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 1-20 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16, and without traverse of species lactic acid, 30%, 50% lower, Schizochytrium, 70% PUFA and 60% DHA and 1% EPA, and 1%, in the reply filed on 8/31/2026 is acknowledged. However, applicant's election for a single discrete and disclosed species of an amount (Species 2), a single discrete and disclosed species of a viscosity (Species 3), a single discrete and disclosed species of an oil composition (Species 5), and a single discrete and disclosed species of an amount of free microbial oil (Species 6), are improper. During a telephone conversation with Cara Mosley on 10/7/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16, and of species lactic acid, the at least one compound is mixed into the fermentation broth in a total amount of from 0.15 wt.% to 50 wt.% (in claim 6), a viscosity at least 10% lower (in claim 8), Schizochytrium, 30 to 90 wt.% of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (in claim 12), and the amount of free microbial oil in the fermentation broth is 1.0 wt.% or less (in claim 15). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 4-5, 9, 13-14, and 17-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking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, 6-8, 10-12, and 15-16 are being examined in this application, insofar as they read on the elected species of lactic acid, the at least one compound is mixed into the fermentation broth in a total amount of from 0.15 wt.% to 50 wt.% (in claim 6), a viscosity at least 10% lower (in claim 8), Schizochytrium, 30 to 90 wt.% of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (in claim 12), and the amount of free microbial oil in the fermentation broth is 1.0 wt.% or less (in claim 15).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, the recitation of “The method according to claim 5” on line 1 is suggested to read “The method according to claim 1”. Applicant has elected the amount in claim 6, if claim 6 is dependent from claim 5, then claim 6 will be rejected under 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, since the amount range in claim 6 overlaps with the amount range in claim 5.
Claim 12, the recitation of “DHA docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” on line 6 is suggested to read “docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)”.
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.
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, 12 and 16 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 6 (line 2-3) recites “(calculated on the total weight of the fermentation broth)”. It is unclear what the parenthetical information is conveying. Further, parenthesis is reserved for reference characters and information within parenthesis has no effect on the scope of the claims. See MPEP 608.01(m). Applicant is advised to amend claim 6 to take out parenthesis.
Claim 12 recites “(calculated on the total weight of fatty acids in the total lipid content)” (line 3-4) and “(calculated on the total weight of fatty acids in the total lipid content)” (line 7-8). It is unclear what the parenthetical information is conveying. Further, parenthesis is reserved for reference characters and information within parenthesis has no effect on the scope of the claims. See MPEP 608.01(m). Applicant is advised to amend claim 12 to take out parenthesis.
Claim 16 (line 2) recites “(calculated on the total weight of the fermentation broth)”. It is unclear what the parenthetical information is conveying. Further, parenthesis is reserved for reference characters and information within parenthesis has no effect on the scope of the claims. See MPEP 608.01(m). Applicant is advised to amend claim 16 to take out parenthesis.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifer et al (US 2017/0245523 A1; 8/31/2017.) in view of Ju et al (Renewable Energy. 2020;153:580-587.) and Scholten et al (WO 2017/132407 A1; 8/3/2017.).
The instant claims recite a method for reducing the viscosity of a fermentation broth, the method comprising (a) mixing at least one compound selected from the group consisting of ascorbic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, formic acid, amino acids, and soluble salts of the acids with a fermentation 5 broth comprising microbial cells, the fermentation broth having free microbial oil in an amount of 5.0 wt.% or less, calculated on the total weight of the fermentation broth, wherein the total lipid content of the dry matter content of the fermentation broth is at least 40 wt.%.
Pfeifer teaches a method of producing microbial oils (Abstract), comprising cultivating Schizochytrium sp. (Family Thraustochytriaceae, para 0094) in a culture medium, wherein the medium comprises citric acid, the biomass is freeze dried (complete dry matter content of the fermentation broth) and the fatty acid profile of the biomass is determined (para 0210), the fermentation is pH controlled utilizing ammonium hydroxide, and sulfuric acid (a further acid) is utilized for pH control (decreasing or increasing the pH of the fermentation broth, and re-adjusting the pH of the fermentation broth by adding a base or an acid) (para 0213). Table 4 demonstrates microbial oils comprise 30% to 90% of EPA + DHA (polyunsatured fatty acids (PUFAs)). Pfeifer does not teach disrupting microbial cells during fermentation. Therefore, one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the fermentation broth having no or low amount of free microbial oil.
Pfeifer does not teach using lactic acid (the elected compound in claims 1 and 7), and the claimed total amount (claim 6).
However, Pfeifer does teach fermenting Schizochytrium sp. for production of microbial oils. Ju teaches fermenting Schizochytrium sp. for production of microbial oils (Abstract), comprising adding 1.8 g/L of lactic acid to the fermentation medium, wherein the addition of 5.4 g/L of lactic acid increased DHA content (p.585 col right – para 2-3).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate lactic acid, since Pfeifer and Ju both disclose a method of fermenting Schizochytrium sp. for production of microbial oils, and Ju discloses that adding lactic acid to the fermentation medium improves fermentation and lipid production. In addition, 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 amount of lactic acid, since Ju discloses that addition of lactic acid increases DHA content and improves overall fermentation and lipid production. 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 incorporate an optimized amount of lactic acid, with a reasonable expectation for successfully producing microbial oils.
References cited above do not teach reducing the viscosity of the fermentation broth (claim 1), and the fermentation broth after the at least one compound has been mixed thereinto has a viscosity at least 10% lower than the viscosity of the fermentation broth before the compound was mixed thereinto (claim 8). However, Pfeifer and Ju do teach adding acids (at least one compound) to the fermentation broth. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was well-known in the art that adding acids reduces viscosity of a fermentation broth. In support, Scholten teaches that the decrease in viscosity can be observed at the start of the acid addition, the change in viscosity can be a decrease of at least 10% as measured by standard methods of measuring viscosity (para 0082).
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