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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 May 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
2. Claims 11, 35-36, and 39 are pending and subject to examination on the merits. Claim 39 is withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected subject matter. Claims 11 and 35-36 are currently under examination.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Brazil BR102019009242-4 on 06 May 2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Withdrawn Rejections
4. The rejection of claims 11 and 35-36 as obvious over the teachings of Park et al. (Park et al., 2012, KR101435582B1-cited previously), Zhang et al. (Zhang et al., 2010, CN101302486B—cited previously), and Agarwal et al. (Agarwal et al., 2015, Part Part Syst Charact—cited previously), and Choe et al. (Choe et al., 2010, Journal of Reproduction and Development—cited previously) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments made to claim 11, where specifically the limitations of “causing adsorption or absorption of biologically active molecules including beta-mecaptoethanol in the microstructure of said matrix; and incorporating the nanocellulose 3D matrix in an in vitro maturation procedure of oocytes and/or embryo in vitro production; or as reconstructed human epidermis used for efficacy and safety evaluation of cosmetic products” were deleted from the claim. Said rejection has been withdrawn in view of the modified rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 11 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Park et al., 2012, KR101435582B1-cited previously).
In regards to claim 11, drawn to a method to manufacture 3D bacterial nanocellulose by Gluconacetobacter sp., by modulating the composition of a culture medium as to carbon, nitrogen, and micronutrient source, where the modulating step involves a fermentation step in culture medium with more than one non-complex nitrogen source for 3-10 days at 25oC-30oC, wherein said non-complex nitrogen source is one selected from: a) ammonium chloride and ammonium glutamate; and b) ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, Park et al. teaches the production of bacterial cellulose from the KCG326 strain of Gluconacetobacter in a fermentation reaction with a carbon source (paragraph 0011) and a nitrogen source, which can be non-complex nitrogen sources, ammonium salt, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, ammonium phosphate, or the like (paragraph 0024) at a temperature of 25-35oC and a culture period of 5-20 days (paragraph 0034); additionally, the nitrogen sources may also be used in combination (paragraph 0024). In regards to claims 35-36, where the culturing conditions are limited to 26oC for 4 days or 28oC for 10 days, Park et al. teaches the range of temperatures from 25-35oC for a culture period ranging from 5-20 days (paragraph 0034); further, Park et al. teaches the measurement of cellulose produced by Gluconacetobacter sp. over a range of 1-10 days (Fig. 1).
Park et al. do not, however, teach: 1) the specific combination of nitrogen sources (a) ammonium chloride and ammonium glutamate; and b) ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate), temperature (25oC-30oC), and culturing times (3-10 days).
Regarding the specific combination of nitrogen sources (a) ammonium chloride and ammonium glutamate; and b) ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, temperature (25oC-30oC), and culturing times (3-10 days) - routine optimization to determine the optimal working conditions of an invention is not non-obvious. The MPEP states, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP Section 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize and optimize the teachings of Park et al. to produce a bacterial nanocellulose from Gluconacetobacter sp, because bacterial cellulose is pure compared to cellulose obtained from plants, which contain many impurities, as taught by Park et al (paragraph 0003). One would be motivated to combine these teachings to arrive at the instant claims to manufacture a bacterial nanocellulose to be utilized for skin tissue repair, drug delivery of antibiotics and anesthetics, moisturizing cosmetics, improving food textures, and filling agents in paper, as taught by Park et al. (paragraph 0037). There would be a reasonable expectation of success, yielding no surprising results to optimize the teachings of Park et al. because Park et al. teaches the different ammonium salts that can be utilized to produce a pure nanocellulose.
Applicant’s Arguments and Examiner’s Rebuttal:
The Applicant traverses the previous rejection of record of Claims 11 and 35-36 as being unpatentable over Park et al., Zhang et al., and Agarwal et al. and Choe et al.
First, the applicant argues that the examiner presents a conclusory statement because the examiner states that the specific combinations of nitrogen sources, temperature, and culturing times are routine optimization as they are general conditions disclosed in the prior art. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, since culturing conditions are well-known in the art, where the MPEP clearly states:
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP Section 2144.05.
The examiner, therefore, contends that there is no need for prior art demonstrating the modulation of culturing conditions as optimization. Additionally, as stated in the above rejection:
”Park et al. teaches the production of bacterial cellulose from the KCG326 strain of Gluconacetobacter in a fermentation reaction with a carbon source (paragraph 0011) and a nitrogen source, which can be non-complex nitrogen sources, ammonium salt, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, ammonium phosphate, or the like (paragraph 0024) at a temperature of 25-35oC and a culture period of 5-20 days (paragraph 0034).”
As such, the recitation of a carbon source, a nitrogen source, a range temperature, and culture period are obvious as per the MPEP, as cited above. Additionally, the temperature and culturing conditions disclosed in Park et al. are overlapping ranges with the instant claim, which are obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Second, the applicant argues that the produced nanocellulose has unexpected and surprising results and said results are better than those of Park et al. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no direct comparisons of the nanocelluloses produced in the instant claims and those of Park et al. Additionally, with optimization of ammonium salts, which are taught in Park et al., the same nanocellulose would be produced with the same results presented by the Applicant. Additionally, the Applicant compares their own nanocellulose to that of Sousa et al; however, Sousa et al. was not utilized in the previous rejection of record or the above instant rejection.
The examiner is does not find the arguments presented by the applicant persuasive, and for these reasons, the rejections of record above apply.
Conclusion
8. All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIARA A MCKNIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-4791. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached on (571) 272-0939. 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.
/CIARA A MCKNIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/SUZANNE M NOAKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights