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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1, previously presented Claims 2, 6, 8-12, and 30, cancelled Claims 3-5, 7, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24, and withdrawn Claims 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 25-29 in the response filed on 2/3/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that De Belie et al. disclose the usage of micro-organisms to accelerate carbonation and to increase the compressive strength of non-hydraulic lime mortars. The micro-organisms metabolize nutrients within the mortars in order to produce CO2 which results in accelerated CaCO3 formation and hence increased strength of the mortar (See Abstract of De Belie et al.).
In contrast, Devroe et al. is directed to an entirely different technical field, namely industrial biotechnology and carbon capture. The microorganisms in Devroe et al. function as biologically production platforms external to any structural material and are not used to modify or enhance the curing, carbonation, or mechanical properties of cementitious compositions. Accordingly, Devroe et al. is not within the same field of practice as De Belie et al. or the claimed invention.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. De Belie et al. teaches its microorganism is a source of urease, which is an enzyme that catalyzes the hydrolysis of urea into simpler organic molecules of carbon dioxide and ammonia (Page 4: Line 28 bridging over to Page 5: Line 1). The produced CO2 is used to produce and accelerate the formation of calcium carbonate in order to increase the compressive strength of mortars (Abstract). While Devroe et al.’s microorganisms can be used in many different applications, Devroe et al. recognizes that Synechococcus sp. Strain PCC 7002 converts CO2 to produce solid forms of carbon, for example cement, which is analogous art to De Belie et al.’s invention of mortar ([0080], [0084][0143], and [0151]).
Applicant further submits that there is no motivation to combine De Belie et al. and Devroe et al. De Belie et al. relies on microorganisms that operate within dark, alkaline cement matrices and that produces carbon dioxide internally to drive carbonation reactions during curing. By contrast, Synechococcus sp. PCC 7002 as taught by Devroe et al. is photosynthetic, requires light and aqueous growth conditions, and consumes carbon dioxide rather than producing it.
While the Examiner recognizes that Devroe et al. uses photosynthesis to consume carbon dioxide, it does not preclude Synechococcus sp. Strain PCC 7002 from producing CO2. As evidence provided by Sültemeyer et al. “Characterisation of carbon dioxide and bicarbonate transport during steady-state photosynthesis in the marine cyanobacterium Synechococcus strain PCC7002.” Planta, vol. 197, no. 4, Nov. 1995, Sültemeyer et al. discloses that Synechococcus sp. Strain PCC 7002 produces CO2 in the dark (Page 598: 2nd ¶ under Mass-spectrometric gas-exchange measurements, and Page 600: Fig. 1A-1D). Therefore, if De Belie relies its microorganisms to operate in the dark., there is a reasonable expectation of success that Synechococcus sp. Strain PCC 7002 is also able to produce CO2 and operate in the dark, absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please respectfully amend NaCI to NaCl and KCI to KCl. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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, 2, 8-10, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010130712 (“De Belie et al.”) in view of Anbu et al. “Formations of calcium carbonate minerals by bacteria and its multiple applications.” SpringerPlus, vol. 5, no. 1, 1 Mar. 2016 (“Anbu et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, De Belie et al. teaches a biologically active structural material comprising one or more inert substrates, one or more precipitating microorganisms, and an aqueous nutrient medium (Abstract, Page 6: Lines 29-35, Page 8: Lines 7-31, and Page 9: Lines 5-10 and 21-23). De Belie et al. further teaches that the precipitating microorganisms Sporosarcina pasteurii with an Accession number of the BCCM culture collection (Gent, Belgium) of LMG 7130 (Page 4: Line 28 and Table 3).
De Belie et al. does not teach its S. pasteurii is from the culture collection MTCC 1761 (i.e. deposited laboratory strain of S. pasteurii in the Indian MTCC collection).
However, Anbu et al. recognizes that S. pasteurii MTCC 1761 is also a precipitating microorganism that helps produce CaCO3 (Abstract and Page 2: 2nd ¶ under Microbially induced calcite precipitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use S. pasteurii MTCC 1761 in view of cost savings, accessibility, etc.
With regards to Claim 2, De Belie et al. teaches the one or more inert substrates is sand (Page 8: Lines 27-29).
With regards to Claim 8, De Belie et al. teaches the aqueous nutrient medium (bacterial nutrient broth) comprises an inorganic compound NaCl (Page 9: Lines 25-26).
With regards to Claim 9, De Belie et al. teaches the aqueous nutrient medium comprises an organic compound glucose (Page 9: Line 27).
With regards to Claim 10, De Belie et al. teaches its structural material further comprising one or more matrix forming elements (Page 8: Lines 30-31).
With regards to Claim 30, De Belie et al. teaches a method for forming a biopolymeric building material comprising desiccating or drying a mortar comprising the biologically active structural material (Abstract and Page 1: Lines 23-24).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010130712 (“De Belie et al.”) in view of Anbu et al. “Formations of calcium carbonate minerals by bacteria and its multiple applications.” SpringerPlus, vol. 5, no. 1, 1 Mar. 2016 (“Anbu et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20090203070 (“Devroe et al.”).
De Belie et al. teaches the usage of microorganism to accelerate carbonation and to increase compressive strength of structural materials. The microorganism metabolize nutrients within the structural material in order to produce CO2 which results in accelerated CaCO3 formation and hence increased strength of the structural material (Abstract).
De Belie et al. does not teach microorganism Synechococcus sp. Strain PCC 7002 in its biologically active structural material.
However, Devroe et al. teaches microorganism Synechococcus sp. Strain PCC 7002 to produce products of interest, such as structural material cement, wherein Synechococcus sp. Strain PCC 7002 uses CO2 from cement production facilities ([0078], [0080], [0084], [0143], and [0151]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Synechococcus sp. Strain PCC 7002 in De Belie et al.’s biologically active structural material as it is a known microorganism that efficiently convert CO2 and light into a structural material ([0002], [0143], and [0151]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010130712 (“De Belie et al.”) in view of Anbu et al. “Formations of calcium carbonate minerals by bacteria and its multiple applications.” SpringerPlus, vol. 5, no. 1, 1 Mar. 2016 (“Anbu et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20120227633 (“Laukkanen et al.”).
De Belie et al. teaches one or more matrix forming elements comprising cellulose (Page 8: Lines 30-33).
De Belie et al. does not teach the one or more matrix forming elements are precipitated by a bacteria synthesized cellulose.
However, Laukkanen et al. teaches an admixture for a cementitious composition comprising of bacteria synthesized cellulose (Abstract, [0020], and [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have De Belie et al.’s one or more matrix forming elements are precipitated by a bacteria synthesized cellulose, as demonstrated by Laukkanen et al., in order to provide stabilization to the biologically active structural material [0042].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights