations regarding the length of either the hydrophilic sequence or the hydrophobic moiety and no clearly defined structural (i.e. amino acid sequence) requirements.
The instant specification teaches examples of PEPS comprising LBT’s, SEQ ID NO: 1-46, ([00107, 00132-00178, 00219]). The instant specification does not teach polypeptides comprising REE binding sequences that recognize yttrium or scandium. Although no other examples are disclosed within the instant specification, the contemplate additional compounds that retain the same functional characteristics beyond these examples.
For instance, Boyle et al. (US20220348619A1, effectively filed 6/21/2019) teach a variety of PEPS comprising REE binding tags ([0139], Table 2), any of which would meet the limitations of the instant claims. Further, Qian et al. (Rare earth elements-binding proteins/peptides and functional materials: A review, 2026, Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 394, 137345.; after Applicant’s priority date) indicates that studies are still ongoing to further identify additional REE-binding proteins (Pg 2, left column, “3. The identified REE-binding proteins/peptides” – Pg 7), which indicates the likely existence of other PEPS that are not contemplated by the instant application but meet the limitations of the claims.
Thus, the instant specification does not provide adequate written description to possess the broad genus described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception.
The Supreme Court has given a three-part test for patent eligibility (see flowchart of MPEP 2106(III)):
Are the claims drawn to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
2a) If the claims pass the first test, are the claims drawn to a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea)?
2b) If a judicial exception applies, do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Applying the three-part test to the instant claims:
Regarding 1), the claims are drawn to a process as well as a composition of matter. The process is a method comprising complexing PEPS to REEs. The composition of matter is a composition comprising said PEPS complexed to said REEs.
Regarding 2a), the process reads on a naturally-occurring phenomenon and the composition reads on a product of nature. There are many naturally-occurring PEPS with REEs, for example, Lanmodulin (LanM), which is found in Methylobacterium extorquens (Cotruvo et al. Lanmodulin: A Highly Selective Lanthanide-Binding Protein from a Lanthanide-Utilizing Bacterium. J Am Chem Soc. 2018 Nov 7;140(44):15056-15061.). Cotruvo teaches that LanM comprises four EF-hand motifs capable of binding Ln3+ cations as well as hydrophobic moieties adjacent to said EF-hand motifs (see Figure S3, where EF-hand motifs are shown in red, as well as in Figure 1b, and immediately adjacent sequences), and M. exotrquens relies on lanthanides for catalytic activities, thus seeking them out in natural environments (Abstract). M. extorquens is found in both soil and water habitats (“Methylobacterium extorquens, ScienceDirect, accessed from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/methylobacterium-extorquens on 6/1/2026). Where M. extorquens is found in water habitats reads on the instant method claims, where complexation occurs in solution. M. extorquens in both soil and water habitats reads on the instant product (composition) claims.
Regarding 2b), the claims do not add significantly more to distinguish them from the naturally-occurring phenomenon and product of nature. For instance, the process of complexing a PEPS to an REE in solution could occur at an air/liquid interface or a bubble, as these environments can occur in nature. Moreover, the formation of aggregates or a film, comprising a plurality of PEPS-REE complexes, reads on colonies of M. extorquens. Thus, taken together, the claims are drawn to patent ineligible subject matter and are rejected here.
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.
(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.
First rejection
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Ion Foam Filtration” (“IFF”: Ion Foam Filtration of Rare Earth Elements Using Amphiphilic Peptides with Lanthanide Binding Tags, archived via the WayBack Machine on 7/28/2021, downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20210728062555/https://levich.ccny.cuny.edu/ion-foam/ on 5/29/2026).
IFF teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
348
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where REE is a rare earth element and LBT is a lanthanide binding tag.
Regarding claim 1, IFF teaches the amphiphilic peptide surfactant comprises a polar group, such as a LBT, which is a peptide containing a binding loop comprised of a sequence of predominantly hydrophilic amino acids, which can bind to REEs; and a hydrophobic sequence at one end of the hydrophilic loop to drive adsorption of these peptides to bubble surfaces (Figure, above). The amphiphilic peptide surfactant complexes with REEs in solution (Figure above, left column; “Our Research” section).
Regarding claim 2, IFF teaches the PEPS comprises a LBT (“Our Research” section).
Regarding claim 3, IFF teaches the PEPS comprises at least one hydrophobic moiety (“Our Research” section).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, IFF teaches complexed PEPS-REE effects the disposition of said complex to air/liquid interface (bubbles; Figure above).
Regarding claim 10, IFF teaches sparging bubbles through the solution containing PEPS-REE complexes wherein the complex adsorbs to a bubble and the REE is recovered (Figure above, middle and right columns; “Our Research” section).
Regarding claim 11, IFF teaches an REE3+ ion and an amphiphilic peptide surfactant in solution, which reads on these components in a composition (Figure above).
Regarding claim 14, as stated above, IFF teaches a composition wherein the PEPS-REE complex occurs at an air/liquid interface (Figure above, middle and right columns).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, as stated above, IFF teaches a composition wherein the PEPS-REE complex occurs at an air/liquid interface that defines a bubble and is then collected as a foam (Figure above, middle and right columns; “Our Research” section).
Second rejection
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boyle et al. (US20220348619A1, effectively filed 6/21/2019).
Boyle teaches rare earth element (REE)-binding proteins (e.g., lanthanide-binding proteins; “PEPS”), host cells expressing REE-binding proteins, and methods of recovering REEs (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Boyle teaches methods of recovery of REEs from a sample such as a mine or a waste stream (solution; [0118]); samples can also come from a stream, pond, river, creek or other waterways ([0087]). The method comprises applying REE-binding proteins or cells containing REE-binding proteins to said sample wherever the sample is located ([0118-0119]). Boyle further teaches that the REE-binding proteins may be capable of binding one or more REEs ([0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Boyle teaches the REE-binding region can comprise a lanthanide binding tag (LBT; [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Boyle teaches many LBTs that further comprise at least one additional hydrophobic moiety. For example, SEQ ID NO: 2 of Boyle, which encompasses the instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (not claimed; highlighted segment of the sequence):
PNG
media_image2.png
462
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the hydrophobic moiety “GPG” is immediately N-terminal to the instant SEQ ID NO: 1; additionally, “M” is C-terminal to SEQ ID NO: 1.
Regarding claim 4, in another example taught by Boyle, SEQ ID NO: 1 comprises the following sequence:
PNG
media_image3.png
448
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, where the shorter sequence is the hydrophobic moiety (Ala Ala Phe), the longer highlighted sequence is the REE-binding motif (Asp Pro… Glu Leu), and the intervening sequence is the spacer (Asp Lys Leu).
Regarding claim 5, Boyle teaches in some embodiments the REE binding protein is a lanthanide binding protein. In some embodiments, the REE binding protein is a yttrium binding protein. In some embodiments, the REE binding protein is a scandium binding protein ([0014]). This reads on REE binding proteins having preference for one type of REE over another.
Regarding claim 11, Boyle teaches performing a binding assay between identified REE-binding proteins and terbium and/or dysprosium, both REEs (Example 1 [0128-0130]; Figures 3 and 4; Example 2 [0132-0135]; Figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 16, as stated above, Boyle teaches in some embodiments the REE binding protein is a lanthanide binding protein. In some embodiments, the REE binding protein is a yttrium binding protein. In some embodiments, the REE binding protein is a scandium binding protein ([0014]). This reads on REE binding proteins having preference for one type of REE over another.
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle et al. (US20220348619A1, effectively filed 6/21/2019) in view of Shetty et al. (Foam flotation of rare earth elements by conventional and green surfactants, 2020, Minerals Engineering, vol. 158, p. 1-9; cited on IDS filed 1/29/2024 as “Sharath et al.”).
The teachings of Boyle have been set forth above. Boyle does not teach a method wherein a PEPS is complexed to a REE effecting disposition of the PEPS-REE complex to an air/liquid interface.
Shetty teaches foam (ion and precipitate) flotation is a promising green method of recovery for REEs from leachates of the primary and secondary resources (Abstract). In ion flotation, target ions adsorb on the headgroups of surfactant films that stabilize bubbles dispersed in solution (air-water interface). In precipitate flotation, target ions attach to these bubbles with or without surfactants. The loaded bubbles rise to the top of the cell where they are collected as a foam. Both ion and precipitate flotation employ surfactants as collectors and rely on bubbles and gravity, but instead of dispersed mineral particles, they separate dissolved ions from their mixture. As it can be difficult to differentiate a priori ion and precipitate flotation from each other in practice, collectively they are referred to as “foam” flotation (Pg 1, Introduction, right column, second paragraph – Pg 2, left column, first paragraph). Foam flotation has several advantages over solvent extraction such as lower water consumption, facile and flexible operation, lower energy consumption, lower sludge, lower operational costs, and no toxic or hazardous chemicals and solvents. It can also be applied to a wide range of ion concentrations and the used surfactants and water can be recovered and recycled (Pg 2, left column, second paragraph).
In summary, Boyle teaches a method of complexing PEPS with REEs. Shetty teaches foam flotation, which is a method designed to recover REEs from solution by introducing surfactants that bind to said REEs and bubbles that the surfactants, by extension the REEs, can attach to generate a collectable foam.
Thus, regarding claim 6, it would be prima facie obvious to incorporate the foam flotation method taught by Shetty, which effects disposition of the PEPS-REE complex to an air/liquid interface, into the PEPS-REE complexing method taught by Boyle. One would be motivated to do so in order to take advantage of the benefits of foam filtration, as listed above and taught by Shetty. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as Shetty teaches surfactants and their properties (ability to bind REEs and bubbles) are key to practicing this method, and Boyle teaches surfactants, namely, PEPS.
Additionally, it would be prima facie obvious to substitute the surfactant taught by Shetty for the PEPS taught by Boyle. One skilled in the art would recognize that both types of surfactants served the same purpose: to complex REEs and adsorb to bubbles for the removal and recovery of REEs from solution. Therefore, it would be obvious to substitute one type of surfactant for another. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Moreover, it would be obvious to try to substitute the surfactants taught by Shetty for a PEPS taught by Boyle. Shetty teaches that in the foam flotation of REEs, only a few surfactants have been tested so far but green alternatives are still needed (Pg 2, left column, final paragraph – right column, first paragraph). Given that PEPS are composed of naturally-occurring, proteinogenic amino acids and exhibit surfactant properties, it would be obvious to try a PEPS in the foam filtration method taught by Shetty. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 7, as stated above, Shetty teaches the air/liquid interface is present at bubbles (Pg 1, Introduction, right column, second paragraph – Pg 2, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, as stated above, Shetty teaches foam flotation, specifically ion flotation, results in the production of a surfactant film, which comprises a plurality of PEPS-REE complexes (aggregates; Pg 1, Introduction, right column, second paragraph – Pg 2, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, as stated above, Shetty teaches sparging bubbles through solution such that the PEPS-REE complex adsorbs to bubbles, creating a foam that can be collected (recovering the REE cation; Pg 1, Introduction, right column, second paragraph – Pg 2, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, as stated above, Shetty teaches a method of foam flotation, which creates a composition comprising a complex comprising PEPS and REE, wherein the composition comprises a film which comprises a plurality of PEPS-REE complexes (aggregates; Pg 1, Introduction, right column, second paragraph – Pg 2, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, as stated above, Shetty teaches PEPS-REE complexes are disposed at an air/liquid interface (Pg 1, Introduction, right column, second paragraph – Pg 2, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Shetty further teaches PEPS-REE complexes can be disposed at air/water interfaces (Pg 2, 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, as stated above, Shetty teaches PEPS-REE complexes that occur at an air/liquid interface that defines a bubble (Pg 1, Introduction, right column, second paragraph – Pg 2, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Shetty teaches the PEPS-REE complexes are initially disposed within solution and then form a foam (Pg 1, Introduction, right column, second paragraph – Pg 2, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, although not expressly taught by Boyle or Shetty, it would be obvious that the composition comprising complexed PEPS-REE would be net-neutral or net-positive. One skilled in the art would recognize that REEs are positively charged and complexation of PEPS and REE is mediated by their charge differences; thus, one would expect a composition comprising PEPS-REEs to be neutral to positive.
Prior Art Cited but not Referenced
Jiao et al. (US20180195147A1, published 7/12/2018) anticipates/renders obvious many of the same claims that Boyle anticipates.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara Konopelski Snavely whose telephone number is (571)272-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm EST.
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, Melissa L Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/SARA E KONOPELSKI SNAVELY/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
/Melissa L Fisher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights