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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remark filed on 07/22/26 has been entered. Claims 3 and 13 are cancelled. New claims 21-22 are added. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-22 are pending and examined herein. Applicant’s amendment and remark have overcome each and every objection set forth in Office Action mailed on 04/17/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/22/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-12, 14-20 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of (US 20220145228 A1).
Status of Objection and Rejections
The objection of claim 11 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s Amendment.
The rejection of claims 3 and 13 is obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
The amendment necessitates new ground of rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-16, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hust (US 20220145228 A1) in view of DiTuro, and Dosier (Pub. No. US 2016/0264463 A1) as cited in previous OA.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 10, Hust discloses a biomolecular material (Fig. 1, magmatic 104) comprising:
a porous material (Fig. 2), the porous material being in the form of a solid (rigid foamed mass, para. [0029]), the porous material comprising crystalline components (the magmatics described herein may also be configured to bind a crystalline phase…, para. [0019]) and vitreous components (The mixture may also include one or more of the vitreous materials as described herein. Para. [0025]), the porous material comprising a surface, wherein at least a portion of the surface of the porous material is a substrate (shaded component of 104. Fig. 1-3), the substrate including an open-cell porosity such that passageways extend from a first external surface to an interior and to a second external surface (open cell structure 204, Fig. 2), wherein the porous material comprises a glass-based porous material (para. [0023] for claim 2) or engineered cellular magmatics (para. [0013] for claim 4);
one or more biomolecules, wherein the one or more biomolecules are retained on the substrate (Utilizing the systems and methods described herein, the resulting mesoporous magmatics may be utilized for several purposes, such as… a support media for biological species, a vehicle for nutrient materials…para. [0036]).
Hust does not explicitly disclose utilizing lyophilization (for claims 1 and 10).
In an analogous art, DiTuro discloses a puck comprising a porous material (micro-sponge, para. [0035]) with microorganism lyophilized onto a substrate and incorporated into the structure of the micro-sponge (These organisms can either be in a dry sporeulated form that has been lyophilized onto a substrate or in a suspended vegetative state which is then encapsulated into the structure of a micro-sponge. Para. [0035]).
Furthermore, analogous art Dosier discloses a glass-based porous material (a support material which may be organic or inorganic and is preferably a solid or semi-solid and preferably contains holes or perforations and/or is otherwise porous. Para. [0022]) wherein the material can be coated with a composition comprising lyophilized enzymes, spores, or live cells (para. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have replace the retainment of the biomolecules in the device of Hust by lyophilizing as taught by DiTuro to derive the claimed invention. Lyophilizing biomolecules onto the porous material of Hust eases storage and transportation (Dosier, para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Hust discloses the one or more biomolecules are present on a surface area of the biomolecular material in an amount from about 0.01% to about 100% (That is, growth of microbial species (e.g., Thiobacillus denitrificans and/or Paracoccus pantotrophus) in and/or on the magmatic 104, via the solution 106 (e.g. nutrient solution), configures the magmatic 104 to act as a cellular magmatic microbial habitat, filter media, bio scrubber, a bio-trickling filter, and/or a bio digester, capable of removal of hydrogen sulfide, and other pollutants, from desired environments.. Para. [0043]; the recited range virtually covers entire surface of the support material).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Hust discloses the biomolecular material has a bulk density from about 0.1 to 2.0 g/cc (the foamed mass may exhibit desired bulk densities, such as, but not limited to a bulk density between 40 pounds per cubic foot and 12 pounds per cubic foot. para. [0015]; 0.19 g/cc to 0.64 g/cc).
Regarding claims 8-9, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Hust discloses the biomolecules comprise one or more proteins or lipids (microbial growth includes at least one of Thiobacillus denitrificans, Paracoccus pantotrophus, Alcaligenes piechaudii, Ralstonia pickettii, Pseudomonas putida, Flexibactor CF Santi, Pseudomonas frederiksbergensis, Staphylococcus warneri, Sphingomonas, Phyllobacterium, Proteobacteria, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, or Rhizobium., claim 3; all of which comprises proteins or lipids).
Regarding claim 21, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Hust discloses wherein the porous materials comprises vitreous materials contained at least partially within pores of the porous materials (vitreous materials/infiltration materials 206, Fig. 2; para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 22, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1. Hust discloses the vitreous materials define mesoporous regions and microporous regions within the porous material (The infiltration material 206 may aggregate in the void of the cells and bind with the cell wall and/or not bind with the cell wall such that the infiltration material “floats” or is otherwise not affixed to the cell wall. By so doing, mesoporous and/or nanoporous regions between individual infiltration material components may be formed. Para. [0050]; In these examples, some substances that contact the first layer may be sequestered or more sequestered than when the substances contact a second layer. By so doing, a single magmatic may exhibit nanoporous, mesoporous, and/or microporous portions and may act to sequester and/or react with multiple different substances that contact the magmatic. Para. [0022]).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, Hust discloses a method for forming biomolecular material comprising:
applying one or more biomolecules (A method comprising:…applying a solution containing a nutrient material upon the foamed mass. Claim 13) to the porous material of claim 1, 2, and 4.
Hust does not explicitly disclose utilizing lyophilization.
In an analogous art, DiTuro discloses a method preparing a puck comprising a porous material (micro-sponge, para. [0035]) with microorganism lyophilized onto a substrate and incorporated into the structure of the micro-sponge (These organisms can either be in a dry sporeulated form that has been lyophilized onto a substrate or in a suspended vegetative state which is then encapsulated into the structure of a micro-sponge. Para. [0035]).
Furthermore, analogous art Dosier discloses a glass-based porous material (a support material which may be organic or inorganic and is preferably a solid or semi-solid and preferably contains holes or perforations and/or is otherwise porous. Para. [0022]) wherein the material can be coated with a composition comprising lyophilized enzymes, spores, or live cells (para. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have replaced the retainment method of the biomolecules of Hust with alternative such as lyophilizing the biomolecules as taught by DiTuro to derive the claimed invention. Lyophilizing biomolecules onto the porous material of Ruf eases storage and transportation (Dosier, para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 11. Hust discloses the one or more biomolecules are present on a surface area of the biomolecular material in an amount from about 0.01% to about 100% (That is, growth of microbial species (e.g., Thiobacillus denitrificans and/or Paracoccus pantotrophus) in and/or on the magmatic 104, via the solution 106 (e.g. nutrient solution), configures the magmatic 104 to act as a cellular magmatic microbial habitat, filter media, bio scrubber, a bio-trickling filter, and/or a bio digester, capable of removal of hydrogen sulfide, and other pollutants, from desired environments.. Para. [0043]; the recited range virtually covers entire surface of the support material).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 11. Hust discloses the biomolecular material has a bulk density from about 0.1 to 2.0 g/cc (the foamed mass may exhibit desired bulk densities, such as, but not limited to a bulk density between 40 pounds per cubic foot and 12 pounds per cubic foot. para. [0015]; 0.19 g/cc to 0.64 g/cc).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 11. Hust discloses the method further comprising combining an aqueous composition with the one or more biomolecules (a solution containing a nutrient material, claim 13) before the one or more biomolecules are applied to the porous material (applying a solution containing a nutrient material upon the foamed mass. Claim 13).
Regarding claim 19. Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 11. Dosier (after incorporation with Hust and DiTuro) discloses the method further comprises storing and transporting the biomolecular to a site (preferably lyophilized for ease of storage and transport, para. [0019]); and
deploying the biomolecular material at the site (and re-hydrated before use with water, buffered water or another hydrating agent, para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 19. Dosier, after incorporation, discloses the biomolecular material is stored and/or transported at standard pressure conditions (ambient pressures, para. [0020]).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hust, DiTuro, and Dosier as discussed above in claims 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of Ruf (Pub. No. US 2013/0224823 A1) as cited in previous Office Action.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Modified Hust discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 1 and 11 respectively. Though Hust discloses the surface area of the material can be increased or decreased based on the amounts of reactive agents used (In situations where a reactive agent is included in the mixture, application of heat in the kiln may be performed until, in examples, the reactive agent comprises a significant fraction of the surface area of the foamaceous mass and/or until the reactive agent comprises a residue on surfaces of the foamaceous mass. Para. [0027]), neither Hust, DiTuro, nor Dosier explicitly discloses the biomolecular material has a surface area from about 0.1 squared meters per gram to 100 squared meters per gram.
In an analogous art, Ruf discloses a biomolecular material (Fig. 1) comprising:
a porous material (support 5, Fig. 1), the porous material being in the form of a solid (solid foam, para. [0033]), the porous material comprising crystalline components (crystalline constituents, para. [0198]) and vitreous components (within the otherwise at least predominantly amorphous glass structure, para. [0195]), the porous material comprising a surface (surface of the support; para. [0045]), wherein at least a portion of the surface of the porous material is a substrate (In this embodiment the magnetizable aggregate can thus adsorb the substrate. Para. [0040]),;
one or more biomolecules (molecule, preferably biologically active, para. [0064] or microorganism, para. [0065]), wherein the one or more biomolecules are retained on the substrate (para. [0065]).
Ruf discloses it is desirable to increase the surface area in order to provide more binding sites for biological active components (it is preferred that the magnetizable support has a relatively small diameter as thereby a high surface area is produced on which the active component is provided in the form of a capture molecule which in turn can enter into a non-covalent bond with the substrate in order to bond the substrate to the magnetizable aggregate. Para. [0088]). Therefore, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified, before the effective filing date, the diameter and surface area of the material of Modified Hust to derive the claimed surface area range in order to increase number of biological active components adhered to the surface of the material (para. [0088], Ruf).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICKEY HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 PM ET.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 5712707698. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights