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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending (claim set as filed on 6/12/2024). Claims 17-20 were withdrawn after restriction/election requirement. Claims 1-16 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/4/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of the claim to benefit of a provisional application no. 63/507,730 filed on 6/12/2023. Thus the effective filing date of this application is 6/12/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 is considered, initialed, and attached hereto. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 6-7 recite a “recycled media”, wherein it refers to the media taken from the harvested algae cultivation fluid and added to a new aqueous culture. However, the aforementioned media is not yet recycled but is still the same algae cultivation fluid until it is added into the new aqueous culture and hence recycled. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, culture media that is collected and then added to separate culture media reads on the “recycled media” limitation.
Claim 10 recites “silica cell walls” and the instant specification does not provide a definition for what the term refers to or exemplify its distinguishing characteristics. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, silica-containing material and/or algae cell walls read on the claimed limitation.
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 6-11 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.
Claims 6-7 recite the phrase “recycled media” which renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear as to how the media that is harvested from the initial algae strain cultivation could be considered recycled. If the media were recycled, one would expect it to occur after the recycling step has preceded, not before and therefore it would not be considered recycled media yet.
Claims 8-11 are rejected for depending on claims 6 and/or 7.
Claim 10 recites the term “silica cell walls” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what the phrase is referring to. One could not be certain if the meaning of the term refers to silica the biological material/chemical compound, the cell walls of the algae strain being cultivated, or the combination of both of the substances.
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)(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, 5-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuehnle (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0232003 A1 – date of publication 7/23/2020).
Kuehnle’s general disclosure relates to a method of synthesizing biological products such as carotenoids by culturing algae cells (see abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Kuehnle teaches a method of cultivating an algae strain in a liquid culture medium (see [0241]). Kuehnle teaches wherein the media contains sodium metasilicate, which is described as a source of silica (see [0245]). Kuehnle also teaches wherein the silica concentration is around 1mM or 1000 µM (see [0245]).
Regarding claim 5, Kuehnle teaches wherein the base medium used in the initial culture contains sodium metasilicate, which is described as a source of silica (see [0242] and [0245]). Kuehnle also teaches wherein the silica concentration is maintained around 1 mM or 1000 µM (see [0245]).
Regarding claim 6, Kuehnle teaches harvesting the algae cells from the base medium (see [0243]) and then recycling the base medium to a new larger culture (see [0244]). As noted in the 112b rejection above, the usage of the term “recycled media” is indefinite and under broadest reasonable interpretation the collection and transfer of one culture media to a separate culture media reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Kuehnle teaches the algae culturing method and recycling the media as taught in Example 2 and further teaches autoclaving at 121[Symbol font/0xB0]C (see [0272]). As autoclaving is defined by the heating and pressurizing of a substance, this reads on the claimed limitation. The temperature of 121[Symbol font/0xB0]C is within the claimed range of about 100-350[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
Regarding claim 10, Kuehnle teaches that both silica-containing base medium and harvested algae were recycled back into a larger culture medium (see [0243-0244]). As noted in the 112b rejection above, the term “silica cell walls” is indefinite and thus both silica and algae cell walls read on the claim limitation for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehnle (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0232003 A1 – date of publication 7/23/2020).
Kuehnle’s general disclosure has been set forth above.
Regarding claims 2-3, 12, and 14, Kuehnle teaches an algae culture media comprising sodium metasilicate, which is described as a source of silica (see Kuehnle [0245]). As the silica-enriched media contains both algae cells and culture solution, this also reads on the silica loading limitation as defined in the instant specification (see specification [0050]).
Regarding claims 2-4, 12, and 14, Kuehnle does not specifically teach that the silica concentration in the culture is higher than about 1 mM and between 2-15 mM.
Regarding claims 2-4, 12, and 14 however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add the silica concentration at a concentration of higher than about 1 mM and up to 15 mM as taught in Kuehnle. One would have been motivated to do so because Kuehnle teaches that the absolute concentrations of the components of the base medium can vary depending on algae inoculum concentrations (see [0242]). Therefore, if the ordinary artisan were to scale up the concentration of the algae, it would be obvious to also scale up the silica concentration to higher than about 1 mM and up to 15 mM. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Kuehnle teaches that variations in medium are optimizable depending on the algae used (see [0242]).
Regarding claim 4, Kuehnle teaches that algae base medium was recycled into a larger culture and wherein the silica concentration was 1 mM and the culture ran for 120 hours (see [0245]). The silica concentration of 1 mM falls into the claimed range of 0.5-5 mM, and 120 hours of culturing would mean the silica concentration was at the specified concentration for at least 1 day before the cells were harvested.
Regarding claim 11, Kuehnle teaches the recycled algae cultivation media has an alkaline pH (see [0272]).
Regarding claim 11, Kuehnle does not specifically teach that the pH was 9.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to optimize to a pH of 9.5 as taught in Kuehnle. One would have been motivated to do so because Kuehnle teaches that adjustments in pH can be made in culturing process (see [0272]). Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to modify the pH to the desired alkalinity of the medium, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Kuehnle teaches there can be varying pH levels of the culture medium during the heat treatment process (see [0272]).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Kuehnle teaches the algae medium had a silica concentration of around 1 mM after 120 hours of culturing (or 5 days which is interpreted to be within the range of “about” 1-4 days) (see [0244-0245]). The concentration falls within the claimed silica ranges. Kuehnle teaches that this occurs after the base medium was recycled into a larger culture and it would be reasonable to interpret that the silica concentration would have been increased as the base medium volume increased.
Regarding claim 16, Kuehnle teaches that the silica concentration in the algae culture was maintained at 1 mM which is within the claimed concentration range (see [0245]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehnle (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0232003 A1 – date of publication 7/23/2020) and in further view of Gibson (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2007/0267349 A1 – date of publication 11/22/2007).
Kuehnle’s general disclosure has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Kuehnle teaches recycling the media into a new aqueous culture (see [0244]). As noted in the 112b rejection above, the claim is rendered indefinite as the media cannot be recycled preceding the recycling step.
Regarding claim 8, Kuehnle teaches that the recycled algae cultivation media was further subjected to heat treatments at temperatures between 50-100[Symbol font/0xB0]C (see [0272]). This temperature range falls within the claimed range of about 40-100[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
Regarding claim 7-8, Kuehnle does not teach adding diatomaceous earth to the media before recycling it.
Gibson’s general disclosure relates to a method of using diatomaceous earth in samples such as culture broth to filter out microorganism contaminants (see [0037] and [0041]) and simplify the recovery process of products of interest (see [0003]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Gibson teaches the addition of a diatomaceous earth filter to a liquid media containing microorganisms (see abstract and [0008]).
Regarding claims 7-8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the effective filing date to add the diatomaceous earth filter as taught in Gibson to the recycled algae media step as taught in Kuehnle. One would have been motivated to do so because Gibson teaches the diatomaceous earth as a filter technology which simplifies the recovery procedure when separating contaminates from a product (see Gibson [0003-0004]). This addition would have been an advantage to Kuehnle’s method as they rely on heat treatment to separate contaminants from the algae cells (see Kuehnle [0193]) and thus adding a diatomaceous earth filter would improve upon their disclosure by improving upon the recovery of algae cells by reducing the number of times the media must be recycled. The ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Gibson teaches that the silica filter can filter and capture particulates such as microbes simultaneously (see Gibson abstract)
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmalee R. Williams whose telephone number is (571)272-5472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/E.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights