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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1, 8, and 10, cancelled Claims 3-5, 7, 11-13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24, and withdrawn Claims 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 25-29 in the response filed on 7/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-10, and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20140248681 (“Soens 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). While De Belie et al. teaches one or more matrix forming elements (e.g. cellulose, silica sol-gel alginate, ceramic materials or any other organic or inorganic material) capable of enrobing the one or more precipitating microorganisms in place (Page 8: Lines 30-33), De Belie et al. does not teach it comprising gelatin.
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.
Soens et al. teaches a biologically active structural material comprising one or more inert substrates, one or more precipitating microorganisms (e.g. Myxococcus xanthus), an aqueous nutrient medium, and one or more matrix forming elements comprising gelatin, wherein the one or more matrix forming elements are capable of enrobing one or more precipitating microorganisms in place (Abstract, [0008]-[0011], [0042], [0047], [0052], [0069]-[0074], and [0078]). 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 comprise of gelatin to retain and protect the microorganism within the biologically active structural material (Abstract). Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute alginate, for example, for the gelatin material taught by Soens et al. in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two materials. Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Grover Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
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, the prior art of record teaches one or more matrix forming elements as set forth above. De Belie et al. does not teach its one or more matrix forming elements are present in an amount of from about 1.5% to about 5% by weight based on a total weight of the biologically active structural material.
However, Soens et al. teaches that in its biologically active structural material, 1 to 5 wt% of a matrix forming elements are added thereto (Abstract, [0047], [0052], [0069]-[0074], and Table 1). 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 structural material contain about 1.5% to about 5% by weight of one or more matrix forming elements to ensure the integrity of the enrobing the microorganisms in place.
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.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20140248681 (“Soens 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]).
Conclusion
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