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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/20/2026:
claims 1-2 and 4-30 are currently pending;
claims 25-30 are withdrawn; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment “wherein the first binder comprises vaterite, aragonite and calcite, and wherein the calcite forms the majority of the first binder” in independent claim 1; however, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 14-15 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dosier et al. (US 2020/0262711 A1) (“Dosier” hereinafter), in view of Seifan et al. (Application of microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation in designing bio self-healing concrete, World J Microbiol Biotechnol, 2018) (“Seifan” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Dosier teaches a transportable bio-cement (see Dosier at [0010] teaching compositions… for the manufacture of building materials, see Dosier at [0019] teaching another embodiment… is directed to compositions… higher percentages of the non-aggregate components of the composition are typical for… transport use). The composition as taught by Dosier is taken to meet the claimed transportable bio-cement based on the structure as outlined below, comprising:
a microorganism package; where the microorganism package comprises: one or more microorganisms (see Dosier at [0019] teaching compositions comprising a mixture of microorganisms, see Dosier at [0025] teaching one embodiment… is directed to a method for forming starter cultures of calcium carbonate dissolving and/or calcium carbonate forming microorganisms… microorganism can be maintained as a… dried as a powder),
desiccated (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitation because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Dosier (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitation “desiccated” is a dry composition, see Dosier at [0025] teaching microorganism can be maintained as a… dried as a powder, see Dosier at [0030] teaching preferably the aqueous component… is removed),
a first binder and where the microorganism has protected itself by a layer of the first binder (see Dosier at [0023] teaching the process… utilizes microorganisms that produce enzymes that break down calcium carbonate as a calcium source that can be utilized for reformation of calcium source that can be utilized for reformation of calcium carbonate using microorganisms that produce enzymes that form calcium carbonate, see Dosier at [0024] teaching vegetative cells or enzymes can be mixed with particles (e.g., calcium carbonates particles or aggregate particles, see Dosier at [0019] teaching the composition further contains an aggregate material, such as, for example… limestone, see Dosier at [0029] teaching preferably the aqueous mixture of spores and/or vegetative cells and/or the aggregate is combined with a binding agent that promotes the adhesion or retention of microorganisms and aggregate… adhesion may be between microorganisms and aggregate via hydrophobic bonds, hydrophilic bonds, ionic bonds, non-ionic bonds, covalent bonds, van der Waal forces, or a combination thereof). The binding agent and aggregate are taken to meet the claimed first binder, and the microorganism as taught by Dosier is expected to be capable of protecting itself by a layer of the first binder;
where the first binder is produced by the microorganism (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitation because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Dosier (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitation is a first binder, which is met by Dosier),
where the transportable bio-cement is devoid of moisture (see Dosier at [0019] teaching another embodiment… is directed to compositions… higher percentages of the non-aggregate components of the composition are typical for… transport use, see Dosier at [0030] teaching preferably the aqueous component… is removed),
where the microorganism is present in the transportable bio-cement in an amount of 0.01 to 25 weight percent based on the total weight of the transportable bio-cement (see Dosier at [0019] teaching the first and second microorganisms combined comprise from about 10 percent to about 100 percent, by weight… of the composition… higher percentages of the non-aggregate components of the composition are typical for… transport use) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and
wherein the transportable bio-cement is a dry powder (see Dosier at [0019] teaching another embodiment… is directed to compositions… higher percentages of the non-aggregate components of the composition are typical for… transport use, see Dosier at [0025] teaching one embodiment… is directed to a method for forming starter cultures of calcium carbonate dissolving and/or calcium carbonate forming microorganisms… microorganism can be maintained… dried as a powder).
Dossier does not explicitly teach wherein the first binder comprises vaterite, aragonite and calcite, and wherein the calcite forms the majority of the first binder. However, Dossier teaches microorganisms that produce enzymes that break down calcium carbonate as a calcium source that can be utilized for reformation of calcium carbonate using microorganisms that produce enzymes that form calcium carbonate (see Dosier at [0023])… vegetative cells or enzymes can be mixed with particles (e.g., calcium carbonates particles or aggregate particles) (see Dosier at [0024])… the composition further contains an aggregate material, such as, for example… limestone (see Dosier at [0019])… mixture of spores and/or vegetative cells and/or the aggregate is combined with a binding agent that promotes the adhesion or retention of microorganisms and aggregate… adhesion may be between microorganisms and aggregate via hydrophobic bonds, hydrophilic bonds, ionic bonds, non-ionic bonds, covalent bonds, van der Waal forces, or a combination thereof) (see Dosier at [0029]).
Like Dosier, Seifan teaches microbially induced calcium carbonate formation (see Seifan at page 1 right column to page 2 left column, section Introduction (MICP) teaching microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP) can be seen in the formation of calcite in many geological environments such as soils, limestone caves, seas and soda lakes… autotrophic and heterotrophic pathways are the main two pathways that calcium carbonate (CaCO3) crystals can be induced via biological route… over the last decade, the employing of this technology has emerged as a viable, sustainable, and reproducible solution to address the engineering, geotechnical and environmental issues… of particular interest to researchers has been the adaptation of MICP for modification and improvement of constructional materials such as concrete and mortar).
Seifan further teaches calcium carbonate properties, including particle size, its distribution, morphology, specific surface area, brightness, and chemical purity, have a strong impact on its application in various industries… among these factors, the morphological aspect is one of the most significant characteristics which can affect the final effectiveness of MICP… the diversity of calcium carbonate mineralization and various saturation levels result in the production of different polymorphs including three anhydrous forms (calcite, vaterite and aragonite) (see Seifan at page 5, left column, paragraph 4). Seifan also teaches physical properties of microbial calcium carbonate precipitation strongly rely on the portion of each polymorph… aragonite and calcite are more thermodynamically stable structures, and are mostly formed in the nature… on the other hand, vaterite occurs less commonly in nature because it is the least thermodynamically stable polymorph… these stability differences arise from the way that calcium and carbonate ions are assembled in the extended solid-state structures… when it exposes to water, vaterite can quickly transform to aragonite at an elevated temperature, whereas the transformation to calcite takes place at a lower temperature… as compared to aragonite, calcite is less soluble and thus more stable and thermodynamically favorable… given sufficient time and energy, the precipitates ultimately transform into the lower energy, more thermodynamically stable state polymorph (see Seifan at page 5 left to right column, bridging column).
In summary, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Seifan teaches that the
diversity of calcium carbonate mineralization and various saturation levels is a result effective variable that result in the production of different polymorphs including three anhydrous forms (calcite, vaterite and aragonite). Additionally, the morphological aspect of MICP is also a result effective variable that most significantly affects the final effectiveness of MICP. Furthermore, calcite polymorph is the more stable and thermodynamically favorable than aragonite and vaterite and the formation of calcite is affected by assembly of calcium and carbonate in the extended solid structures, time, temperature and energy. As such, calcium carbonate mineralization is a result effective variable that could be optimized so as to result in the production of different polymorphs including three anhydrous forms (calcite, vaterite and aragonite) so as to significantly affect the final effectiveness of MICP.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the calcium carbonate mineralization as taught by Seifan in the composition as taught by Dosier so as to arrive at the claimed “wherein the first binder comprises vaterite, aragonite and calcite, and wherein the calcite forms the majority of the first binder” because the production of different polymorphs including three anhydrous forms (calcite, vaterite and aragonite) significantly affect the final effectiveness of MICP.
Regarding claim 2, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Dosier further teaches where the transportable bio-cement further comprises a nutrient (see Dosier at [0027] teaching the composition may also include components that support the germination and/or growth of the first and/or second microorganisms such as, for example… nutrients).
Regarding claim 4, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Dosier further teaches where the first binder is present in the transportable bio-cement in an amount of 0.01 to 75 weight percent based on the total weight of the bio-cement (see Dosier at [0019] teaching the composition further contains an aggregate material… at from about 10 percent to about 95 percent, by weight… of the composition (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 14, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Dosier further teaches where the microorganism comprises… Myxococcus xanthus (see Dosier at [0019] teaching the second microorganisms, as cells and/or spores, comprise… Myxococcus xanthus).
Regarding claim 15, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Dosier further teaches where the microorganisms comprise… Sporosarcina pasteurii (see (see Dosier at [0019] teaching the second microorganisms, as cells and/or spores, comprise… Sporosarcina pasteurii).
Regarding claims 22-23, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Dosier teaches further comprising gelling agents, where the gelling agents are at least one of… polysaccharides (claim 22) and further comprising gelling agents, where the gelling agents are at least one of… soy polysaccharides (claim 23) (see Dossier at [0027] teaching the composition may also include components that support the germination and/or growth of the… microorganisms such as, for example… polysaccharides).
Regarding claim 24, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Dosier further teaches where the transportable bio-cement is dried by… natural evaporation… prior to transportation (see Dosier at [0030] teaching the aqueous component and mixture is removed by… evaporation… dried powder… for future use).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dosier in view of Seifan as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Müller et al. (US 2021/0163357 A1) (“Muller” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and Dosier further teaches where the first binder is present in the transportable bio-cement in an amount of 0.01 to 75 weight percent based on the total weight of the bio-cement (see Dosier at [0019] teaching the composition further contains an aggregate material… at from about 10 percent to about 95 percent, by weight… of the composition) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Dosier does not explicitly teach where the nutrient is present in the transportable bio-cement in an amount of 0.01 to 10 weight percent, based on the total weight of the bio-cement.
However, as mentioned, Dosier teaches composition may also include components that support the germination and/or growth of the first and/or second microorganisms such as, for example… nutrients (see Dosier at [0027]). Dosier also teaches an alternative to these traditional processes (referring to traditional brick and concrete construction) involves a process known as microbial induced calcite precipitation (MICP)… MICP comprises mixing urease and urea as a source of energy with an aggregate material… the enzyme catalyzes the production of ammonia and carbon dioxide, increasing the pH level of the composition… a second enzyme, carbonic anhydrase, facilitates the transition of carbon dioxide into a carbonate anion… the rise in pH forms a mineral “precipitate”, combining calcium cations with carbonate anions (see Dosier at [0003]).
Like Dosier, Muller teaches a composition comprising microorganisms capable of precipitating calcium carbonate (see Muller at [0001] teaching the present disclosure relates to a composition comprising at least one microorganism capable of forming a… carbonate precipitate… and to a process for production of building products based on mineral building materials, wherein a corresponding composition is employed during production, see Muller at [0009] teaching microorganisms can heal cracks up to a certain extent by formation of calcium carbonate, so called MICB (microbial induced calcium precipitation). Like Dosier, Muller teaches nutrients for germination and/or growth of the microorganisms (see Muller at [0030] teaching it may be advantageous with the composition… contains an enrichment medium (often also called a growth medium or substrate) for enrichment of the microorganisms… the composition of the enrichment medium based on the respective dry weights of the individual components is dependent on the respective nutrient spectrum… the composition… preferably contains enrichment medium in an amount such that the mass ratio of enrichment medium to microorganisms in the composition… particularly preferably from 10:1 to 1:10).
Muller also teaches the mass fraction of microorganisms capable of forming a… carbonate precipitate in an alkaline medium based on the total mass of the composition, preferably on the total mass of the composition without accounting for water, is from 0.0001% to 10% by weight (see Muller at [0025]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that if the microorganism are from 0.0001% to 10% by weight, then enrichment (or nutrient) medium is 0.00001% (or 0.0001 ÷ 10) to 100% (or 10 x 10) based on the total mass of the composition, preferably on the total mass of the composition without accounting for water, which overlaps with the claimed where the nutrient is present in the bio-cement in an amount of 0.01 to 10 weight percent, based on the total weight of the bio-cement.
Additionally, MPEP states that "[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", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a mass ratio of enrichment (or nutrient) medium to microorganisms in the composition from 10:1 to 1:10 as taught by Muller as the amount of enrichment (or nutrient) medium in the composition as taught by Dosier because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amount would be suitable.
Claims 6-13 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dosier in view of Seifan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cameron et al. (WO 2020/180914 A1) (“Cameron” hereinafter); with evidence from Genetic Science Learning Center ("What is Cotton?", Learn Genetics) (“Genetics” hereinafter) as to the rejections of claims 7-9 and 21 only; also with evidence from Srubar et al. (WO 2021/087350 A1) (“Srubar” hereinafter) as to the rejection of claim 10 only; also with evidence from Bhina et al. (An overview on bioconcrete and the utilization of microbes in civil engineering, Preprints Review 2021) (“Bhina” hereinafter) and Britannica Encyclopedia (Nitrogen cycle) (“Britannica” hereinafter) both as to the rejection of claim 11 only; and finally with evidence from LPSN (Order “Synechococcales”) (“LSPN” hereinafter) as to the rejection of claim 13 only.
Regarding claim 6, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Dosier does not explicitly teach that the composition further comprises a reinforcing filler.
Like Dosier, Cameron teaches a composition comprising microorganisms capable of precipitating calcium carbonate (see Cameron at page 6 lines 22-25 teaching the disclosed living structural materials are formed by curing a mortar comprising… one or more precipitating microorganisms, see Cameron at page 7 lines 15-16 teaching these bacteria perform biomineralization which produces insoluble material, for example, calcite).
Cameron further teaches in another embodiment, the disclosed materials are reinforced by precipitation of polymeric material within the interstices of the material prior to curing… for example, void volumes of the original admixture are filled with one or more biopolymers which are produced by one or more microorganisms (see Cameron at page 7 lines 17-20)… a non-limiting example of a matrix forming material that is synthesized by a bacterium is the cellulose… associated outside into microfibrils and then into bundles of cellulose ribbons (see Cameron at page 7 line 28 to page 8 line 2). Cellulose is taken to meet the claimed reinforcing filler because cellulose is used to reinforce the mortar.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Cameron teaches that cellulose is used to reinforce the mortar produced from microorganisms capable of precipitating calcium carbonate, and seek those advantages by adding cellulose in the composition as taught by Dossier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add cellulose as taught by Cameron in the composition as taught by Dossier because cellulose is used to reinforce the mortar produced from microorganisms capable of precipitating calcium carbonate.
Regarding claims 7-9 and 21, Dosier in view of Seifan and Cameron teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and Cameron teaches further where the reinforcing filler comprises a fiber, and wherein the fibers are… polymeric fibers (claim 7), where the reinforcing filler comprises a… plant fiber (claim 8), where the reinforcing filler comprises… woven and non-woven fibers; wherein the woven and non-woven fibers… include… cotton fiber (claim 9), and wherein the reinforcing filler includes… polymeric fibers (claim 21) (see Cameron at page 7 lines 17-20 teaching in another embodiment, the disclosed materials are reinforced by precipitation of polymeric material within the interstices of the material prior to curing… for example, void volumes of the original admixture are filled with one or more biopolymers which are produced by one or more microorganisms, see Cameron at page 7 line 28 to page 8 line 2 teaching a non-limiting example of a matrix forming material that is synthesized by a bacterium is the cellulose… associated outside into microfibrils and then into bundles of cellulose ribbons). Cellulose is taken to meet the claimed where the reinforcing filler comprises a fiber, and wherein the fibers are… polymeric plant cotton fibers (claims 7-8 and 21), as evidenced by Genetics (see Genetics at page 1 paragraph 2 evidencing cotton fibers… cotton plants, see Genetics at page 3, paragraphs 4-5 evidencing cotton, like most other plant fibers, is made of a carbohydrate called cellulose… cellulose is a polymer). Cellulose is taken to meet the claimed reinforcing filler comprises woven and non-woven, wherein the woven and non-woven fibers include… cotton fiber (claim 9). Cellulose in cotton fiber is taken to meet the claimed “non-woven” because the cellulose microfibrils are in bundles of cellulose ribbons. Cotton fiber is taken to meet the claimed “woven” because fibers can be overlapped and twisted around each other, as evidenced by Genetics (see Genetics at page 3, paragraph 3 evidencing to make threads for fabric, individual fibers are overlapped and twisted around each other… longer fibers are more valuable than short ones, because they require less overlap and can therefore be woven into finer threads).
Regarding claim 10, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Dosier does not explicitly teach where the microorganism package comprises microorganisms that extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
However, please see claim 6 rejection above based on Cameron, as it is incorporated herein.
Cameron also teaches non-limiting examples of microorganisms that can induce the carbonate precipitation are photosynthetic microorganisms such as cyanobacteria… in one embodiment the precipitating microorganisms are chosen from… Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7002 (see Cameron at page 7 lines 8-11). Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7002 meets the claimed where the microorganism package comprises microorganisms that extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as evidenced by Srubar (see Srubar at page 9, lines 15-18 evidencing examples of media-controlled tailorability of CaCO3 is shown in Fig. 5, which illustrates that cyanobacteria (e.g., Synechococcus sp. PCC 7002, a photosynthetic carbon-sequestering that uses calcium present in seawater (its growth media) and CO2 from the atmosphere), can architect CaCO3 precipitates with different shapes and sizes).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7002- is a microorganism that can induce the carbonate precipitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7002- as a microorganism that can induce the carbonate precipitation as taught by Cameron in the composition as taught by Dosier because it is suitable for its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 11, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Dosier does not explicitly teaches where the microorganism package further comprises microorganisms that extract nitrogen from the atmosphere.
However, please see claim 6 rejection above based on Cameron, as it is incorporated herein.
Cameron also teaches non-limiting examples of microorganisms that can induce the carbonate precipitation are photosynthetic microorganisms such as cyanobacteria (see Cameron at page 7 lines 8-9). Cyanobacteria meets the claimed recitation as evidenced by Bhina and Britannica (see Bhina at section 3.3 paragraph 4 evidencing blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), and see Britannica at page 1 paragraph 2 evidencing nitrogen fixation, in which nitrogen gas is converted into inorganic nitrogen compounds, is mostly… accomplished by certain bacteria and blue-green algae).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that cyanobacteria can induce the carbonate precipitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use cyanobacteria that can induce the carbonate precipitation as taught by Cameron in the composition as taught by Dosier because it is suitable for its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 12-13, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Dosier does not explicitly teach wherein the microorganism comprises… Cyanobacteria (claim 12), wherein the microorganism comprises… Synechococcales (claim 13).
However, please see claim 6 rejection above based on Cameron, as it is incorporated herein.
Cameron also teaches non-limiting examples of microorganisms that can induce the carbonate precipitation are photosynthetic microorganisms such as cyanobacteria… in one embodiment the precipitating microorganisms are chosen from… Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7002… Synechococcus is a unicellular cyanobacterium (see Cameron at page 7 lines 8-15). Synechococcus meets the claimed Cyanobacteria (claim 12), and Synechococcales (claim 13) because Synechococcales is the order of the genus Synechococcus, as evidenced by LSPN (see LSPN at page 1, evidencing order “Synechococcales” genus “Synechococcus”).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Synechococcus is a microorganism that can induce the carbonate precipitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Synechococcus- as a microorganism that can induce the carbonate precipitation as taught by Cameron in the composition as taught by Dosier because it is suitable for its intended purpose.
Regarding claims 17 and 19-20, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Dosier does not explicitly teach further comprising a substrate, where the substrate comprises… a ceramic (claim 17), wherein the ceramic substrates comprise at least one of… sand (claim 19), and wherein the ceramic substrates comprise at least one of… silicon dioxide (claim 20).
However, please see claim 6 rejection above based on Cameron, as it is incorporated herein.
Cameron also teaches one or more inert substances (see Cameron at page 6 line 24)… non-limiting examples of inert substances includes… sand (SiO2 or silicon dioxide) (see Cameron at page 6 line 30). Sand is taken to meet the claimed ceramic substrates (claim 17), sand (claim 19), and silicon dioxide (claim 20).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that sand is suitable for compositions comprising microorganisms that can induce carbonate precipitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use sand as taught by Cameron in the composition as taught by Dosier because sand is suitable for compositions comprising microorganisms that can induce carbonate precipitation.
Regarding claim 18, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, but Dosier does not explicitly wherein the ceramic substrates comprise at least one of… metal oxides.
However, please see claim 6 rejection above based on Cameron, as it is incorporated herein.
Cameron also teaches one or more inert substances (see Cameron at page 6 line 24)… non-limiting examples of inert substances includes… calcium oxide (CaO) (see Cameron at page 6 line 30). Calcium oxide is taken to meet the claimed metal oxides.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that calcium oxide is suitable for compositions comprising microorganisms that can induce carbonate precipitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use calcium oxide as taught by Cameron in the composition as taught by Dosier because sand is suitable for compositions comprising microorganisms that can induce carbonate precipitation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dosier in view of Seifan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cameron and Bhina.
Regarding claim 16, Dosier in view of Seifan teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Dosier does not explicitly teach where the microorganisms comprise a green algae; where the green algae comprise Chlorella vulgaris, Ulva lactuca, Caulerpa taxifolia, Nannochloropsis sp., Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Volvox carteri, Dunaliella salina, Chara sp., Scenedesmus sp., Cladophora sp., and Trebouxia sp., or a combination thereof.
However, please see claim 6 rejection above based on Cameron, as it is incorporated herein.
Cameron also teaches carbonate precipitation are photosynthetic microorganisms such as cyanobacteria and microalgae (see Cameron at page 7 lines 9-10).
Like Dosier and Cameron, Bhina teaches microorganism capable of precipitating calcium carbonate (see Bhina at Abstract teaching the advancement of bioconcrete over cementitious composites has brought us to the application of microbes in the field of construction materials… as these microbes are able to induce calcite biomineralizations, the process is also known as Microbiologically Induced Calcite Precipitation (MICP)… some known microorganisms with their mentioned ability include… Chlorella vulgaris… (algae)). The algae Chlorella vulgaris is taken to meet the claimed where the microorganisms comprise a green algae; where the green algae comprise… Chlorella vulgaris.
Bhina also teaches the photosynthetic microorganisms are more eco-friendly as compared to bacterial and fungi… algae are rather easy to grow to reduce a part of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission produced by cement concrete (see Bhina at section 3.3 paragraph 7).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Bhina teaches that algae such as Chlorella vulgaris induces calcite biomineralizations because algae are rather easy to grow to reduce a part of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission produced by cement concrete, and seek those advantages by using an algae such as Chlorella vulgaris in the composition as taught by Dosier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an algae as taught by Bhina and Cameron such as Chlorella vulgaris as taught by Bhina in the composition as taught by Dosier because algae are rather easy to grow to reduce a part of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission produced by cement concrete.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended claim 1 based on Dosier have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Dosier for the added limitation or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner respectfully notes that the newly added limitation is met by Seifan, as outlined above (see claim 1 rejection based on Dosier in view of Seifan).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731