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
Claims 1-13 are pending and examined in the current application.
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 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS reference Bralkowski et al. (USPatPub. 2015/0037302 A1) in view of NPL Takahashi et al., “Production of Sophorolipid Glycolipid Biosurfactants from Sugarcane Molasses Using Starmerella bombicola NBRC 10243” (from Journal of Oleo Science 60, (5) 267-273 (2011)).
Regarding claims 1-13: Bralkowski discloses adding biosurfactants (e.g., the lipopeptides surfactin, iturin and lichenysin) and the microbes that produce them to food compositions (see Bralkowski abstract; paragraphs [0021], [0028] and [0062]), but fails to disclose the biosurfactant glycolipids sophorolipid and/or mannosylerythritol lipid, and the microbes that produce them, Starmerella bombicola and/or Pseudozyma aphidis combinations recited in the claims; However, Takashi discloses adding to foods biosurfactant glycolipids (e.g., sophorolipid and/or mannosylerythritol lipid) and the microbes that produce them (e.g., Starmerella bombicola and/or Pseudozyma aphidis) (see Takashi abstract; table 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Bralkowski and to have added the biosurfactant and their producing microbe combinations of Pseudozyma aphidis/mannosylerythritol and Starmerella bombicola/sophorolipid to the biosurfactant/microbe combination in Bralkowski to attain a biosurfactant composition. As set forth in MPEP §2144.06, It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
As to the relative content of the glycolipid in the food recited in claim 1 and the relative content of the lipopeptide in the food recited in claim 2: While the relative contents of the biosurfactants and the microbes that produce them in the foods are not disclosed in the prior art, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the relative contents of the biosurfactants and their microbes in the foods, to attain desired stabilization provided by the biosurfactants, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Pantelides et al., “Isolation, identification and in vitro screening of grapevine yeasts for the control of black aspergilli on grapes” (from Biological Control 88 (2015) 46-53) – contemplates using biosurfactants in foods and discloses the presence of Pseudozyma aphidis and the biosurfactant it produces, mannosylerythritol, in nature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. 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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights