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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s 10-3-25 election without traverse of Group III (claims 8-20) is acknowledged, as is applicant’s 10-3-25 cancellation of claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 refers back (multiple times) to claim 1, which has been cancelled, rendering claim 8 incomplete and rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. for not fully setting forth the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter (a reference to forming a structure as recited in a cancelled claim is a reference to a nullity, as cancelled claims would not be printed should the instant application become patented; one of ordinary skill in the art and/or the public would thus not be appraised as to the claimed invention’s scope1, creating confusion as to how to avoid infringement thereof- see MPEP 2173.02). See MPEP 608.01(n)V. See also, e.g., Ex parte Brice, Pearlson, and Simons, 110 USPQ 560 (BPAI 1955) (affirming Examiner’s rejection of a claim “on the sole ground that it was dependent on [a] cancelled claim” and that the rejected claim was “incomplete and not a proper claim”). Due to the foregoing, claims 8-20 have not been further treated on the merits.
Applicant is hereby advised that, as independent claim 8 is rejected for deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b)/2nd par., all claims depending therefrom also contain such deficiencies and are likewise rejected (unless the deficiencies are resolved by the dependent claim’s own limitations) - cure thereof is required for any and all claims affected even if any such claim were otherwise found allowable. See, e.g., In re Jolly, 172 F.2d 566, 567 (CCPA 1949) (holding that dependent claims of indefinite claims are thusly indefinite), and Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1702-04 (BPAI 1989) (same); 35 USC 112(d)/4th par.
Claim 12 is rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. because its phrase “the laccase is present” and term “TEMPO is present” lack sufficient antecedent bases. While the claim has been interpreted for examination/prior art purposes as instead depending from claim 11, which would obviate this rejection, this rejection nevertheless needs addressing.
Claim 13 is rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. because its terms “NaBr is present”, “TEMPO is present”, & “NaClO is present” lack sufficient antecedent bases. While the claim has been interpreted for examination/prior art purposes as instead depending from claim 11, which would obviate this rejection, this rejection nevertheless needs addressing.
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 8-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the 2018 Hao-Yang Mi et al. article (“Mi”, see the 12/16/25 IDS). Regarding claims 82, 10, and 14-16, Mi discloses a method of making an amine-functionalized polymer, comprising oxidizing 1 wt% of a cellulose polymer (termed by Mi as a cellulose nanofibril “CNF”, having a repeating unit of Formula 2 as claimed) with TEMPO to give the corresponding (oxidized) carboxylate-substituted cellulose polymer (i.e. of Formula 3 as claimed), which is then contacted with 5 wt% or 10 wt% polyethyleneimine (“PEI”) in the presence of the coupling agents EDC and NHS to give the corresponding amine-functionalized polymer (i.e. that of claim 1’s structure). See Mi at, e.g., abstr.; p. 329 (§2.1); Fig. 2j.
Regarding claim 9, Mi employs commercially-obtained eucalyptus Kraft pulp fibers as its CNF (see id. at, e.g., §2.1 of p. 329); the foregoing is considered to be a textile as claimed.
Claims 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the 2015 Sehaqui et al. article (“Sehaqui”, see the 12/16/25 IDS) as illustrated by the 2007 Saito et al. article (“Saito”, see the 12/16/25 IDS)3. Regarding claims 84, 11, and 14, Sehaqui discloses a method of making an amine-functionalized polymer, comprising oxidizing a cellulose polymer (having a repeating unit of Formula 2 as claimed) with NaClO, TEMPO, and NaBr to give the corresponding (oxidized) carboxylate- and/or aldehyde-substituted cellulose polymer (i.e. of Formula 3 as claimed), which is then contacted with polyethyleneimine (“PEI”) in water (which is considered to be a coupling agent for the purposes of claim 8) to give the corresponding amine-functionalized polymer (i.e. that of claim 1’s structure). See Sehaqui at, e.g., p. 3168 (Experim’l section par. 1-3); Saito at, e.g., pp. 2486-87 (Experim’l section and par. 1-2 of Results and Discussion section).
Regarding claim 9, Sehaqui employs commercially-obtained beech pulp fibers as its cellulose polymer (see Sehaqui at, e.g., p. 3168 Experim’l section par. 1); the foregoing is considered to be a textile as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Saito’s cellulose is employed in a 1 wt% concentration (1 g cellulose in 100 ml water); Sehaqui’s oxidation is performed according to Saito’s method. See Sehaqui at, e.g., p. 3168 (Experim’l section par. 1-2); Saito at, e.g., pp. 2486-87 (Experim’l section).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. rejections above and to include all of the limitations of the base claim (and any intervening claims). Regarding claims 12-13 and 17-20, the most pertinent prior art of record, detailed above, does not teach or suggest employing the claimed limitations within the overall claimed method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is (469)295-9161. Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central). 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 Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/DANIEL BERNS/ January 16, 2026
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1736
1 One of ordinary skill in the art and/or the public would not know the structure formed by claim 8’s method, as claim 8 does not itself recite the structure of the product formed by its method; claim 8’s references back to claim 1’s composition’s structure would, as detailed above, be a nullity due to applicant’s cancellation of claim 1.
2 Notwithstanding the rejection of claim 8 et seq. under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. for reasons detailed above, claim 8’s reference to claim 1’s structure is given effect for the purpose of prior art rejections. The indefiniteness rejections, however, nevertheless require addressing.
3 As Saito is cited merely to elaborate as to the meaning of disclosures within Sehaqui (indeed, cited portions of Sehaqui cite to Saito, which is thus considered to be incorporated therein by reference), rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is proper even though an additional reference is cited. MPEP 2131.01 II.
4 See fn. 2, above.