DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments filed 4-22/2026 to claim 10 have been entered. Claims 11-20 are canceled. Claims 21-30 have been added. Claims 1-10 and 21-30 remain pending, and are subject to the election requirement dated 3/06/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, presently claims 10 and 21-30 the reply filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious search burden on the examiner to example both groups of Inventions. This is not found persuasive because search burden is not a consideration in a finding of lack of inventive unity; rather, according to M.P.E.P. §1850, the only consideration is whether the inventions share a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/22/2026.
Claims 10 and 21-30 are under consideration on the merits.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 10 and 21-24 be found allowable, claims 26, 27, 29, and 30 respectively will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof and vice versa. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stufano et al. (US 2017/260390; provided in the IDS dated 5/28/2025) in view of Evans et al. (US 2012/00/85701; Reference A).
Stufano teaches a method of producing a polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), the method comprising: A) subjecting waste water to an anaerobic treatment, pH adjusting the anaerobically treated waste water with ammonium hydroxide, and the aerobically treatment of the pH adjusted anaerobically treated waste water which are carried out by microorganisms to obtain first treated water, B) filtering the third treated water through an ion removal membrane (e.g. the reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate) and wherein each of the preceding steps is preferably subject to suitable pH controls and optionally combined with membrane ultrafiltered (UF) or membrane nanofiltered (NF) concentrate(s) (Fig. 1 and ¶0046-0049 and ¶0063-0070), C) lysing (e.g. crushing or solubilizing) the microorganisms, and then D) separating the PHAs from the microbial lysate by either solvent extraction or non-solvent digestion (¶0071-0072), reading in-part on claims 10 and 25. In a separate embodiment, Stufano teaches obtaining the waste water having been discharged during a continuous production process of a polyhydroxyalkanoate (¶0056, e.g. the waste stream), reading in-part on claim 10 and 25.
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Stufano and Evans do not teach a single embodiment of a method of producing a polyhydroxyalkanoate combined with waste water obtained from a polyhydroxyalkanoate production process. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to the waste water obtained from a polyhydroxyalkanoate production process with the methods of producing a polyhydroxyalkanoate of Stufano. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because Stufano expressly considers the combination. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Stufano teaches that waste water obtained from a polyhydroxyalkanoate production process is predictably advantageous as a starting source of (recycled) waste water in Stufano’s methods of a polyhydroxyalkanoate.
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Stufano and Evans do not teach a single embodiment of a method subjecting the second treated water to an alkali treatment to obtain third treated water. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further treat the pH adjusted anaerobically and then aerobically treated waste water with the ammonium hydroxide of Stufano. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so and would have been motivated to do so because Stufano expressly considers the combination of any of the preceding steps being subject to suitable pH controls.
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Stufano and Evans do not teach subjecting the first treated water to pretreatment filtration by a membrane bioreactor.
Evans teaches a process for treating a water stream containing dissolved organic carbon and dissolved salts comprises subjecting the water stream to reverse osmosis after a pre-treatment step to reduce the amount of dissolved organic carbon directed in water to the reverse osmosis treatment step, and wherein the preferred pre-treatment step is a membrane treatment (Abstract). Evans teaches a pretreatment anaerobic process comprising a membrane bioreactor (MBR), and wherein the MBR is advantageous to remove a small portion of the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and wherein the DOC is predominantly intractable to anaerobic and aerobic microbial digestion processes (¶0011), reading on claims 10 and 25. Evans teaches treating waste water streams (¶0020), reading on claims 10 and 25
Regarding claims 10 and 25, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to add the membrane bioreactor pretreatment step of Evans to the methods of Stufano. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because Stufano and Evans are both in-part directed towards methods of treating waste water streams. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Evans teaches that the addition would be predictably advantageous to remove dissolved organic carbon (DOC) from the waste water stream of Stufano and which would be intractable to anaerobic and aerobic microbial digestion processes of Stufano.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Claims 21, 22, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stufano and Evans as applied to claims 10 and 25 above, and further in view of Williamson and Wilkinson (J Gen Microbiol (1958), 19, 198-209; Reference U) and Jiang et al. (Environ. Sci Technol. (2010), 44, 6642-6648; Reference V).
The teachings of Stufano and Evans are relied upon as set forth above. Stufano teaches alkali treatment to a pH range of 6-8 (¶0067), reading in-part on claims 21 and 26.
Regarding claims 21 and 26, Stufano and Evans do not teach wherein the turbidity of the third treated water is adjusted to not less than 0.1, and the FI (i.e. fouling index) value of the third treated water is adjusted to not less than 4.5. Regarding claims 21 and 27, Stufano and Evans do not teach wherein the FI value of the third treated water is adjusted to not less than 6.0.
Williamson and Wilkinson teaches a method of measuring and estimating the poly-β-hydroxy-butyrate inclusions in Bacillus cereus (Abstract), the method comprising lysing the Bacillus cereus strain AC and then measuring the turbidity of lysate, wherein turbidity positively correlates to the number of (intracellular) poly-β-hydroxy-butyrate inclusions, and wherein turbidities of 0.158 and 0.262 are achieved (Table 1 and the paragraph spanning pages 202-203), reading on the turbidity of claims 21 and 26.
Jiang teaches a modified fouling index-ultrafiltration (MFI-UF) of 2.91 ± 105 for sludge water concentrate (SW), 4.27 ± 105 for biomass associated product (BAP), and 0.95 ± 105 for utilization associated products (UAP) in membrane bioreactors (Table 1), reading on the fouling index of claims 21, 22, 26, and 27. Jiang teaches that membrane fouling is mostly related to the organic colloidal and soluble components present in the sludge water (page 6642, right column, paragraph starting “MBR fouling…”), reading on claims 21, 22, 26, and 27 Jiang teaches the UAP comprises polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) stored within the (microbial) cells (page 6647, subheading “Characterization of UAP”), reading on claims 21, 22, 26, and 27.
Regarding the turbidity of claims 21 and 26, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further adjust the turbidity of the third treated water of Stufano to not less than 0.1 in view of Williamson and Wilkinson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Stufano and Williamson and Wilkinson are directed towards methods of producing polyhydroxyalkanoates and because Williamson and Wilkinson teaches detailed methods for measuring turbidity. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Williamson and Wilkinson teach that turbidity positively correlates to the number of (intracellular) poly-β-hydroxy-butyrate inclusions and wherein turbidities of 0.158 and 0.262 are achieved, and so measuring and achieving turbidities not less than 0.1 in Stufano’s methods would predictably improve said methods by quantifying and maintaining a minimal PHA yield.
Regarding the (FI (i.e. fouling index) of claims 21, 22, 26, and 27, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further adjust the fouling index of the third treated water of Stufano to not less than 4.5 or 6.0 in view of Jiang. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Stufano and Jiang are directed towards methods of producing polyhydroxyalkanoates from aqueous waste sources (e.g. waste water) and because Jiang teaches detailed methods for measuring fouling index. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Jiang teaches that operable fouling index values when producing microbial PHAs, and so measuring and achieving fouling index values not less than 4.5 and 6.0 in Stufano’s methods would predictably improve yield a method for producing PHAs; see M.P.E.P. § 2143(I)(A).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Claims 23, 24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stufano and Evans as applied to claims 10 and 25 above, and further in view of Mantelatto et al. (US 2007/0161096; Reference B).
The teaches of Stufano and Evans are relied upon as set forth above. Stufano further teaches centrifuging the waste water prior to microfiltration to remove coarse suspended solids and/or emulsions (¶0044), reading on the embodiment of centrifugation for the sedimentation of claims 24 and 30.
Regarding claims 23, 24, and 28-30, Stufano and Evans do not teach wherein the producing of the recycled water further comprises precipitating a solid containing a polyvalent ion in the third treated water before the filtering, wherein polyvalent ion is at least one of Ca2+, SO42-, and PO42-.
Mantelatto teaches a process for recovering polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs)
from cellular biomass of bacteria (Abstract). Mantelatto teaches calcium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, and phosphoric acid as an exemplary alkalizing agents, respectively, in methods of flocculating/coagulating (e.g. precipitating) the cellular biomass by first acidifying the biomass to a pH of about 1.5-5.5 and then alkalizing the biomass to a pH of about 7-12 (¶0070), reading on the embodiments of Ca2+, SO42-, and PO42- for the polyvalent ions of claims 23, 24, and 28-30. Mantelatto teaches that the addition of calcium and phosphate is advantageous to form bridges with the cell walls of the
microorganism containing the PHA, with a resulting positive charge and which are aggregated in a flake through the flocculating agent, leading to the formation of a stable flake presenting a density higher than that of the liquid that involves them and wherein said flakes are then easily separated from the fermented liquid culture (¶0072), reading on claims 23, 24, and 28-30.
Regarding claims 23, 24, and 28-30, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further add the calcium hydroxide and either sulfuric or phosphoric acid flocculation/coagulation (e.g. precipitation) step of Mantelatto to the methods of Stufano. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Mantelatto and Stufano are in-part directed towards methods of producing PHAs from microbial biomass The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Mantelatto teaches that the addition would be predictably advantageous to cause the formation of PHA flakes which are then easily separated from the fermented liquid culture and thus improving upon the PHA isolation methods of Stufano.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed. No claims are free of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C BARRON whose telephone number is (571)270-5111. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EDT/EST (M-F).
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at 571-272-0614. 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.
/Sean C. Barron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights