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 .
Applicant’s response to restriction requirement filed 12/17/25 is acknowledged. Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-16 and Group 5 species, namely a method of use of EDTA), without traverse.
Claims 10-23 are hereby withdrawn as drawn to non-elected invention. All species beyond Group 5, are also withdrawn as drawn to non-elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4,11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhou et al., “Zhou” (Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 91, 325-332, 2013, cited in the IDS).
Zhou teaches an integrated process of metal chelate absorption coupled with a two-stage bio-reduction using immobilized cultures to continuously remove NOx (see abstract and Figure 1). Zhou in its abstract teaches that nitrogen-containing components such as Fe(II)EDTA-NOx, NO2 and NO3 in the scrubbing solution inhibited the bio-reduction of Fe(III)EDTA, it was feasible to abate the inhibition effect using a two-stage bio-reduction system and thus to improve NOx removal efficiency, anticipating claims 1-4, 11, 12 and 15 or at least rendering said claims obvious.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by
Woo et al., “Woo” (US US2022/0177896, 6/9/22, which will be used to cite relevant text in the following rejection, see also its corresponding US patent No. 12,024 710, 7/2024) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Woo.
Said publication teaches (see [0002]), a recombinant microorganism including a genetic modification that increases activity of a nitrous oxide reductase pathway, a composition including the recombinant microorganism for use in reducing a concentration of nitrous oxide in a sample, and a method of reducing a concentration of nitrous oxide in a sample.
In [0020], according to Woo, a recombinant microorganism of the genus Escherichia is prepared, including a genetic modification that increases expression of a nosZ gene encoding NosZ, which is a nitrous oxide reductase, in the recombinant microorganism, wherein the recombinant microorganism includes the nosZ gene, a nosR gene encoding NosR, a nosD gene encoding NosD, a nosF gene encoding NosF, a nosY gene encoding NosY, and an apbE gene encoding ApbE, and wherein the nosZ gene, the nosR gene, the nosD gene, the nosF gene, the nosY gene and the apbE gene are derived from a microorganism of the genus Pseudomonas, the genus Paracoccus, or a combination thereof.
[0023] of said publication describes that the nitrous oxide may be in the form of Fe(II)(L)-NO and Fe(II)(L)-NO represents a complex formed by chelating a chelating agent L with Fe.2+ and NO. In the complex, the L may be, for example, ethylenediamine, diethylenetriamine, triethylenetetraamine, hexamethylenetetraamine, N-(2-hydroxyethyl)ethylenediamine-triacetic acid (HEDTA), ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid (EDTA), iminodiacetic acid, nitrilo-triacetic acid (NTA), or diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA). Therefore, Fe(II)(L)-NO may be in a form in which a nitrogen oxide such as N2O, NO, N2O3, NO2, etc. are modified to be soluble in an aqueous solution. Fe(II)(L)-NO may be formed by bringing a Fe(II)(L)-containing aqueous solution into contact with nitrogen oxide.
In said same paragraph according to Woo, the contacting may include mixing an aqueous medium with a liquid sample including liquid nitrogen oxide or bringing the aqueous medium into contact with a gaseous sample including gaseous nitrogen oxide. However, the recombinant microorganism is not limited to this specific mechanism in reducing a concentration of nitrous oxide in a sample.
Therefore, it is believed that Woo anticipates claims 1-5 or in the least, renders them obvious.
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.
Claim(s) 6-9, 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (cited above) in view of Smith et al., (US patent No. 12,534,392, 1/2026, see also its corresponding publication US2024/0018026, which will be used for citing relevant text).
As mentioned above, Woo tecahes a genetically modified Escherichia bacteria which has enhanced expression of nos Z, nosD etc., which upon contact with nitrogen oxide and its chelates (such as Fe(II)(L)-NO) can denitrify and reduce the concentration of said nitrogen oxides. Said reference however, does not mention any reactors in which such contacting may occur.
Smith teaches about a reactor (enhanced septic tank system) as follows (see [0039]:
The focus of these improvements for enhanced septic tank related domestic sanitary wastewater treatment is on enhancing biological denitrification—or the conversion of organic-N to ammonia-N to nitrite-N and nitrate-N, then ultimately to nitrogen gas for removal from the wastewater being treated by the septic tank system as a whole. Particularly, this invention: (i) adds different media to enhance the wood chip denitrification process. Furthermore, it: (ii) adds a recycle component for recycling treated wastewater back to the front end of the process using the same aeration pump and tubing that is being used for the aeration of the wastewater previously used to reduce soluble organics and the conversion of ammonia-N to nitrite-N and nitrate-N. It also facilitates the anammox process (in which ammonia plus having multiple ways to nitrite-N is converted to nitrogen gas). These processes can act singularly or in combination; thus, having multiple ways to nitrogen from the wastewater being treated (see also claim 1).
In [0048], Smith discloses that due to the separation, sequential, flooded or submerged, and plug flow reactor nature of wastewater flow (see Figures, specially figures 1-5) from Trough A to the SAC and ultimately to Trough C, this process arrangement (along with the bio-growth and limestone media in the SAC) serves to promote the conversion of anammox bacteria that serves to reduce total N via the reaction of ammonia and nitrite N to N gas. This can only be accomplished with the majority of the organic carbon removed in Trough A, thus allowing for the anammox bacteria to proliferate in the SAC. It thus serves to remove total N in the 20-90% range —rather than the ammonia all being converted to nitrite and nitrate N as would occur in a complete mix type reactor. By not having to waste any bacterial solids, the SAC serves to ensure that robust nitrification and anammox bacterial populations are established and maintained.
Before the effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to start with the method of Woo and scale it up using the system (plug-flow reactor ) of Smith.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of this application, would be motivated to perform the method of Woo in the plug-flow reactor of Smith because this results in industrial scale denitrification of waste liquids, which will be an environmentally favored process, rendering this invention obvious.
Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success in performing the method of Woo in the plug flow reactor system of Smith because such procedures were fully established in the prior art before the effective filing of tis application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. This is because a method of reducing a concentration of nitrogen oxide, utilizing a plug flow reactor comprising two or more compartments said first compartment comprising a microorganism of the family Rhodocyclaceae, Zoogloeaceae, Rhodobacteraceae, Clostridiaceae, or a combination thereof and said second compartment comprising a microorganism of the family Clostridiaceae, Shewanellaceae, Geobacteraceae, Rhodobacteraceae, Pseudomonadaceae, or a combination thereof appears to be free of prior art. Further, the prio art fails to suggest such specifically claimed method. Hence, said method is also non-obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM MONSHIPOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-0932. The examiner can normally be reached full-flex.
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, Melenie L Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/MARYAM MONSHIPOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651