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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4, 13, 15-18 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackie et al (WO 2018115867 A2), in view of Benselfelt et al. (WO 2019078775 A1).
Regarding claim 3-4, 13, 17-18 and 24
Mackie discloses a process for preparing a composition comprising alginate and/or cellulose comprising providing a seaweed portion (i.e., the alginate and cellulose portion both from the same seaweed), bleaching the seaweed portion (i.e. purifying by the use of a cellulose bleaching substance)(abstract).
Mackie discloses providing laminaria hyperborea (i.e. a brown seaweed) having a stipe (Cutting and Peeling).
Although, Mackie does not disclose nanofibrillating the cellulose, Mackie does disclose the other limitations of the claim. However, because Benselfelt discloses that a composition comprising alginate and cellulose nanofibers forms a water resistant material with impressive toughness and hygroplastic behavior when wet as well as increased stiffness and extensibility in the wet state (page 3, lines 5-20). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Mackie by nanofibrillating the cellulose, with a reasonable expectation of success, and the expected benefit of increasing the stiffness and extensibility of products made with the composition. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to nanofibrillate the cellulose in the presence of the alginate, which would remove the need for separating the components.
With respect to being a 3D printable composition this is an intended use and as the composition of the reference would be capable of being 3D printed it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 15
Mackie discloses that a liquor is made by adding water to the milled stipe portions at a water:milled stipe ratio from about 2:1 to about 10:1 (the latter having less than about 10 % solids), and overlapping the claimed range. As such, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claim 16
Benselfelt discloses that it is known cellulose nanofibers can be used to reinforce alginate gels and films, and that it is known to make a reinforced alginate having up to 50 wt % cellulose fibers (p. 2, lines 26-30). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to make a mixture of cellulose having 50 % or less cellulose and the remainder alginate. As the amount of the mixture of the reference overlaps the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claims 21-22
Mackie discloses washing the alginic acid with water, after the bleaching step until the pH was approximately 3.1 to 3.2 (p. 34, line 25 to p. 35, line 8), which will remove the bleaching agents.
Regarding claim 23
Mackie further discloses washing with a sodium carbonate solution to raise the pH to 7 (p. 35, lines 15-23).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackie et al (WO 2018115867 A2), in view of Benselfelt et al. (WO 2019078775 A1), as applied to claims 3-4, 13, 15-18 and 21-24 above, in view of Boyen (FR 2849056 A1).
Regarding claim 19
Although, Mackie does not disclose the use of the blade, Mackie does disclose the use of the stipe. However, Boyen discloses that the Stipe is high in G blocks and confer increased mechanical stability, but the blade contains a higher amount of M blocks and make more flexible polymer (p. 3). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add to the teachings of Mackie by extracting alginate and cellulose from the blade to produce a more flexible polymer, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Boyen.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackie et al (WO 2018115867 A2), in view of Benselfelt et al. (WO 2019078775 A1), as applied to claims 3-4, 13, 15-18 and 21-24 above, in view of Capanema (CN 107074981 A).
Regarding claim 20
Although, Mackie does not disclose the use of an acetate buffer with the sodium chlorite, Mackie does disclose the use of sodium chlorite to bleach alginate and cellulose. However, Capanema discloses that in similar bleaching operations that sodium chlorite can be mixed with a sodium acetate buffer (example 14). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to add to the teachings of Mackie by using an acetate buffer with the sodium chlorite when bleaching the alginate and cellulose, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Capanema.
Response to Arguments
Applicants request rejoinder of claims. Upon the finding of allowable subject matter the claims may be rejoined.
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that the claimed invention does not involve any step of extraction of alginate or cellulose from the brown seaweed material. While this may be true (though not agreed with) it is not persuasive as the comprising language of the claims does not disallow for additional steps in the reference. Further, it is noted that the purifying step of the instant invention can be seen as an extraction using the broadest reasonable interpretation of what it means to extract.
Applicants argue that the office has not established why a person of ordinary skill would choose only the pre-extraction steps taught by Mackie, and deciding to not perform an essential step taught in the reference. This is not persuasive as the examiner has not tried to eliminate any steps from Mackie, and the use of comprising language in the claims does not disallow any of the additional steps of Mackie. The rejection described the sections of Mackie that disclosed the claimed limitations, any additional steps were/are not argued to be excluded by the examiner.
Applicants argue that there is no reason to choose to carry out an entirely different process, i.e. nanofibrillation, to prepare a product having completely different properties. This is not persuasive as Mackie discloses all of the claim limitations except the nanofibrillation, and Benselfelt provided the motivation to perform the nanofibrillation, i.e., increasing the stiffness and extensibility of products made with the composition.
Applicants argue that there proposal to use natural brown seaweed to provide a hybrid alginate/cellulose nanofiber material suitable for 3D printing is neither taught or suggested in the combination of Mackie and Benselfelt. This is not persuasive as Mackie discloses each and every limitation of the instant claim 3, except for the nanofibrillation step, which Benselfelt provides the motivation for.
Applicants argue that Benselfelt teaches away from making a composition having a concentration of cellulose which is 10-40 wt % and a concentration of alginate which is 20-60 wt %. This is not persuasive as for the reference to teach away there must be some teaching or suggestion that the proposed combination will not work. Here the reference of Benselfelt discloses that it is known to have reinforced alginate films with up to 50 wt % cellulose fibers (page 2, lines 26-30). As such the reference does not teach away from the range of claim 16.
Applicants argue that Benselfelt teaches that using more than 30 wt % of the gelling polysaccharide (i.e., alginate) before cross-linking will impair the properties of the material. While this may be true it is not persuasive and it is noted that this is only a problem when the material is crosslinked, and the material of Mackie is not cross linked.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734