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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11,13 in the reply filed on 3/5/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant indicates that claims 25,26 depends from claim 1. The claims were unintentionally left off from Group I in the restriction requirement. Claims 25,26 will be examined along with claims 1-11, 13. Claims 12, 14-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions.
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 2,11 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 2 is vague and indefinite; it’s unclear what kind of ingredients are encompassed in the biodegradable feedstock recited in the claim. What kind of product would qualify as food industry byproduct or food industry waste or agricultural industry byproduct or agricultural industry waste?
Claim 11 is vague and indefinite. The claim depends from claim 10 which recites from about 60-80% acetate and propionate. However, claim 11 recites about 50-99.9% propionate. The range is outside of the combined amount of acetate and propionate. Thus, it’s unclear how the claim further limits claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevenier ( 2020/0231995)
For claim 1, Sevenier discloses a method for producing organic acid salts from fermentation broth. The method comprises the steps of culturing a microorganism in an appropriate culture medium comprising a carbon source and nitrogen source during a sufficient time to obtain a fermentation broth comprising organic acids, pre-treating the fermentation broth by clarification of the broth, separating the organic acids to obtain condensed volatile acids fraction, adding inorganic bases to the acid fraction and eliminating the water from the volatile acids fraction to recover the organic acid salts. The organic acids include acetic acid and propionic acid. The produced organic acid salts are recovered under the form of a mixture of two different organic acid salts. The carbon source can be derived from renewable feed-stock such as vegetal biomass. The renewable feedstock is the same as the claimed biodegradable feedstock and the fermentation broth is the same as the claimed fermentation effluent. The clarification step is the same as the claimed recovering the carboxylic acid mixture because the step involves filtering to remove the insoluble organic impurities to recover the organic acids. ( see paragraphs 0033-0042,0107,0119,0122,0134-0137,0143)
For claim 2, the feed stock includes vegetal biomass which is considered an agricultural industry by product. ( see paragraph 0119). ( the claim is vague and indefinite as set forth above and does not define what would constitute agricultural by product)
For claim 3, Sevenier discloses the separation of the organic acids is carried out by distillation. ( see paragraph 0147)
For claim 4, Sevenier discloses the base is selected from sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, calcium carbonate etc.. ( see paragraph 0165)
For claim 5, Sevenier discloses the organic acid salts are in a solution. Thus, it’s obvious water is added. ( see paragraph 0174)
For claims 6-9, Sevenier discloses elimination of the remaining water can be carried out by any techniques such as drying, evaporation, vacuum dehydration and substep (s) can be chosen from evaporation, atomization, granulation, agglomeration, crystallization, liquid/solid separation, filtration and centrifugation. The drying includes spray dryer. ( see paragraphs 0173-0183)
For claims 10-11, Sevenier discloses the mixture of organic salts comprises a major component, meaning that the weight of the major component represents more than 50%of the mixture weigh. Evaluation of the weight of each component of the mixture can be carried out after isolation of each organic acid salt present in the mixture. The proportion of each recovered organic acid depends at least on the cultivated microorganism and on the time of fermentation of said microorganism. ( see paragraphs 0259-0263). In paragraphs 0244-0255, Sevenier discloses different microorganisms to produce different organic acid salt. Propionibacterium is used to produce propionic acid. Acetic acid is produced by Eubacterium limosum and Acetobacter aceti, A. peroxidants and A pasteurianus. ( see paragraphs 0088, 0090)
For claim 13, Sevenier discloses the salt comprising calcium propionate. ( see paragraph 0258).
For claims 25,26, Sevenier discloses different microorganisms to produce different organic acid salt. Propionibacterium is used to produce propionic acid. Acetic acid is produced by Eubacterium limosum and Acetobacter aceti, A. peroxidants and A pasteurianus. ( see paragraphs 0088, 0090)
Sevenier does not specifically discloses combination of acetic acid salt and propionic acid salt and use as preservative as in claim 1, the sequence as in claims 8-9 and the proportion as in claims 10-11.
Sevenier discloses carboxylic acids including acetic acid and propionic acetic and teaches the microorganisms used to produce the specific acid. Sevenier also discloses the solution is a mixture of two acids. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce mixture of acetic acid and propionic acid. Sevenier discloses in paragraph 0006 that organic acids are used in food preservation. Thus, it would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the organic acid salts as preservative. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the particular sequence of steps to obtain the acids salts through routine experimentation. All the steps claimed are disclosed in Sevenier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to grind and sift the salt depending on the particle size desired. Sevenier discloses the microorganisms required to produce particular acids and the amount produced depends on the organisms and the time of fermentation. The amount of the acids can readily be determined after isolation. Thus, it would have been well within the skill of one in the art to determine the fermentation time and organisms to obtain desirable amounts and to determine the quantity after isolation to ensure the proper amounts are obtained. Such parameter is result-effective variable that can readily be determined by one skilled in the art through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
April 14, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights