DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1, 11, 14-16, 19-20, 23-25 and 32-35 are pending. Claims 33-35 are new, and Claims 2-10, 12-13, 17-18, 21-22 and 26-31 are canceled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 21 July 2026, regarding the respective grounds of rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The grounds of rejection have been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims in a manner that overcomes and addresses the issues of indefiniteness that required the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); therefore, after further consideration, said grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment along with the Amended Claim Listing, both filed 21 July 2026, regarding the rejections of claims 1, 11, 14-16, 19-20, 23-25 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103, respectively, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 using Barak (US Pat Pub. 2013/0299420) and Luke et al. (herein referred to as “Luke” US Pat Pub. 2020/0247699). Applicant has amended the claims in a manner that introduces new limitations to Claim 1, including narrowing the scope of the polyvalent cations of the first and second compounds. Applicant has also narrowed the scope of the target molecule by now requiring said target molecule to be a saccharide selected from the group consisting of allulose and tagatose. After further consideration, the examiner agrees that the cited prior art does not disclose these new limitations; therefore, the grounds of rejection are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are made, after further search and consideration, using the secondary references detailed above and are detailed below. Since the instant arguments do not address these new grounds of rejection, they are considered moot and will not be further addressed at this time.
Applicant’s arguments regarding allulose and tagatose are not considered persuasive. Claim 1 requires an aqueous preparation comprising phosphate and a target molecule, wherein the phosphate is reduced form the claimed method while the target molecule at least partially remains in the preparation. In other words, the method does not affect the target molecule. While the cited prior art does not mention the specific saccharides of allulose and tagatose, they do not mention removal of these saccharides either. Since the cited prior art is known not to remove the saccharides of arabinose and xylose, and allulose and tagatose are not mentioned, it would be obvious to expect other saccharides to stay within the water. See MPEP 2144.09, I., since the saccharides are similar in structure, there is reasonable expectation that they will have similar properties. For this reason, the cited prior art is believed to read on the species of target compounds.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 14-16, 19-20, 23-25 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjing University of Technology (herein referred to as “Nanjing”, CN101285106B; found in IDS filed 11/15/2023) in view of Barak (US Pat Pub. 2013/0299420) and Luke et al. (herein referred to as “Luke” US Pat Pub. 2020/0247699).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Nanjing discloses a method of reducing phosphate in an aqueous preparation (Abstract; Paragraph [0018]; “step 4” of the method; see calcium phosphate precipitate from solution and recovery) comprising:
obtaining the aqueous preparation comprising phosphate and a target molecule (Paragraphs [0016]-[0018]; see also steps 1-3; phosphate prepared by adding phosphoric acid while target molecule is comprised of cellulose and its constituents);
combining the aqueous preparation with a first compound and a second compound, to provide a treated preparation, wherein both compounds comprise a polyvalent cation (Paragraphs [0016]-[0018]; step 4, calcium hydroxide is added to solution, followed by sulfuric acid);
mixing the treated preparation at sufficient temperature and for sufficient time for the phosphate and the compounds to form a precipitate, to provide a reduced phosphate preparation (Paragraph [0022]; solution is given enough time at an ideal temperature for calcium phosphate to be precipitated);
removing the precipitate from the reduced-phosphate preparation (Paragraph [0022]; calcium phosphate is removed via filtration or other separation);
wherein the aqueous preparation maintains a pH between about 4 and about 10 and the treated preparation has a pH between about 4 and about 10 (Examples 1-6; pH for all solutions range from 4.5 to 5.5);
wherein the reduced-phosphate preparation retains a portion of the target molecule (Paragraph [0022]; see hydrolized sugar solution).
While Nanjing is silent on the target molecule being a saccharide selected from the group of allulose and tagatose, the reference does disclose a hydrolized sugar solution comprising at least arabinose and xylose (Paragraph [0022]). Since Nanjing does not disclose the removal of allulose and tagatose yet retains a hydrolized sugar solution including arabinose and xylose, it would be reasonable and obvious to expect the Nanjing method to also retain allulose and tagatose—which are similar in structure to that of arabinose and xylose (all being saccharides). See MPEP 2144.09, I., since the saccharides are similar in structure, there is reasonable expectation that they will have similar properties.
However, Nanjing is silent on the second compound being one from the group recited in instant Claim 1. See though that Nanjing does disclose calcium hydroxide for the first compound and a polyvalent cation for the second compound (Paragraphs [0016]-[0018]). The reference is also likewise silent on the claimed combined amount and ratio recited in the instant claim.
Barak discloses a phosphate recovery from acid phase anaerobic digesters in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of recovering phosphate from liquid using calcium hydroxide (Abstract). Barak further discloses calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide may be added to the water in order to raise pH and affect removal of phosphate by precipitating calcium phosphate (Abstract; Paragraph [0009]; Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second polyvalent compound of Nanjing to further comprise calcium oxide as taught by Barak because Barak discloses compound oxide may be added to the water in order to raise pH and affect removal of phosphate by precipitating calcium phosphate (Barak, Abstract; Paragraph [0009]; Paragraph [0036]). See that Barak also teaches that calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide may be used interchangeably, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the ratio of the compounds be around 1:1 (Paragraph [0009]).
The combined references are also likewise silent on the claimed combined amount and ratio recited in the instant claim.
Luke discloses removal of phosphorus from water in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of removing phosphorus from a solution (Abstract). Luke further discloses the use of calcium as a reactive media, wherein the weight percentage of the calcium can be any suitable proportion, from 0.01 wt% to 100 wt.% at the user’s choosing (Paragraphs [0069-[0070]; see that calcium may be used to form solid phosphate salt; see that 1% is taught).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify the weight percentage of the combined amount to be between 0.1 to 5.0% as taught by Luke because Luke discloses such weight percentages are useful in forming a reactive media that will created a phosphate salt (Luke, Paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 10, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the aqueous preparation comprises soluble phosphate in an amount between 1 and about 1000 mM (Paragraphs Page 5 Application/Control Number: 18/561,054 Art Unit: 1773 [0018]-[0022]; see step 2, feed-liquid ratio is 10-30 g/100 ml; 1-1000 mM would be between 197.13 mg/mL of solvent to 197 g/mL of solvent, wherein 10-30 g/100 mL would fall within this range).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 1, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein after sufficient temperature and for sufficient time for the phosphate and the compounds to combine as precipitate, the precipitate comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 100 wt.% of the phosphate in the treated preparation (Examples 1-6; see that approximately 90% of phosphate is recovered).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 1, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the precipitate is removed by filtration (Paragraph [0022]; calcium phosphate is removed via filtration).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 1, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the reduced-phosphate preparation retains a percentage of the phosphate from the aqueous preparation at between about 1 to about 20% (Examples 4 and 5; phosphate recovery is around 90%; leaving around 10% left in the preparation).
Regarding instant Claim 19, Claim 1, upon which Claim 19 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the aqueous preparation contains at least about 2 wt.% of saccharide (Examples 1-6; see that .8-1.45 g of sugar can be produced from 5 g of raw material, w/v ratio of 20% yields at least 2.5-3.6 wt.% of sugars in solution). Page 6 Application/Control Number: 18/561,054 Art Unit: 1773
Regarding instant Claim 20, Claim 1, upon which Claim 20 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the reduced-phosphate preparation retains a percentage of the target molecule present in the aqueous preparation between about 50 wt.% to about 100 wt.% (Paragraphs [0018]-[0023]; Examples 1-6; see that see that sugar solution remains after step 4, suggesting most of target molecule remains in solution).
Regarding instant Claim 23, Claim 1, upon which Claim 23 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the aqueous preparation is derived from cultured cells and is a suspension containing a cell lysate (Paragraphs [0018]-[0022]; see cellulose hydrolyzed to obtain sugar liquid).
Regarding instant Claim 24, Claim 1, upon which Claim 24 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the aqueous preparation is derived from cultured cells and the cell is selected from a plant cell (Paragraphs [0018] [0022]; see steps 1-3, cellulose and culturing via steps 1-3).
Regarding instant Claim 25, Claim 1, upon which Claim 25 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the aqueous preparation is derived from cells processed mechanically or enzymatically lysing the cells (Paragraphs [0018]-[0022]; step 1 involves a physical crushing step of biomass; step 3 involves enzymatic hydrolyzation).
Regarding instant Claim 32, Claim 1, upon which Claim 32 is dependent, has been rejected above. Nanjing further discloses wherein the method provides a reduction of at least about 80% in the phosphate concentration in aqueous preparation (Examples 4 and 5; phosphate recovery is around 90%).
Regarding instant Claim 33, Claim 1, upon which Claim 33 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the first and second compound are selected from calcium hydroxide and calcium oxide (Barak, Abstract; Paragraph [0009]; calcium hydroxide and calcium oxide taught).
Regarding instant Claim 34, Claim 1, upon which Claim 34 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the treated preparation comprises the first compound at between 0.5 wt.% and 2.0 wt.% of the treated preparation (Barak, Paragraph [0009]; Luke, Paragraphs [0069]-[0070]; Luke teaches weight percentages, Barak discloses calcium hydroxide/calcium oxide used interchangeably).
Regarding instant Claim 35, Claim 1, upon which Claim 35 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the treated preparation comprises the second compound between about 0.5 wt.% to about 1.5% of the treated preparation (Luke, Paragraphs [0069]-[0070]; calcium oxide weight ranges taught).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Voogt, US Pat Pub. 2017/0129819; discloses calcium oxide at certain weight percentages for phosphorous removal (Abstract; Paragraph [0023]).
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 RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 09/17/2026
Prosecution Insights