DETAILED ACTION
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 1-19 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species fructose as an additional saccharide, and rhamnolipids as a biosurfactant, in the reply filed on 9/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not explained why the species lack a single general inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because as indicated by the rejections below, the groups do not share the special technical feature which contributes over the prior art at the time the invention was made.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 6-9, 14, and 16-19 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-13, and 15 are being examined in this application, insofar as they read on the elected species of fructose as an additional saccharide, and rhamnolipids as a biosurfactant.
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 1-3, 5, 10-13, and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 4-5, the recitation of “a medium comprising a mixture of saccharides consisting of glucose and at least one further saccharide selected from the group consisting of fructose, isomaltose, maltose, maltulose, and panose” is indefinite. The phrase “comprising” is open-ended, which can include unrecited saccharides, however, the medium also comprises a mixture of saccharides consisting of the recited saccharides. It is unclear what components are open to additional unrecited elements and what components are closed.
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 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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al (US 2019/0144505 A1; 5/16/2019.).
The instant claims recite a process for the fermentative production of a biosurfactant comprising: bringing a microorganism into contact with a medium comprising a mixture of saccharides consisting of glucose and at least one further saccharide selected from the group consisting of fructose, isomaltose, maltose, maltulose, and panose, under conditions where the microorganism is capable of synthesizing the biosurfactant.
Xu teaches a method for producing surfactin (a biosurfactant) by using Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (a microorganism) (Abstract, para 0007), comprising inoculating Bacillus amyloliquefaciens into a medium comprising carbon source, wherein said carbon source includes one or more of sucrose, glucose, fructose, mannose, chitosan, soluble starch, and dextrin (para 0009, 0011). Table 1 demonstrates various saccharides used as carbon sources, and surfactin yield in fermentation broth (under conditions where the microorganism is capable of synthesizing the biosurfactant). Xu’s disclosure of various saccharides is a limited group of options, a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envision the claimed arrangement.
Therefore the reference anticipates the claimed subject matter.
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 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 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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 2019/0144505 A1; 5/16/2019.) as applied to claim 1 above.
Xu does not teach the claimed concentration of the mixture of saccharides (claims 2-3 and 12-13), and the claimed concentration of fructose (claims 5 and 15).
However, Xu does teach carbon sources including one or more of sucrose, glucose, fructose, mannose, chitosan, soluble starch, and dextrin (para 0009, 0011), and Table 1 demonstrates using various saccharides as carbon sources, and their corresponding surfactin yield in fermentation broth.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of a mixture of saccharides as well as the concentration of fructose as routine practice to achieve desirable fermentation product yield, since Xu discloses fermentation product yield directly corresponds to the carbon source used, and the amount of fermentation product produced using each saccharide as carbon source. Generally, differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II) Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to optimize the concentration of a mixture of saccharides as well as the concentration of fructose, with a reasonable expectation for successfully producing surfactin.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashedi et al (Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 2006;3(3):297-303. Cited on IDS) in view of Palmonari et al (J. Dairy Sci. 2020;103(7):6244-6249. Cited on IDS).
The instant claims recite a process for the fermentative production of a biosurfactant comprising: bringing a microorganism into contact with a medium comprising a mixture of saccharides consisting of glucose and at least one further saccharide selected from the group consisting of fructose, isomaltose, maltose, maltulose, and panose, under conditions where the microorganism is capable of synthesizing the biosurfactant.
Rashedi teaches a method of producing rhamnolipids (a biosurfactant) by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (a microorganism) growing on carbon sources (Title), comprising bringing the microorganism into contact with a medium comprising molasses (Abstract, p.297 col left & col right, p.298 col right – para 1), wherein Table 1 shows the production rate of rhamnolipid (under conditions where the microorganism is capable of synthesizing the biosurfactant). In addition, Palmonari teaches molasses composition comprising a mixture of saccharides includes glucose and fructose (Table 2).
Rashedi does not teach the claimed concentration of the mixture of saccharides (claims 2-3 and 12-13), and the claimed concentration of fructose (claims 5 and 15).
However, Rashedi does teach the production rate of rhamnolipid with molasses, and that rhamnolipid production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been found to be affected by nutrient sources, especially carbon sources in medium (p.301 col right – last para, p.302 col left – first para). And Palmonari does teach that molasses composition comprises a mixture of saccharides includes glucose and fructose.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of a mixture of saccharides as well as the concentration of fructose as routine practice to achieve desirable fermentation product yield, since Rashedi discloses the production rate of rhamnolipid with molasses as carbon sources, and that rhamnolipid production has been found to be affected by carbon sources, and Palmonari discloses that molasses composition comprises a mixture of saccharides includes glucose and fructose. Generally, differences in concentration will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II) Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to optimize the concentration of a mixture of saccharides as well as the concentration of fructose, with a reasonable expectation for successfully producing rhamnolipids.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN Y FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. 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.
/Lynn Y Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights