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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 10/1/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/1/2025.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Here, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase “the present disclosure provides for . . .” which should be avoided as described above. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a method of making a plant growth medium, comprising . . . adding the cellulose nanocrystals to the plant growth medium” renders the claim indefinite. The claim is indefinite because it introduces a method of making a plant growth medium, suggesting that the plant growth medium is the final product. However, the actual steps recited appear to imply that other ingredients are added to an already existing plant growth medium. This creates ambiguity because it is unclear whether the method is directed to making a plant growth medium or modifying an existing plant growth medium. For purposes of examination, prior art which describes either of these scenarios is regarded as reading on these limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the cellulose” (lines 2-3 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the previous method steps describe extracting cellulose from the feedstock without describing or defining the extracted cellulose product. Then, the next clause refers to “the cellulose” without specifying whether it is the extracted product. For purposes of examination, “the cellulose” is regarded as being the extracted cellulose product.
Note that all other claims are being included as a result of their dependency upon a rejected claim as set forth above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ng (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0148495 A1, hereinafter “Ng”).
Regarding claim 1, Ng teaches a method of making a plant growth medium (e.g., a method of forming a keratin-based growth medium substrate for plants) [Abstract] comprising isolating cellulose nanocrystals from a feedstock and adding the cellulose nanocrystals to a plant growth medium (e.g., adding a natural biopolymer such as cellulose nanocrystals to the plant growth medium) [Abstract & Para. 0054-55] (the natural biopolymer is obtained from a plant material such as cotton, wood, pulp, vegetable trimmings, etc. by chemical and physical methods, here regarded as reading on isolation from a feedstock) [Para. 0058].
Regarding claim 10, Ng teaches the method wherein the plant growth medium comprises a plant seed (e.g., the substrate is for supporting seed germination [Para. 0043]; see also Fig. 12A and 12B showing plant growth assessment of Arabidopsis seeds in the substrate [Para. 0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Ng teaches the method wherein the plant growth medium further comprises a germination material (e.g., a keratin derivative, for supporting seed germination and plant growth) [Abstract & Para. 0002].
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of “Isolation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from jackfruit peel,” Triloketh et al, Scientific Reports, Nature Research, 2019, cited in the IDS filed 4/24/2023 (hereinafter “Trikoleth”).
Regarding claim 2, Ng teaches the method implementing cellulose nanocrystals from a feedstock such as various plant materials [Ng Para. 0058] but does not disclose a specific method of isolation. However, Trikoleth teaches that a standard method for isolating cellulose nanocrystals involves extracting cellulose from a feedstock (e.g., bleaching and pulping using sodium chlorite, acetic acid plus nitric acid, and/or formic acid treatments to isolate cellulose from the lignocellulosic biomass, here a jackfruit plant) [Trikoleth Page 2, “Isolation of Cellulose” & Page 6, “Isolation of Cellulose”] and extracting the cellulose nanocrystals from the cellulose (e.g., after initial treatment, the isolated cellulose is subject to sulphuric acid hydrolysis to further isolate the cellulose nanocrystals/CNCs) [Trikoleth Page 2, “Isolation of Cellulose” & Fig. 2]. The resulting nanocrystals are spherical and devoid of hemicellulose and lignin and thus readily available for use in their applications [Trikoleth Abstract & Page 7, “Conclusion”]. Further, the method taught by Trikoleth is advantageous because it uses a renewable, sustainable and cheap biomass to generate the nanocrystals [Trikoleth Page 1 Para. 4]. As such, in looking for a suitable way to implement cellulose nanocrystals isolated from plants as suggested by Ng, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Trikoleth and readily appreciate the advantages of a method involving extracting cellulose followed by extracting the nanocrystals. Further, Trikoleth is analogous art because it is reasonably concerned with the problem faced by the inventor (e.g., isolating cellulose nanocrystals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Ng to specifically implement the isolation process taught by Trikoleth.
Regarding claim 3, Ng as modified by Trikoleth teaches the method wherein extracting cellulose from the feedstock comprises acidic or enzymatic hydrolysis, cryocrushing the feedstock, high shear grinding, or any combination thereof (e.g., the isolation of cellulose can comprise sodium chlorite, acetic acid plus nitric acid, and formic acid treatments, here regarded as reading on acidic hydrolysis) [Trikoleth Page 6, “Isolation of cellulose”].
Regarding claim 4, the enzymatic hydrolysis is recited in the alternative in claim 3, and as such Ng as modified by Trikoleth teaching acidic hydrolysis is regarded as reading on a further limitation of the alternative enzymatic hydrolysis.
Regarding claim 5, Ng as modified by Trikoleth teaches the method wherein extracting cellulose nanocrystals from the cellulose comprises acidic or enzymatic hydrolysis, performing ultrasonication on the cellulose, performing high energy bead milling on the cellulose, or any combination thereof (e.g., after initial treatment, the isolated cellulose is subject to sulphuric acid hydrolysis to further isolate the cellulose nanocrystals/CNCs) [Trikoleth Page 2, “Isolation of Cellulose” & Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 7, Ng teaches the method implementing cellulose nanocrystals from a feedstock such as various plant materials [Ng Para. 0058] but does not disclose a specific method of isolation resulting in any disclosed lignin or hemicellulose content. However, Trikoleth teaches a standard method for isolating cellulose nanocrystals resulting in a lignin and hemicellulose-free product [Trikoleth Abstract]. Thus, the isolated nanocrystals are readily available for use in their applications [Trikoleth Abstract & Page 7, “Conclusion”]. Further, the method taught by Trikoleth is advantageous because it uses a renewable, sustainable and cheap biomass to generate the nanocrystals [Trikoleth Page 1 Para. 4]. As such, in looking for a suitable way to implement cellulose nanocrystals isolated from plants as suggested by Ng, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Trikoleth and readily that it is standard and even advantageous to implement a method which necessarily removes the lignin and hemicellulose from the nanocrystals, and would know how to do so via the teachings of Trikoleth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Ng to specifically implement a method which necessarily removes lignin and hemicellulose as taught by Trikoleth.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0330378 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 6, Ng teaches the method implementing cellulose nanocrystals from a feedstock such as various plant materials [Ng Para. 0058] but does not explicitly teach the shape of the nanocrystals being rod-shaped and/or spherical. However, Zhang teaches that standard cellulose nanocrystals are either spherical or rod/needle-shaped, depending on their method of preparation and isolation [Zhang Para. 0003]. As such, in looking for suitable and available shapes of cellulose nanocrystals, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Zhang and readily appreciate that spherical and rod-shaped are the standard options. Selecting spherical or rod-shaped nanocrystals amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with reasonable expectation of success, as these are the two standard shapes for cellulose nanocrystals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Ng to implement spherical or rod-shaped cellulose nanocrystals as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Ng teaches the method implementing cellulose nanocrystals from a feedstock such as various plant materials [Ng Para. 0058] but does not explicitly teach the size or width of the nanocrystals. However, Zhang teaches that standard cellulose nanocrystals typically have a diameter from 50 nm to 200 nm, or a width greater than 10 nm and a length greater than 200 nm, or a width of 5 to 10 nm and a length greater than 100 nm, depending on their method of preparation and isolation [Zhang Para. 0003]. As such, in looking for suitable and available sizes of cellulose nanocrystals, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Zhang and readily appreciate that widths which overlap with the claimed range are the standard options. Selecting these particular sizes amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with reasonable expectation of success, as these are the standard sizes available for cellulose nanocrystals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Ng to cellulose nanocrystals having a width from 3 nm to 100 nm as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, Ng teaches the method implementing cellulose nanocrystals from a feedstock such as various plant materials [Ng Para. 0058] but does not explicitly teach the size or length of the nanocrystals. However, Zhang teaches that standard cellulose nanocrystals typically have a diameter from 50 nm to 200 nm, or a width greater than 10 nm and a length greater than 200 nm, or a width of 5 to 10 nm and a length greater than 100 nm, depending on their method of preparation and isolation [Zhang Para. 0003]. As such, in looking for suitable and available sizes of cellulose nanocrystals, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Zhang and readily appreciate that lengths which overlap with the claimed range are the standard options. Selecting these particular sizes amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with reasonable expectation of success, as these are the standard sizes available for cellulose nanocrystals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Ng to cellulose nanocrystals having a length from 50 nm to 6 um as taught by Zhang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/H.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights