DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on:
03/07/2024
05/11/2026
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding all drawings, the size and font of the text is such that it cannot be easily discerned. Please use a size and font of the text so that the words can be read within the drawings. See MPEP § 1.84 “Standards for drawings”:
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.
(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.
(2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas.
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-14, using the term “wherein” to replace the phrase “characterized in that” is recommended for the style of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, in line 2, the word “it” could be “the method”.
Regarding claim 3, in line 3, the term “lactic acid bacteria” should be preceded with the word “the”.
Regarding claim 4, in line 2, the phrase “the concentration” could be “a concentration”.
Regarding claim 4, in line 2, the phrase “of lactic acid bacteria” should be “of the lactic acid bacteria”.
Regarding claim 4, in line 3, the term “incubation” should be preceded by the word “the”.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2, the term “the pH” should be “a pH”.
Regarding claim 6, in line 2, the term “the incubation time” should be “an incubation time”.
Regarding claim 7, in line 3, the term “said method” could be “the method”.
Regarding claim 7, in lines 4-5, the phrase “containing lactic acid bacteria” should be “containing the lactic acid bacteria”.
Regarding claim 8, in line 2, the word “it” could be “the method of claim 1”.
Regarding claim 10, please use a serial comma in a list of items of three or more; also, please use semicolons to designate between different clauses that include a comma(s). This is avoid grammatical confusion. See the U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual (see attached non-patent literature on punctuation, pgs. 202-203 “Comma” and 219-220 “Semicolon”).
Regarding claim 10, use the unitalicized abbreviation “subsp.” instead of the italicized term “subsp”.
Regarding claim 11, in line 3, the phrase “after incubation” should be “after the incubation”.
Regarding claim 11, in line 3, the phrase “with whey” should be “with the whey”.
Regarding claim 11, in lines 3-4, the phrase “with lactic acid bacteria” should be “with the lactic acid bacteria”.
Regarding claim 13, in line 3, the term “20 ” may need to be omitted.
Regarding claim 13, in line 4, the phrase “Pseudomonas fluorescens, ” should be “Pseudomonas fluorescens, and ”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-14 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Alternatively, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “characterized in that the grinding in step a) is carried out in a liquid medium”, and the claim also recites “preferably in whey” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Alternatively, a broad range or limitation together with narrow ranges or limitations that fall within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “between 1x105 and 1x109 CFU/ml”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 1x106 and 1x108 CFU/ml” and “more preferably, is 1x108 CFU/ml” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Alternatively, a broad range or limitation together with narrow ranges or limitations that fall within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “between 2.5 and 4.5”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 3 and 4” and “even more preferably, the pH is 3.7” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Alternatively, a broad range or limitation together with narrow ranges or limitations that fall within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “between 24 and 96 hours”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 30 to 80 hours” and “more preferably, 72 hours” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Alternatively, a broad range or limitation together with narrow ranges or limitations that fall within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “at least once”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 2 and 10 times” and “more preferably between 4 and 6 times” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Alternatively, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Alternatively, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that fall within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “an asbestos-containing waste”, and the claim also recites “preferably selected from the group consisting of flock or insulation waste or fiber cement” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 10, the phrases “in particular” and “preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Alternatively, a broad range or limitation together with narrow ranges or limitations that fall within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the lactic acid bacteria are bacteria with fermentative metabolism”, and the claim also recites “in particular lactobacilli, lactococci or Pediococcus preferably selected from Lactobacillus brevis, Lactococcus lactis, Pediococcus parvulus, Lactobacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus paracasei subsp paracasei, Lactobacillus pentosus, Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus plantarum” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the fluorescent Pseudomonas is a strain of wild-type Pseudomonas putida (KT2440WT strain) or a pyoverdine-overproducing mutant” is written in the alternative, but the phrase “a pyoverdine-overproducing mutant” could refer to the parent claim 13’s multiple alternative species or only to “Pseudomonas putida”. It is unclear in which species the mutation would occur. The examiner is interpreting claim 14 broadly to include all listed species from parent claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the term “(KT2440WT strain)” appears after the phrase “a strain of wild-type Pseudomonas putida”. This is unclear, as the claimed strain may be an example of a wild-type strain of Pseudomonas putida among other types that are present in the wild, or it could be the specific strain that is to be claimed. If it is the latter, it may be needed to use the phrase “Pseudomonas putida KT2440”.
Regarding the dependent claims 13-14, these claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balducci (EP 2428254) (cited from IDS filed 03/07/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Balducci discloses a method for treating a product containing asbestos (abstract), characterized in that it comprises the following steps:
a) grinding the asbestos-containing product (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]),
b) incubating the product ground in step a) with whey inoculated with lactic acid bacteria (paragraphs [0032] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Balducci discloses characterized in that the grinding in step a) is carried out in a liquid medium, preferably in whey (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Balducci discloses characterized in that the method comprises, prior to step b), a step of seeding the whey with lactic acid bacteria (inherent to the composition of whey and lactic acid bacteria that is to be used in step b)).
Regarding claim 10, Balducci discloses characterized in that the lactic acid bacteria are bacteria with fermentative metabolism, in particular lactobacilli (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding the phrase “lactococci or Pediococcus, preferably selected from Lactobacillus brevis, Lactococcus lactis, Pediococcus parvulus, Lactobacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus paracasei [subsp.] paracasei, Lactobacillus pentosus, Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus plantarum”, the limitation is phrased in the alternative. Because at least one of the limitations is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 | 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Balducci (EP 2428254) (cited from IDS filed 03/07/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Balducci discloses characterized in that the incubation time in step b) is from 12 to 120 hours, more preferably from 48 to 72 hours (paragraph [0034]).
Alternatively, regarding the limitation “from 24 to 96 hours, preferably from 30 to 80 hours and more preferably, 72 hours”, the limitation is obvious as a matter of routine optimization, because time spent fermenting is a result-effective variable. The motivation for optimizing this result-effective variable is to ferment the asbestos-containing product with lactic acid bacteria to break down these asbestos-containing products more effectively over time. MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Balducci to is to ferment the asbestos-containing product with lactic acid bacteria to break down these asbestos-containing products more effectively over time.
Regarding claim 9, Balducci discloses characterized in that the ground asbestos-containing product (paragraph [0024]) is an asbestos-containing waste (paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) preferably selected from the group consisting of flock (paragraphs [0002], [0023]-[0024], and [0032] “brittle matrices”, see instant specification definition at pg. 6 “friable”) or insulation waste (paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]) or fiber cement (paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]), having a homogeneous or heterogeneous composition (either is possible so the combination with “or” is inherent; also, paragraph [0023] for polymeric matrices containing synthetic or cellulosic polymers).
If Balducci does not per se use flock in the brittle matrices form of asbestos as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Balducci to be able to treat flock material for further asbestos-containing product breakdown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balducci (EP 2428254) (cited from IDS filed 03/07/2024).
Regarding claim 4, Balducci discloses that there is a concentration of lactic acid bacteria (inherent to the lactic acid bacteria in the whey of paragraph [0032]) in the whey (paragraph [0032]) containing the ground asbestos-containing product (paragraph [0032]) before incubation in step b) (paragraphs [0032] and [0035]).
Balducci does not disclose characterized in that the concentration of lactic acid bacteria in the whey containing the ground asbestos-containing product before incubation in step b) is between 1x10⁵ and 1x109 CFU/ml, preferably between 1x10⁶ and 1x10⁸ CFU/ml and more preferably, is 1x10⁸ CFU/ml.
However, the limitation is obvious as a matter of routine optimization, because bacterial concentration in a medium is a result-effective variable. The motivation for optimizing this result-effective variable is to culture bacteria so that they can produce the action of breaking down asbestos-containing products more effectively over time. MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the concentration of lactic acid bacteria to be within the selected range in order to culture bacteria so that they can produce the action of breaking down asbestos-containing products more effectively over time.
Regarding claim 5, Balducci discloses characterized in that the pH of the whey containing the lactic acid bacteria and the ground asbestos-containing product in step b) is between 3.5 and 5.5 (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding the limitation “between 2.5 and 4.5, preferably between 3 and 4 and even more preferably, the pH is 3.7”, the limitation is obvious as a matter of routine optimization, because pH is a result-effective variable. The motivation for optimizing this result-effective variable is to produce an acidic pH so that it can break down asbestos-containing products more effectively over time. MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Balducci to have a pH between 3.5 and 5.5 in order to produce an acidic pH so that it can break down asbestos-containing products more effectively over time.
Regarding claim 7, Balducci discloses characterized in that step b) of the method is repeated at least once, preferably between 2 and 10 times, and more preferably between 4 and 6 times (paragraph [0034] “stirring for a time of from 12 to 120 hours”, see explanation below).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Balducci’s fermentation time of 12 to 120 hours to be split up into between 2 and 10 increments of time, and more preferably between 4 and 6 increments of time in order to further use the closed tank (Balducci, paragraph [0035]) with different feeding schemes, such as continuous, semi-batch, and batch feeding schemes, with or without recycled material for further asbestos-containing product breakdown.
Regarding the limitation “said method optionally further comprising one or more steps of diluting the whey containing lactic acid bacteria and the ground asbestos-containing product”, the limitation is phrased as optional. Because at least the mandatory limitation is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balducci (EP 2428254) (cited from IDS filed 03/07/2024) as applied to claim 1, in view of Drake (“Three-dimensional Structures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PvcA and PvcB, Two Proteins Involved in the Synthesis of 2-Isocyano-6,7-dihydroxycoumarin”) (newly cited) and David (“Efficiency of pyoverdines in iron removal from flocking asbestos waste: An innovative bacterial bioremediation strategy”) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 11, Balducci discloses characterized in that it comprises a step d) of bringing an altered waste (paragraphs [0032]-[0035] at the end of the fermentation phase) still containing iron (paragraph [0043]) and/or magnesium (paragraph [0043]) after incubation with whey seeded with lactic acid bacteria (paragraphs [0032] and [0035]).
Balducci does not disclose “into contact with a siderophore-producing bacterium”.
Drake discloses “into contact with a siderophore-producing bacterium” (abstract and Fig. 2b; pg. 203, right col. under “Cell growth of P. aeruginosa strains”, see “PA01 strain” and “wildtype”).
In the analogous art of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and minerals in asbestos, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Balducci with the Pseudomonas aeruginosa pvcA- of Drake in order to focus on the iron extraction from asbestos as shown by David (David, see abstract and Introduction, pgs. 1-2, especially pg. 2, right col.).
Regarding claim 12, Balducci does not disclose that the siderophore-producing bacterium is a bacterium from the group of fluorescent Pseudomonas capable of producing siderophores, preferably pyoverdine.
Drake discloses the siderophore-producing bacterium is a bacterium from the group of fluorescent Pseudomonas capable of producing siderophores, preferably pyoverdine (abstract and Fig. 2b; pg. 203, right col. under “Cell growth of P. aeruginosa strains”, see “PA01 strain” and “wildtype”).
In the analogous art of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and minerals in asbestos, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Balducci with the Pseudomonas aeruginosa of Drake in order to focus on the iron extraction from asbestos as shown by David (David, see abstract and Introduction, pgs. 1-2, especially pg. 2, right col.).
Regarding claim 13, Balducci does not disclose characterized in that the fluorescent Pseudomonas are selected from: Pseudomonas lini, Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas monteilii, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas 20 [sic, no “20” needed] aeruginosa PAO1, Pseudomonas fluorescens, [and] Pseudomonas mosselii.
Drake discloses characterized in that the fluorescent Pseudomonas are selected from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 (abstract and Fig. 2b; pg. 203, right col. under “Cell growth of P. aeruginosa strains”, see “PA01 strain” and “wildtype”).
In the analogous art of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and minerals in asbestos, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Balducci with the Pseudomonas aeruginosa of Drake in order to focus on the iron extraction from asbestos as shown by David (David, see abstract and Introduction, pgs. 1-2, especially pg. 2, right col.).
Regarding the limitation “Pseudomonas lini, Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas monteilii, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas 20 [sic, no “20” needed] aeruginosa PAO1, Pseudomonas fluorescens, [and] Pseudomonas mosselii”, the limitation is phrased in the alternative. Because at least one of the limitations is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time.
Regarding claim 14, Balducci does not disclose characterized in that the fluorescent Pseudomonas is a strain of wild-type Pseudomonas putida (KT2440WT strain) or a pyoverdine-overproducing mutant.
Drake discloses the fluorescent Pseudomonas is a strain of a pyoverdine-overproducing mutant (abstract and Fig. 2b, triangle at about hour 14, mutant Pseudomonas aeruginosa pvcA- produces more pyoverdine than wild-type at this point if in the presence of iron chelator EDDHA).
In the analogous art of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and minerals in asbestos, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Balducci with the Pseudomonas aeruginosa pvcA- of Drake in order to focus on the iron extraction from asbestos as shown by David (David, see abstract and Introduction, pgs. 1-2, especially pg. 2, right col.).
Regarding the limitation “a strain of wild-type Pseudomonas putida (KT2440WT strain)”, the limitation is phrased in the alternative. Because at least one of the limitations is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balducci (EP 2428254) (cited from IDS filed 03/07/2024) as applied to claim 1, in view of Poggi (US 20190217140) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 8, Balducci discloses a concentration of iron and/or magnesium (paragraphs [0043]-[0044]) released by the asbestos-containing product (abstract) in the whey (paragraphs [0032] and [0035]) from step b) (paragraphs [0032] and [0035]).
Balducci does not disclose characterized in that it comprises a step c) of real-time assaying of the concentration of iron and/or magnesium.
Poggi discloses characterized in that it comprises a step c) of real-time assaying of the concentration of magnesium (paragraphs [0150]-[0151], [0366], and [0371] “magnesium”).
In the analogous art of methods and systems for neutralizing asbestos, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Balducci with the real-time assaying of the concentration of magnesium of Poggi in order to recover magnesium for its properties that are useful for commercial value: magnesium is lighter than aluminum and steel, has excellent properties in terms of density/resistance to traction, reduced vibration transmission, resistance to electromagnetic transmission, and a less aggressive effect on steel molds than aluminum (Poggi, paragraphs [0113]-[0117]).
Regarding the limitation “iron and/or magnesium”, the limitation is phrased in the alternative. Because at least one of the limitations is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time.
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual (newly cited)– This non-patent literature is cited for punctuation marks and grammar of the claims.
International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (newly cited) – This non-patent literature is cited for the abbreviations used in bacteria species’ nomenclature.
Millipore Sigma. (“Pyoverdines”) (newly cited) – This non-patent literature describes synonyms to the word “pyoverdine”.
Barbier (“Novel Fluorescent Reporters For Studying Host-Pathogen Interactions”) (newly cited) – This non-patent literature describes a fluorescent reporter for Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Roveri (US 20170043198) (newly cited) – This invention is a process for biochemical denaturation of asbestos-containing material.
Geoffroy (WO 2017037383) (machine translation) (newly cited) – This invention is a method for biologically reducing the quantity of magnesium and optionally iron in an asbestos waste product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights