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 .
Claims 1-10,13-21 and 37 are pending. Claims 11,12,22-36and 38 have been cancelled. Claims 3-6 and 20 have been amended. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 and 13-19 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20,21 and 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,5,7-9,14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blume (WO 2018/130390).
Blume teaches applying lecithin emulsions to bacterial cellulose nanofibers of a three dimensional structure (page 2, paragraph 3; page 3, last paragraph). Blume teaches medical textiles with three dimensional cellulosic substrates (page 6, paragraph 1). Blume teaches preparing bacterial nanocellulose fibers from gram-negative komagataeibacter xylinus (extracellular nanofibril production via microbial biosynthesis by living cells of gram-negative bacteria) in a well plate (cultivation vessel) in a cell culture medium (slurry) which molds the 3D shape by producing layers of self-assembled network of biologically functional bacterial cellulose nanofibrils and treating with an emulsion containing soy lecithin (page 6 last paragraph, page 7). Accordingly, the teachings of Bloom are sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims.
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 4,10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume (WO 2018/130390).
Blume is relied upon as set forth above. Blume further teaches adding fatty acids (page 5, last paragraph).
Blume does not teach adding lecithin during biosynthesis or depositing bacterial cellulose fibers into a cultivation vessel.
IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Blume by incorporating fatty acids into the lecithin treatment as Blume teaches fatty acids are advantageously added for cosmetically active anti-cellulite, anti-elastase and anti-collagenase active substances. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Blume by adding the phospholipids during biosynthesis of the textile or forming a slurry of the bacterial cellulose fibers with or without lecithin emulsion added and depositing the nanofibers into a cultivation vessel to process into a 3D shape as Blume clearly teaches forming a 3D shaped bacterial cellulose nanofiber network in a shaped cultivation vessel wherein the nanofibers are present in a culture medium making a slurry and applying lecithin to the formed 3D nanofiber textile. Applying the lecithin before or after biosynthesis is not deemed critical as in both cases the same 3D bacterial cellulose textile is prepared with a lecithin impregnated into it and this can be achieved both by application of the lecithin in the cell culture vessel or afterward on the molded substrate. The addition of lecithin at different timepoints is simply an order of steps and nothing unobvious is seen in combining the lecithin in different stages of the 3D nanofiber structure formation. Similarly, preparing the slurry of nanofibers in the cultivation vessel or forming it and introducing it into a shaped vessel is simply an order of steps, wherein in both cases a 3D shaped, layered and molded bacterial cellulose nanofiber textile is prepared and has lecithin incorporated into the structure. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959).
Claims 3,6,8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume (WO 2018/130390) in view of Zhang (Immobilization of lecithin on bacterial cellulose nanofibers for improved biological functions. Reactive & Functional Polymers, 91-92 (2015) 100-107) as evidenced by UC Davis (Gluconacetobacter xylinus https://wine.ucdavis.edu/industry-info/enology/wine-microbiology/bacteria/gluconacetobacter-xylinus. ).
Blume is relied upon as set forth above.
Blume does not teach coloration treatment or Gluconacetobacter xylinus.
Zhang teaches treating bacterial cellulose nanofibers in a 3D structure with lecithin wherein the fibers are prepared from A. xylinum gram negative bacteria and colored with proanthocyanidin during crosslinking (page 101, section 2.1 and 2.2; page 103, section 3.1). UC Davis demonstrates A xylinum is the same as Gluconacetobacter xylinus (page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Blume by preparing bacterial cellulose nanofibers from Gluconacetobacter xylinus bacteria and coloring the nanofibers as Zhang teaches A xylinum ( Gluconacetobacter xylinus) effectively produces bacterial cellulose nanofibers which are more chemically pure and have a ultrafine network architecture (page 100, left column, introduction). It would have been further obvious to color the nanofibers as Zhang teaches it is beneficial to crosslink the textile with proanthocyanin which colors the fibers brown because crosslinking exerts significant effects on the chemical structure of the lecithin treated bacterial cellulose, allowing for a layered coating of lecithin on the nanofibers (page 106-107, section 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume (WO 2018/130390) in view of Castro (In-situ glyoxalization during biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose. Carbohydrate Polymers 1265 (2015) 32-39).
Blume is relied upon as set forth above.
Blume does not teach aldehyde treatment.
Castro teaches bacterial cellulose nanofibers form 3D networks of fibrils which are crosslinked by aldehyde crosslinkers such as glyoxal have the benefit of covalently binding the nanofibrils which impart durable properties to the textile (page 32, introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Blume by utilizing and aldehyde crosslinking agent to bond the bacterial cellulose fibers together to form a more durable textile.
Claims 3,7,10 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume (WO 2018/130390) in view of Chan (Development of Tailor-Shaped Bacterial Cellulose Textile Cultivation Techniques for Zero-Waste Design. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 2018, vol 36(1) 33-44 ) as evidenced by UC Davis (Gluconacetobacter xylinus https://wine.ucdavis.edu/industry-info/enology/wine-microbiology/bacteria/gluconacetobacter-xylinus. ).
Blume is relied upon as set forth above.
Blume does not teach coloration treatment or Gluconacetobacter xylinus or making a slurry of the nanofibers and placing it in a molding vessel..
Chan teaches molding bacterial cellulose produced from Acetobacter xylinum in a culture vessel and coloring it in a later dyeing step (page 34, paragraph 2-3; page 35, last 3 paragraphs; page 36, Figures 1-3;page 39, next to last paragraph). UC Davis demonstrates Acetobacter xylinus is the same as Gluconacetobacter xylinus (page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Blume by preparing bacterial cellulose nanofibers from Gluconacetobacter xylinus bacteria and coloring the nanofibers as Chan teaches Acetobacter xylinus ( Gluconacetobacter xylinus) effectively produces bacterial cellulose nanofibers which are more chemically pure, have high crystallinity, high polymerization, good moldability and good wet tensile strength (page 35, next to last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Blume by adding the phospholipids during biosynthesis of the textile or forming a slurry of the bacterial cellulose fibers with or without lecithin emulsion added and depositing the nanofibers into a cultivation vessel to process into a 3D shape as Blume clearly teaches forming a 3D shaped bacterial cellulose nanofiber network in a shaped cultivation vessel wherein the nanofibers are present in a culture medium making a slurry and applying lecithin to the formed 3D nanofiber textile. Chan shows growing the nanofibers in a vessel with the correct shape allows for formation of a 3D structure and requires no further molding or cutting afterward to achieve a desired shape. Applying the lecithin before or after biosynthesis is not deemed critical as in both cases the same 3D bacterial cellulose textile is prepared with a lecithin impregnated into it and this can be achieved both by application of the lecithin in the cell culture vessel or afterward on the molded substrate. The addition of lecithin at different timepoints is simply an order of steps and nothing unobvious is seen in combining the lecithin in different stages of the 3D nanofiber structure formation. Similarly, preparing the slurry of nanofibers in the cultivation vessel or forming it and introducing it into a shaped vessel is simply an order of steps, wherein in both cases a 3D shaped, layered and molded bacterial cellulose nanofiber textile is prepared and has lecithin incorporated into the structure. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights