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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 08/07/2026 is duly acknowledged.
Claims 1-16 were previously presented.
Claims 17-20 have been newly presented by applicant’s current claim amendments.
Claims 1-20, as currently amended/presented are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species from claim 3 (a combination of groups A, B and C; see REM, p.7) in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims as currently presented have unity under 37 CFRR 1.475 (see REM, p. 6-10).
Upon further considerations, the species election requirement as previously required by the examiner, has now been withdrawn. All species as recited have been rejoined, and examined hereinafter on their merits in this action.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/ES2022/070806 (filed on 12/16/2022), which claims foreign priority from an application from SPAIN P202131193 filed on 12/22/2021.
Claim Objections
1. Claim 1 (as presented) is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the method step of “(a) inoculating activated sludge in the reactor”, which should be amended to recite “(a) inoculating an activated sludge in the single sequencing batch reactor”, in order to clarify the invention as claimed and disclosed. Appropriate correction is required.
2. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “herein the activated sludge…”, which should be amended to recite “wherein the activated sludge…” (taken as typographical error). Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 7 (as presented) is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 (directly depends from claim 1) recites the abbreviation “COD” in line 2, which should be recited in full form (for instance; see instant claim 5), at least the first time it appears in a claim or in a claim set. Appropriate correction is required.
4. Claim 14 (as presented) is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites limitation of unit “mg/l”, which should be amended to recited “mg/L” (or mg per liter”) to be in conformation with other claims in the claim set (see instant claim 7, for instance). Appropriate correction is suggested.
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.
1. Claim 5 (as presented) 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 5 recites the limitation "the chemical oxygen demand (COD)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 directly depends from independent claim 1, which does not appear to provide a reasonable basis for the limitations of “chemical oxygen demand (COD)” per se. Appropriate correction is required.
NOTE: 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.
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.
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.
1. Claims 1-20 (as presented) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argiz et al (Oct. 2020; NPL cited in IDS dated 06/14/2024, citation no. 13) taken with Dijkman (US 2018/0363013 A1; US-PGPUB cited in IDS dated 06/14/2024) and Tamis et al (2015; NPL cited in IDS dated 06/14/2024, citation no.12).
Claim 1 has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
447
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitations “activated sludge” and “mixed microbial culture”, applicants state the following (see instant SPEC, p. 7):
PNG
media_image2.png
175
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given the above disclosure from applicants on record, the claimed process has been interpreted as comprising the step (a) of inoculating an “activated sludge” in the single sequencing batch reactor (SBR), wherein the ‘activated sludge” already contains the naturally occurring “mixed microbial culture” (MMC, i.e. originally found under non-sterile conditions) having desired microorganisms as recited in dependent claims 2-3 and 17-20 that are normally present and/or used in wastewater treatment processes (WWTP).
Argiz et al (Oct. 2020), while teaching a novel strategy for production of triacylglycerides (TAG) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) using lipidic waste from food industry wastewater treatment plant as feed stock (see Title, Abstract, Figure 1, for instance), disclose the method (regarding instant claim 1) for upcycling the waste stream of fish oil from the canning industry via the production of TAGs and PHAs; wherein the method comprises the use of two reactors for each of the two steps: “Enrichment SBR” for culture selection, and “Accumulation FBR” for growth and storage of intracellular PHAs/TAGs (see Graphical Abstract on p. 1); wherein an “activated sludge” stream originating from an urban wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is inoculated into the SBR, and the SBR is operated in 12-hour cycles (see p. 3, section 2.2.1, for instance); wherein in each cycle the carbon source is added at the beginning and the nitrogen source is added separately (i.e. using uncoupled feed strategies; see Abstract); wherein the nitrogen is added in an aqueous stream comprising ammonium chloride (NH4Cl, 20 mL) and other trace elements; wherein after each cycle, 50% of the reactor volume is removed; and wherein the nitrogen measured at the end of each cycle is 12 ± 4 mg TN/L (see p. 7, left column). Argiz et al disclose that during the accumulation phase, only the carbon source is fed in pulses into the FBR reactor, and that the substrate is hydrolyzed simultaneously without prior fermentation step (see Abstract, and p. 3, section 2.2., for instance); wherein “uncoupling C and N feedings and limiting nitrogen availability in the medium allowed to maximize PHA production...” (see Abstract); wherein they also disclose the fact that “…considering that both TAG and PHA accumulators may coexist within the community, it seems crucial to define those operational strategies that might control the selection of the dominant metabolic pathways (TAG or PHA accumulation)”; and wherein “it was possible to shift the ratio TAG:PHA from 4:96 obtaining 43.0 wt% of TAGs…proving that the product selection can be harnessed if choosing the right operational conditions in the enrichment stage” (see Abstract, and Table 4 on p. 10, for instance).
However, the process wherein the method steps (a)-(c) as recited in instant claim 1, all performed in a single SBR, wherein the activated sludge comprises the microorganisms (as recited in instant claims 3, 17-20), has not been specifically disclosed and/or exemplified by the cited reference of Argiz et al, as discussed above.
Dijkman (2018), while teaching a process for producing polyhydroxyalkanoates from wastewater using activated sludge comprising microorganisms capable of accumulating PHA (see Title, Abstract), disclose the method for producing PHA compounds stored by microorganisms such as bacterial cells; wherein the process is carried out in a single reactor or in two consecutive reactors (see [0013], for instance); wherein a wastewater stream (carbon source) is supplied to the SBR reactor containing activated sludges comprising PHA-accumulating bacteria and archaea, such as Pseudomonas (see [0047]-[0048], Example 1, for instance) and other microorganisms that are found in soil, natural water, or mixed biomass samples; wherein the supply of the carbon source is interrupted and the essential elements for the growth of the microorganisms, i.e. the nitrogen source, ammonium salts among others, are injected (90 mg/L of nitrogen is added); wherein a portion of the reactor volume can be removed immediately after the first phase and/or after the last phase; wherein the various steps are repeated. Dijkman discloses that the first step has a duration of 0.5 to 8 hours and the second step has a duration of 0.1 to 6 hours; wherein the operation of the SBR can be semicontinuous or pulsed; and wherein the method may or may not be preceded by a pre-treatment step(s) of hydrolysis and/or fermentation (see [0058], [0063]-[0070], [0079], for instances).
Tamis et al (2015), while demonstrating lipid recovery from a vegetable oil emulsion using open microbial enrichment cultures or community, without the need for sterilization or equipment (see Title, Abstract), disclose the process that utilizes known feast/famine cycling strategy (see entire section “Methods; and cited reference #6, Johnson et al, on p. 10) for the enrichment of lipid-accumulating microorganisms using a non-sterilized reactor (see Methods, sections “Enrichment reactor setup and operations parameters” and “Microbial community structure”, for instance); wherein activated sludges from an urban wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) are inoculated into the SBR reactor; wherein first, the feed phase takes place, wherein the stream is injected with the carbon and nitrogen source (such as NH4Cl), followed by the reaction phase, and at the end of the cycle, 50% of the reactor volume is discharged; wherein the total cycle time is 12 hours; wherein they disclose the lipid-accumulating organisms that comprise Trichosporon gracile, Acinetobacter, Gordonia, Pseudomonas and Diaphorobacter; and wherein the lipid storage or accumulation step is carried out in an FBR reactor (see p. 3, Results, section “Reactor operation”; Fig. 2-3 and 6; p. 5; and entire “Discussion”).
Thus, given the detailed disclosure and/or motivation to enrich and use naturally existing microbes (bacteria, fungi, archaea, etc.; see teachings from Tamis et al, above), and the fact that the process of feast-famine feedings for PHA accumulating as well as TAG accumulating microorganisms employing SBR and FBR, which can be performed separately as well as in the same reactor, has been suggested in the cited prior art (see teachings/suggestions from Dijkman when taken with Tamis et al, above), an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated (in order for simplicity and cost reduction in the process, for instance) to employ a single SBR for both types of naturally existing microorganisms in the activated sludge that can accumulate intracellular PHAs as well as TAGs, wherein the process can be optimized and/or enriched with such microbes for both type of cellular activities already known and/or disclosed in the cited prior art references using the feeding strategies, as discussed above. Unless evidence/data provided on record to the contrary, such combination of the process steps in a single SBR would have been obvious and/or fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, especially given the explicit disclosure for the method steps using the same naturally existing PHA- and TAG-accumulating microorganisms from the same source such as activated sludge from the wastewater treatment plants, as required by the claims currently presented on record. It is also noted that method step (a) of the instant claim 1 only requires “inoculating activated sludge in the reactor” without specifying if said activated sludge has undergone specific enrichment for the required set of microorganisms (as recited in instant claims 2, 3 and 17-20), and therefore the process as generically recited would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art given the combined disclosure and/or suggestions from Argiz et al when taken with Dijkman and Tamis et al, as discussed above.
Thus, the claim as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed.
As per MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, F.3d, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Conclusion
NO claims are currently allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATYENDRA K. SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-8790. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00- 5:00.
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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
SATYENDRA K. SINGH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1657
/SATYENDRA K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights