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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/10/2024. Claims 1-21 are pending, claim 10 is cancelled by the applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2024 and 01/17/2025, has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites “A flocculating composition comprising a sophorolipid and/or a yeast culture comprising a sophorolipid and one or more traditional flocculating components.”
As presently worded, it is unclear which combination of elements the claim requires. The claim may have four possible readings:
a sophorolipid together with a traditional flocculating component;
a yeast culture comprising a sophorolipid with a traditional flocculating component;
(3) a sophorolipid and a yeast culture comprising a sophorolipid, together with a traditional flocculating component or
(4) a sophorolipid only, without any traditional flocculating component required.
The ambiguity arises because it is unclear whether “and/or” reaches only the choice between “sophorolipid” and “a yeast culture comprising a sophorolipid”, or whether it also governs “one or more traditional flocculating components” as a required element of the composition. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine, with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds of the composition being claimed.
For purposes of applying prior art, the examiner interprets claim 16 under its broadest reasonable interpretation, as encompassing each of the possibilities (1) through (4) above. Therefore, a composition satisfying any of these four readings is treated as falling within the scope of claim 16. Applicant is advised that a clarification of the intended claim scope is required, by amending the claim to unambiguously specify the claimed composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. hereinafter Li (CN114470885A with machine translation from Espacenet obtained on 08-02-2026).
Li is directed to a sulfur flocculation precipitator as well as a preparation method and application thereof (abstract; lines 1-2).
As for claim 1, Li teaches:
a method of flocculation (a sulfur flocculation precipitator as well as a preparation method and application thereof; abstract; lines1-2).
comprising a glycolipid biosurfactant (6-12% of glycolipid-type biosurfactant; claim 1; line 2).
contacting a flocculation composition with a liquid containing suspended particles to yield an agglomerated particle (the sulfur flocculating and precipitating agent provided by the invention has good performance on the aggregation and precipitation of sulfur; page 4; paragraph 7; lines 2-3). Li expressly teaches that sulfur micro particles are quickly agglomerated and settled, reaching a particle size as high as 150 micrometers (page 4; paragraph 7; lines 8-9).
As for claim 2, Li discloses that by adopting the sulfur flocculation precipitator obtained by the invention, sulfur particles can be quickly gathered and precipitated (abstract; lines 8-9).
As for claim 3, Li discloses that the sulfur flocculating precipitant can promote the rapid agglomeration of sulfur - a toxic substance- and that the formed sulfur aggregate particles have a large particle size suggesting the toxic sulfur substance is agglomerated (summary of the invention; page 3; lines 2-4).
As for claim 4, Li teaches the removal of sulfur (the sulfur flocculating precipitant provided by the invention can promote the rapid agglomeration of sulfur, the formed sulfur aggregate particles have a large particle size and a faster precipitation speed; summary of the invention; page 3; lines 3-4).
As for claim 9, Li discloses that the sulfur flocculation agent further comprises a chemical surfactant, specifically a Tween-type surfactant (claim 1; line 2).
As for claim 11, Li discloses that the glycolipid biosurfactant comprises a sophorolipid (page 2; claim 2).
As for claim 15, Li teaches that flocculation comprises agglomeration of sulfur particles by agglomerating particles together and settling particles (promote the wetted sulfur to rapidly agglomerate, hydrophilic large-particle sulfur is formed, and sulfur sedimentation is accelerated: abstract; lines 7-8).
As for claim 16, Li discloses a flocculating composition comprising a sophorolipid (page 2; claim 2) and one or more traditional flocculating components, e.g. a Tween-type surfactant and a low carbon alcohol (page 2; claim 1).
As for claim 20, Li discloses that the traditional flocculating component include a Tween- type surfactant - a chemical surfactant under element (a) of claim 20 (see Li, claim 1).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 5-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Azarnoush et al. hereinafter Azarnoush (WO 2021026346 A1).
As for claims 5 and 6, Li teaches a method of a flocculation comprising contacting a flocculating composition comprising a glycolipid biosurfactant with a liquid containing suspended particles to yield agglomerated particles (page 4; paragraph 7).
Li does not teach the claimed liquid as “wastewater or a slurry of ore” (claim 5), nor specific source of wastewater, i.e., a municipal, storm, mining, quarrying, or industrial wastewater, as recited in claim 6.
Azarnoush teaches a coagulant composition and method for treating mining-derived wastewater and slurries containing sulfide contaminants (paragraph [001]). Azarnoush expressly teaches the use of a variety of fluids such as leaching water from mining or industrial processes, industrial wastewater, water from mining processes associated with smelting, mine dewatering and the like (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Li’s flocculating method to treat wastewater, including mining wastewater, as taught by Azarnoush, because Azarnoush teaches that the wastewater comprises sulfides removed by the composition, evidencing that flocculant compositions of this type are known to be effective on sulfur-bearing contaminants, providing additional motivation and reasonable expectation of success in applying Li’s sulfur-targeting glycolipid to Azarnoush’s wastewater applications [001]; [0021] lines 1-7). Combining Li’s glycolipid biosurfactant with the wastewater treatment application taught by Azarnoush is the predictable use of a flocculant for its known purpose (treating wastewater).
As for claim 7 and 8, the specific mine sources cited (coal, iron, copper, gold, aluminum/kyanite/bauxite etc…) represent a finite, known list of mining waste water sources that a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious to select from as an application of Li’s flocculant to any conventional mining wastewater source known in the art, absent evidence of unexpected result specific to any recited ore type.
As for claim 21, Azarnoush discloses inorganic salts including aluminum sulfate, aluminum chloride, sodium aluminate, aluminum chlorohydrate, poly aluminum chloride, ferric sulfate, and lime (paragraph [0024], lines 8-13). Azarnoush further discloses that an inorganic salt functions to reduce, neutralize or invert electrical repulsions between particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add one or more of these inorganic salts as disclosed by Azarnoush, to Li’s flocculating composition, because Azarnoush discloses that the inorganic salt has the benefit of neutralizing the charge of suspended colloidal particles (see Azarnoush; paragraph [0024]; lines 7-8), which would enhance the overall flocculation efficiency of Li’s composition by combining charge neutralization with particle agglomeration (flocculation) with reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Araki et al hereinafter Araki (US 2016/0280733A1)
As for claims 12 and 17, Li discloses a glycolipid type biosurfactant comprising a sophorolipid but does not expressly disclose the species of the sophoralipid-producing yeast.
Araki discloses a sophorolipid compound used as a component (e.g. a coagulant) of a product, wherein the sophorolipid compound is prepared from a yeast culture, with exemplary yeasts including Candida bombicola which is currently known as genus Starmerella (paragraphs [0052] and [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a Candida sp. (and/or, Stamerella sp. the reclassified genus producing sophorolipid candida Bombicola-type yeasts) yeast culture as the source of Li’s sophorolipid, motivated by Araki’s teaching that Candida Bombicola is a suitable, art recognized yeast for producing sophorolipid for use as a surfactant /coagulant component. Selecting a known commercially-standard sophorolipid-producing yeast species for use in Li’s already disclosed sophorolipid biosurfactant is nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
As for claims 13 and 18 (vegetative state) and 14 and 19 (spore form), Li teaches a glycolipid type biosurfactant comprising a sophorolipid but does not expressly disclose the species of the sophoralipid-producing yeast.
Araki discloses a sophorolipid compound prepared from a yeast culture Starmerella sp (paragraphs [0052] and [0053]). Araki does not expressly disclose the physiological state of the biosurfactant producing yeast, however vegetative state and spore form are art recognized, finite alternative forms of a yeast, and selection of either is prima facie obvious under MPEP 2144.05 as routine selection from a finite number of known, predictable forms, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results. That applicant claims both states as independent embodiments (claims 13 and 18; and claims 14 and 19) is itself evidence against criticality: if either state produced a patentably significant unexpected effect, that state alone would be expected to be claimed rather than both alternatives equally.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bachar EL Haj Hassan whose telephone number is (571)270-0121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Insuk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BACHAR EL HAJ HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights