ATTACHMEN T TO NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1) A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 09/29/25 has been entered.
Applicant’s Amendments
2) Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s amendments filed 07/21/26 and 09/29/25 in response to the final Office Action mailed 04/02/2025.
Status of Claims
3) Claims 1, 6, 15-20, 11 and 19-21 have been amended via the amendment filed 09/29/26.
Claims 8, 11 and 31 have been canceled via the amendment filed 09/29/25.
Claims 1, 6, 15-18 and 32 have been canceled via the supplemental amendment filed 07/21/26.
New claims 47-54 have been added via the supplemental amendment filed 07/21/26.
Claims 19-21, 24, 26-29 and 39-54 are pending.
Claims 47-54 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statements
4) Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements filed 07/21/26, 02/10/26 and 09/29/25. The information cited therein has been considered and an initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Prior Citation of Title 35 Sections
5) The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action References.
Prior Citation of References
6) The references cited or used as prior art in support of one or more rejections in the instant Office Action and not included on an attached form PTO-892 or form PTO-1449 have been previously cited and made of record.
Rejection(s) Moot
7) The rejection of claim 11 set forth in paragraphs 18(a) and 18(b) of the Office Action mailed 04/02/25 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is moot in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
8) The rejection of claims 1, 8 and 11 set forth in paragraph 20 of the Office Action mailed 04/02/25 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chicca et al. (Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27: 36203-36214, 18 June 2020, of record) is moot in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
9) The rejection of claims 1, 8 and 11 set forth in paragraph 21 of the Office Action mailed 04/02/25 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Biotechnol. Bioeng. 43: 1146-1152, 1994, of record) is moot in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
10) The rejection of claims 6, 15, 17 and 31 set forth in paragraph 23 of the Office Action mailed 04/02/25 under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Biotechnol. Bioeng. 43: 1146-1152, 1994, of record) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sriprapat et al. (Water Air Soil Pollut. 224: 1482, pages 1-9, 2013, of record) (Sriprapat et al., 2013) and Dela Cruz et al. (Environ. Sci. Pollution Res. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 21: 13909-13928, 2014, of record) is moot in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
11) The rejection of claims 6, 15, 17 and 31 set forth in paragraph 24 of the Office Action mailed 04/02/25 under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over Chicca et al. (Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27: 36203-36214, 18 June 2020, of record) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sriprapat et al. (Water Air Soil Pollut. 224: 1482, pages 1-9, 2013) (Sriprapat et al., 2013) and Dela Cruz et al. (Environ. Sci. Pollution Res. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 21: 13909-13928, 2014, of record) is moot in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
Double Patenting Rejection
12) The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
13) Claims 47-54 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 89-91 of the co-pending 18284959 (‘959) application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The above-identified claims of the co-pending ‘959 application are drawn to a system comprising a composition comprising engineered Pseudomonas putida and Methylobacterium extorquens, with or without further comprising engineered Methylobacterium oryzae, maintained with an indoor ornamental plant, wherein the system exhibits increased VOC removal when compared to a system comprising a plant not cultivated or maintained in the presence of the composition comprising engineered microbes. Said claims encompass within their scope or read on instant claims directed to a composition comprising engineered Pseudomonas putida cells having greater capacity to remove and/or metabolize a VOC and have increased tolerance to VOC when compared to the parental Pseudomonas putida strain PpF1 and further comprising the ornamental indoor plant Epiprenumnum aureum. As in In re Basell Pollolefine Italia S.P.A., 89 USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the specification of the co-pending ‘959 application at least at sections [416], [547], [552], [554] and [555] as well as at Embodiment 60 specifically identify the PpF1 strain as a Pseudomonas putida strain indicating that the PpF1 strain is intended to fall within the meaning and coverage of the claims. Note that ‘[The specification] may be used to learn the meaning of terms and in interpreting the coverage of a claim’ [Emphasis added]. In re Basell Pollolefine Italia S.P.A., 89 USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim(s) Objection - Suggestion
14) Claim 50 is objected to for the non-italicized recitation ‘Epipremnum aureum’. To be consistent with the italicized format used in claims 48, 49 and 52-54 and with the practice in the art of botanical nomenclature, it is suggested that Applicants delete the above-identified non-italicized limitation via strikethrough Epipremnum aureum and replace it with the italicized limitation marked by underlining, i.e., Epipremnum aureum’.
Conclusion
15) No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
16) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to S. Devi, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0854. A message may be left on the Examiner’s voice mail system. The Examiner is on a flexible work schedule, however she can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. (EST). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner's Supervisor, Jeffrey Stucker, can be reached at (571) 272-0911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (571) 273-8300.
17) Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/S. DEVI/
S. Devi, Ph.D.Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1645
July, 2026
Prosecution Insights