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
The present application is a § 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/EP2022/087404 (filed on 12/22/2022) and claims priority to French application FR2114259 (filed on 12/22/2021).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 11-20 are currently pending and have been examined on their merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
37 CFR § 1.84(p)(3) requires numbers, letters, and reference characters to be at least 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. FIGS. 2-4 contain text which is smaller than this size and which makes the text of the figure incomprehensible. In the interest of compact prosecution, it is recommended that each figure be separated to its own page and presented in landscape orientation;
37 CFR § 1.84(u)(1) requires view numbers to be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.”. Accordingly, the labels for “Figures” 1-5, should be changed to “FIG.”.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following reasons:
it contains unitalicized taxonomic names. In general, the names of taxonomic genera and species should be italicized. Unitalicized taxonomic names are found on p. 10-11 and 14;
the molecular formula for maitotoxin (C164H258O68S2) and CO2 should be subscripted;
The description of the formula in p. 2 appears to be missing the characters λ and X.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because although it is apparent that the “fermentation juice” in step (c) refers to the “biomass fermentation juice” recited in step (a), the word “biomass” should be inserted before “fermentation juice” in order to improve readability and to maintain consistency between claim language.
Claims 15-20 are objected to because the term “wherein” should be added after the claim number in order to improve readability.
Claim 19 is objected to because, for the reasons discussed above, the word “biomass” should be inserted before “fermentation juice of step (a)”.
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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint, regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is considered to be indefinite because it recites the limitation “said biomass being obtained from a culture of phytotoxin-producing microorganisms”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear to what “biomass” applicant is referring. The claim previously sets forth “a biomass of microorganisms” and a “biomass fermentation juice”. Because this limitation is contained in the process of obtaining “the phytotoxins”, it appears that the claim is intended to refer to the biomass fermentation juice. However, biomass and biomass fermentation juice are distinct compositions. Applicant’s specification defines “fermentation juice” as being the culture broth, which is the liquid phase included in the biological reactor (Specification, p. 6, par. 6). Accordingly, said the fermentation juice is necessarily distinct from the biomass.
For at least these reasons, it is unclear to what “said biomass” refers.
In the interest of compact prosecution, this claim has been examined for prior art purposes as if the claim limits “said biomass fermentation juice being obtained from a culture of phytotoxin-producing microorganisms” (emphasis added).
Claim 11 recites the phrase “followed if applicable”. It is unclear, based upon the language of the claims, when the “at least one additional cycle of membrane filtration” is “applicable”. Accordingly, it is unclear what steps are actually required by the claim. Moreover, the number of “additional cycles” is unlimited (based upon the “at least one” language of the claim) and it is unclear when a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. cycle are required.
For the purpose of examination, the “if applicable” step is considered to be optional as it is not clear when, if at all, the additional cycles are “applicable”.
Claim 11 is further unclear because the “if applicable” step refers to “membrane filtration of the retentate obtained in step (c)”. The retentate is recovered in step (b). Accordingly, it is unclear what “retentate obtained in step (c)” the claim references.
For the purpose of examination, the claim has been examined as if the claim refers to “the retentate obtained in step (b)”.
Claim 11 is further unclear because it refers to “the previous cycle with the recovery of at least a second retentate comprising said phytotoxins”. There is no antecedent basis for the term “the previous cycle” because the claims do not introduce a “previous cycle”. Additionally, the phrase refers to a “second retentate” but there is no “first retentate” and it is therefore unclear what retentate is the “second retentate”.
For the purpose of examination, the claim has been interpreted to refer to “at least one additional cycle of membrane filtration of the retentate obtained in step (b) of a previous cycle with a recovery of at least a second retentate” and step (b) is interpreted to refer to “recovery of a first retentate comprising said phytotoxins”.
Claims 12-20 are rejected because they inherit the indefinite language identified above without further clarifying the meaning of the indefinite language.
Claim 12 is further rejected because it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “…a mth permeate depleted in phytotoxins, m being an integer of at minus 1” (emphasis added).
In the interest of compact prosecution, this claim has been examined for prior art purposes as merely describing obtaining phytotoxins with m additional cycles including recovering subsequent retentates comprising the phytotoxins and subsequent permeates depleted in phytotoxins as it is not clear what integer applicant is referencing.
Claim 13 is further rejected because it limits “the membrane filtration cycles”. As discussed above, it is unclear when (if at all), the “if applicable” at least one additional cycles of membrane filtration is performed and the claim language appears to regard the at least one additional cycles as optional. Accordingly, it is not clear what “membrane filtration cycles” (plural) are being referred to. If the claim is referring to the “at least one additional cycle”, then the language of this claim should refer to “the at least one additional cycle” rather than “the membrane filtration cycles” because neither claim necessarily requires multiple membrane filtration cycles.
For example, the claim may be amended to read “The process according to claim 11, wherein the at least one additional cycle of membrane filtration of the retentate obtained in step (c) of the previous cycle is carried out on a same membrane or on a new membrane, the membranes of each filtration cycle being identical or different”.
Claim 14 is rejected as lacking antecedent basis because it refers to “the phytotoxin content of the fermentation juice”, “the concentration factor of the filtration membrane”, and “the final concentration of phytotoxins in the permeate recovered after the last cycle”. Neither the instant claim nor the claim from which this claim depends refers to “a phytotoxin content”, “a concentration factor”, “a final concentration of phytotoxins”, or “a last cycle”. Accordingly, it is unclear to what applicant is referring.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims have been examined as if they refer to “a phytotoxin content of the biomass fermentation juice”, “a concentration factor of the filtration membrane used in said membrane filtration”, and “a final concentration of phytotoxins in a final permeate recovered after a last cycle”. It is recommended that applicant amended the claims similarly.
Claim 15 is rejected as indefinite because there is no definition for Ck and C. These variables should be distinctly defined in the language of the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected as indefinite because it refers to recycling “the mth permeate” in “the culture medium of the microorganisms”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the culture medium of the microorganisms” and it is unclear what culture medium is being referenced. Claim 11 (the claim upon which this claim ultimately depends) refers to “a biomass of microorganisms” and “a culture of phytotoxin-producing microorganisms”. However, neither culture appears to be the culture medium to which this claim refers. It cannot be the biomass of microorganisms because the “biomass of microorganisms” is the composition to which the phytotoxins are added and it cannot be the “culture of phytotoxin-producing microorganisms” because that is the composition from which the “mth permeate” is derived.
For the purpose of applying prior art, this claim has been examined as if it refers to recycling an mth permeate. However, it is not possible to examine the claim for recycling “in the culture medium” because, for the reasons discussed above, it is not clear what culture medium is being referenced.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
Gijsbertsen-Abrahamse et al. (Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, Vol. 276, pages 252-259) teaches methods of removing phytotoxins from samples (abstract). Specifically, Gijsbertsen-Abrahamse teaches a nanofiltration setup wherein a cell culture of P. agardhii HUB 076 was grown in modified Z8 medium (p. 254, left col., par. 1). Gijsbertsen-Abrahamse teaches that the diluted cell culture was continuously aerated and stirred and was used as the feed to an ultrafiltration system (Id.). Gijsbertsen-Abrahamse also teaches the removal of commercially acquired cyanotoxins with nanofiltration (p. 255, left col., par. 2). Gijsbertsen-Abrahamse concludes that ultrafiltration is a very efficient treatment technology to remove cell-bound cyanotoxins (i.e., to recover a retentate comprising said phytotoxins and a permeate depleted in phytotoxins) and nanofiltration to remove dissolved cyanotoxins (p. 258, right col., par. 2). Gijsbertsen-Abrahamse teaches that to remove both cell-bound and dissolved cyanotoxins, ultrafiltration and nanofiltration may be combined or combined with other conventional water treatment technologies (p. 258, right col., par. 2).
Saxena (WO 2004/034790 A1) also teaches methods of removing phytotoxins. Specifically, Saxena teaches a process of preparing novel herbicides from the fungus Alternaria alternata (p. 2, lines 9-10). Saxena describes the filtration of an incubated medium to separate mycelium including filtering the fermented medium through seitz filtration using a vacuum pump having a 0.2 µm nitrocellulose filter (p. 3, lines 12-17). More specifically, Saxena’s method involves culturing the fungus in a liquid broth (i.e., a ”fermentation juice”) and subjecting the broth to the step of filtration to separate the broth containing phytotoxins from mycelium extraction to obtain the phytotoxins (claim 1).
Accordingly, methods of isolating phytotoxins through membrane filtration of a fermentation medium (i.e., “fermentation juice”) so as to retain the phytotoxins in the retentate (or, conversely, in the permeate) were previously known in the art. However, the prior art as a whole is largely directed to removal of phytotoxins rather than production of phytotoxins and there is no teaching or suggestion to produce and remove a phytotoxin by any process (let alone the recited process) in order to then perform the step of “addition of phytotoxins as an additive to [a biomass of microorganisms]” as required by independent claim 11. Accordingly, the claims are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT C CURRENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:00-5:00.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at (571) 272-8037. 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.
/GRANT C CURRENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights