DETAILED ACTION
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 20-24 are pending as amended on 11 May 2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and the remarks/arguments have been entered and fully considered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success to substitute the quaternary ammonium compound of Gopal with the sophorolipid of Gross in the method of Gopal. The examiner notes that the rejection is on the ground of including the sophorolipid in the composition of Gopal to provide effective solubilization/cleaning of crude oil and antimicrobial activity (Gross, [0003], [0011], claims 3, 16 and 20), not to substitute the quaternary ammonium surfactant with the sophorolipid. As set forth in previous Office action, Gopal discloses that the surfactant component has biocidal activity and the effect of penetrating the lipid phase of the deposit and dissolve the deposit ([0028] and [0029]). Gross teaches that sophorolipids exhibit anti-microbial activity and can provide effective oil clearing/displacement/solubilization of crude oil as tank cleaner and equipment cleaners ([0003], claims 3, 16 and 20). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success to include the sophorolipids of Gross in the method of Gopal in applications of removing deposit from oilfield conduits given the teachings of Gross ([0003] and claims 3, 16 and 20).
Applicant further argues that Gross does not teach naturally derived glycolipid but modified sophorolipids. The examiner disagrees. Gross expressly discloses that the cleaning composition comprise a combination of modified and natural sophorolipids (claim 1 and 20), which can be produced from fermentation of Candida bombicola ([0008], [0011] and [0067]), which is an equivalent strain of Starmerella bombicola as evidenced by Daverey (p500, second paragraph), and the sophorolipids can be provided in culture broth ([0008] and claim 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5, 6 and 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal in view of Gross as evidenced by Bennett and Daverey.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 8, Gopal teaches a method for removal of heavy hydrocarbon deposit from oilfield apparatus and conduits such as injection pipes, storage tanks comprises applying a composition to the apparatus/conduits/pipe ([0001],[0003] and [0054]-[0058]), wherein the deposit is referred as “Schmoo” ([0014]), which is known to contain asphaltene as evidenced by Bennett ([0009]).
Gopal discloses that the composition comprises a surfactant and an alcohol component such as isopropyl alcohol (([0015], [0029] and [0038]), wherein the surfactant has biocidal activity and the effect of penetrating the lipid phase of the deposit and dissolve the deposit ([0028] and [0029]).
Gopal does not teach the instantly claimed sophorolipid, neither the cultivated yeast.
Gross teaches that sophorolipids can provide effective oil clearing/displacement/solubilization of crude oil as tank cleaner and equipment cleaners ([0003], claim 3, 16 and claim 20), wherein the sophorolipids also exhibit anti-microbial activity and can be produced from fermentation of Candida bombicola ([0008], [0011] and [0067]), which is an equivalent strain of Starmerella bombicola as evidenced by Daverey (p500, second paragraph), and wherein the sophorolipids can be provided directly from culture broth ([0008] and claim 20), which meets the fermentation medium and anticipates the presence of growth byproducts.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the sophorolipids directly from the yeast culture broth, i.e., fermentation medium of Gross in the method of Gopal. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Gross that to do so would predictably provide effective solubilization/cleaning of crude oil from industrial tank and equipment with antimicrobial activity ([0011] and claims 3 and 20), which is desirable by Gopal ([0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 20, Gopal teaches that the composition comprises components of biocidal properties ([0015]), thus one of ordinary skill would expect the absence of live microbes in the composition of Gopal and Gross.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal in view of Gross as evidenced by Bennett and Daverey as applied to claims 5, 6, 8 and 20, and further in view of US2017/0183702A1 (Boundy--Mills).
The combined teachings of Gopal and Gross as evidenced by Bennett and Daverey are set forth above .
While teaching Candida bombicola as the yeast to produce the sophorolipids ([0008], [0011] and [0067]), Neither Gopal nor Gross teaches Wicerhamomyces anomalus as the producing yeast.
Boundy—Mills teaches that yeast species producing and secreting sophorolipids in industrially relevant amounts includes Wicerhamomyces anomalus in addition to Starmerella bombicola 1970 [16-19] (syn. Candida bombicola) ([0005] and Table 1).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Wicerhamomyces anomalus to produce sophorolipids in the method of Gopal and Gross since it has been held that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case, a sophorolipids secreting yeast. See MPEP 2144.06(II) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair & Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc v Ag-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988)
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal in view of Gross as evidenced by Bennett and Daverey in further view of Boundy--Mills as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Anderson.
The combined teachings of Gopal and Gross as evidenced by Bennett and Daverey in further view of Boundy--Mills are set forth above .
Gopal further teaches the composition comprises corrosion inhibitors ([0015]).
None of Gopal, Gross and Boundy--Mills teaches the presence of ionic liquid and its amount.
Anderson teaches that ionic liquids are highly effective at inhibiting corrosion of metals by hydrocarbon fluids such as vessels in crude oil processing ([0002], [0018], [0101] and [0129]), wherein the amount of the ionic liquid is exemplified as 1 wt.% ([0150]), which meets the claimed amount.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the ionic liquid and amount of Anderson in the composition and method of Gopal, Gross and Boundy--Mills. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Anderson that to do so would predictably provide corrosion inhibition, and further since it has been held that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case, a corrosion inhibitor for vessels in contact with crude oils (Anderson, [0018] and [0129]). See MPEP 2144.06(II) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair & Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc v Ag-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal in view of Gross as evidenced by Bennett and Daverey in further view of Boundy--Mills as applied to claim 24, and further in view of Duran.
The combined teachings of Gopal and Gross as evidenced by Bennett and Daverey in further view of Boundy--Mills are set forth above .
None of Gopal, Gross and Boundy--Mills teaches the presence of ammonium phosphate.
Duran teaches a fermentation medium for producing sophorolipid from Starmerella bombicola comprises dibasic ammonium phosphate as nutrients ([0026] and [0059]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include dibasic ammonium phosphate of Duran in the fermentation broth, thus the composition and method of Gopal, Gross and Boundy--Mills, since it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) to yield predictable results, in the instant case, a known technique to produce sophorolipid from yeast . See MPEP 2143 (D).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights