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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 13-25 are withdrawn due to a restriction. Claims 1-12 are original, pending, and under examination.
Priority
This application claims the priority of U.S provisional application 63/487,591, filed on 02/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement has been submitted by the applicant.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12) without traverse in the response filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, here being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains improper claim language. It recites “solubilized (non-crystalline) amorphous calcium carbonate”. The terms “non-crystalline” and “amorphous” are redundant, as amorphous material is inherently non-crystalline. Applicant is advised to remove one of these terms to eliminate redundancy.
Claims 1, 3, 11 and 12 are objected to for periods present after the a, b and c in the claims. In these instances, the periods can be replaced with notations like a), b), c) instead. Additional periods in the claims should be avoided if not necessary.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “selected from the groups consisting of amino acids and carboxylic acids”. Proper Markush format requires the phrase “selected from the group consisting of”. Applicant is advised to amend to claim to meet proper Markush formatting requirements.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 is missing a period at the end of the claim. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to include proper punctuation.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claim 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “aragonite-calcium carbonate” and “calcite-calcium carbonate”. These terms are not standard terminology and render the scope of the claim unclear. Aragonite and calcite are themselves known crystalline polymorphs of calcium carbonate. It is therefore unclear whether the applicant intends to refer specifically to the polymorphs of aragonite or calcite, or more broadly to calcium carbonate in general. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the recited claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty based on these recitations, and is thus indefinite.
Claim 2 recites that the “carbon dioxide and said carbonic acid are present in a ratio of between 2:1 to 15:1”. However, the claim fails to specify the type of ratio being recited (e.g., molar ratio, volume ratio, weight ratio, or concentration ratio). Because the claim does not specify the basis of ratio, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, and is thus indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said inorganic inhibitor" in “The method according to claim 1, wherein said inorganic inhibitor is added with molar ratios of magnesium ion to calcium ion ranging from 0.1 to 2.5”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 does not mention an inorganic inhibitor. However, claim 3 does indeed recite one, and it is thus recommended to change the dependency of claim 4 from claim 1 to claim 3.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “double bonded oxygen atoms”, and the claim also recites “(carbonyl groups)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites that the organic macromolecule “is a functionalized cellulose like compound”. The term “cellulose like” is a relative and undefined term that does not provide objective boundaries for determining what compounds fall-within the scope of the claim. Neither the claim nor the specifications specify what structural or functional characteristics render the compound “cellulose-like”. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty, rendering it indefinite.
Claims 3, 5-6, and 9-12 are also indefinite because they are dependents of an indefinite claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki et al. (US6593408B1) in view of Fritz et al. (US20070225328A1) as evidenced by Natali et al. (Natali I, Tempesti P, Carretti E, et al. Aragonite crystals grown on bones by reaction of CO2 with nanostructured Ca(OH)2 in the presence of collagen. Implications in archaeology and paleontology. Langmuir. 2014;30(2):660-668. doi:10.1021/la404085v). Takaki et al. discloses an organic polymer/inorganic fine particle-dispersed aqueous solution having high dispersion stability, a composite, production processes therefor and uses thereof. Takaki et al. teaches that such composition be used to form multilayer films (column 25, lines 25-31). Takaki et al. teaches that for such compositions, an example of inorganic fine particles produced are calcium carbonate (column 22, lines 50-52). Takaki et al. teaches that when such particles containing calcium carbonate are produced, the method for producing them involves combining calcium hydroxide with carbonic acid and carbon dioxide (column 22, lines 57-60), which covers all required components of element A in present claim 1. Takaki et al. teaches that such compositions may include the step of adding an organic acid to produce stable particles (column 6, lines 16-26), and that such structures of calcium carbonate may be in any amorphous or crystal form (e.g., aragonite) (column 20, lines 13-15), which covers the required components of element B in the present claims. This is further evidenced by Natali et al., which notes and evidences that carbonation of Ca(OH)2 (calcium carbonate) results in a mixture of calcite and aragonite (abstract of Natali). Takaki et al. teaches reacting compound of a second group element in the periodic table (column 5, line 5), and specifically includes the presence of divalent cations such as Ca2+ and Mg2+ in the disclosure (column 19, 65-66), thereby disclosing the addition of divalent cations. Takaki et al. further teaches that the reaction is carried out in the presence of a water-soluble or water dispersible synthetic high molecular compound having a carboxyl group (column 6, lines 25-27), and describes such polymers to include carboxyl-modified polyvinyl alcohol and vinylpyrrolidone polymers (column 7, lines 29-33), Each of which contains Carbonyl (C=O) groups having double-bonded oxygen atoms. Takaki et al. also explains that stable dispersions depend on “adsorption strength to inorganic fine particles” (column 14, lines 11-15), indicating interaction between the polymer and divalent cation-containing inorganic particles formed in the reaction system. Together, these disclosures teach addition of divalent cations in the presence of carbonyl-containing polymers that adsorb to the inorganic particles, thereby covering all required elements recited in claim 7.
However, Takaki et al. fails to sufficiently teach all required components of element C in claim 1, in addition to the required elements of claim 8-12.
Fritz et al. discloses a method of manufacturing sustainable biominerals such as nacre (abstract). Fritz et al. teaches that such methods produce biogenic calcium carbonate crystals in vitro (¶ 26). Fritz et al. teaches that the method of manufacture involves a solution to form such material (claim 1B). Fritz et al. teaches that the method can form a layered composite (¶ 32). Fritz et al. teaches that aragonite (a calcium carbonate polymorph & mineral) is produced as such crystals (claim 2), with an example showing the overlapping mineral platelets in the layered nacre structure (¶ 15). Fritz et al. teaches that for such multilayered structures, thin mineral layers alternating with thin organic layers can be applied in plated form (¶ 55). Fritz et al. teaches that the matrix of these organic layers contains a core of chitin (¶ 37). Figure 2 of Fritz et al. illustrates that in the nacre, aragonite platelets are arranged in layers, separated by sheets of the organic matrix (containing chitin) in vertical direction (¶ 140), with chitin being applied directly over the aragonite, which covers all required components of element C in present claim 1, in addition to all required elements of present claims 8, 9, and 10. Fritz teaches “The amazing properties of the biomineral nacre for example are due to the highly organized structure guided by the organic material, which is incorporated in the mineral phase aragonite, a calcium carbonate polymorph, and wherein the biogenic polymer/mineral composite nacre is grown by a self-organization process, where a few weight percent of organic material governs the specific crystallization of the calcium carbonate polymorph aragonite” (paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the calcium carbonate particle synthesis method of Takaki et al. within the biomineral fabrication framework of Fritz et al. This is because Takaki et al. teaches forming calcium carbonate particles in aqueous solutions by reacting calcium hydroxide with carbon dioxide and carbonic acid in the presence of organic acids and polymeric materials that stabilize the particles and interact with divalent cations, while Fritz et al. teaches the manufacture of nacre-like minerals comprising layered aragonite platelets separated by organic matrices such as chitin. Because both references relate to controlled formation of calcium carbonate composites in aqueous environments using organic matrices to regulate mineral growth and stabilization, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the particle formation approach of Takaki et al. in the nacre-forming system of Fritz et al. in order to obtain a stable calcium carbonate particles suitable for incorporation into layered biomaterial structures, with a reasonable expectation of success, as each reference employs compatible mineralization conditions and materials to control calcium carbonate formation. The ratio of carbon dioxide to carbonic acid recited in claim 2 represent only a particular selection of reagent concentrations within the reaction system already disclosed by Takaki et al., which expressly teaches the combined use of carbon dioxide and carbonic acid to form calcium carbonate, and determining suitable relative concentrations of such reagents would thus have been a matter of routine optimization of result-effective variables in known precipitation reactions absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. Further, Fritz et al. explicitly teaches that nacre structures consist of mineral platelets arranged in layers separated by organic matrices and that such structures are formed through sequential deposition of minerals and organic components; therefore forming a first layer using the mineralization process to generate successive layers, as recited in claims 11 and 12, represents the predictable repetition of a known fabrication step to build a multi-layer biomineral composite and would have thus been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki et al. (US6593408B1) in view of Fritz et al. (US20070225328A1) in further view of Constantz et al. (US20100077691A1) as evidenced by Natali et al. (Natali I, Tempesti P, Carretti E, et al. Aragonite crystals grown on bones by reaction of CO2 with nanostructured Ca(OH)2 in the presence of collagen. Implications in archaeology and paleontology. Langmuir. 2014;30(2):660-668. doi:10.1021/la404085v)..
Takaki et al. and Fritz et al. collectively teach all limitations of present claim 1.
However, they fail to collectively teach the limitations of present claims 3-4.
Constantz et al. teaches CO2-sequestering formed building materials, with the building materials of the invention having a composition comprising a carbonate/bicarbonate component. Constantz et al. teaches that such building materials can be in the form of a slab (¶ 4), which a nacre can form (e.g., an oyster shell may reasonably be considered a slab). Constantz et al. teaches that the carbonate compounds are precipitated from an aqueous solution of divalent cations (¶ 28), with the carbonate compound compositions of the invention including precipitated crystalline calcium carbonate compounds such as aragonite (¶ 27). Constantz et al. teaches that the carbonate compound compositions of certain embodiments are produced by precipitation from a solution of divalent cations that includes alkaline earth metal cations, such as calcium and magnesium (¶ 74). Constantz et al. teaches that increasing the magnesium: calcium ion ratio in the water causes the aragonite to become the favored polymorph of calcium carbonate over low-magnesium calcite (¶ 81), which satisfies all required elements of present claim 3. Constantz et al. teaches that a wide range of magnesium: calcium ion ratios can be employed, including, 100:1, 50:1, 20:1, 10:1, 5:1, 2:1, 1:1, 1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:20, 1:50, 1:100 (¶ 81), which satisfies the required elements of claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the magnesium ion teachings of Constantz et al. into the calcium carbonate mineralization processes collectively taught by Takaki et al. and Fritz et al. This is because Constantz et al. teaches that the ratio of magnesium ions to calcium ions in aqueous carbonate precipitation systems directly influences the polymorph of the calcium-carbonate formed, with increase magnesium favoring formation of aragonite over calcite. Since Fritz et al. is directed to producing aragonite-based nacre structures and Takaki et al. teaches aqueous synthesis of calcium carbonate particles, a person of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to apply the magnesium ion ratios taught by Constantz et al. in the mineralization processes collectively taught by Takaki et al. and Fritz et al. in order to control calcium carbonate polymorph formation and promote aragonite during synthesis, with a reasonable expectation of success because all processes involve compatible aqueous systems for producing crystalline forms of calcium carbonate.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki et al. (US6593408B1) in view of Fritz et al. (US20070225328A1) in further view of Blum et al. (US20170216349A1) as evidenced by Natali et al. (Natali I, Tempesti P, Carretti E, et al. Aragonite crystals grown on bones by reaction of CO2 with nanostructured Ca(OH)2 in the presence of collagen. Implications in archaeology and paleontology. Langmuir. 2014;30(2):660-668. doi:10.1021/la404085v).
Takaki et al. and Fritz et al. collectively teach all limitations of present claim 1.
However, they fail to collectively teach the limitations of present claims 5-6.
Blum et al. discloses stabilized amorphous calcium carbonate formulations (abstract). Blum et al. teaches that in certain embodiments, the compositions of the present invention may comprise up to 20% by weight water of the total composition (¶ 77). Blum et al. teaches that up to 20% of the amorphous form may be converted into a crystalline form over the course of a defined time frame (e.g., several weeks) (¶ 60). Blum et al. teaches such crystalline forms to include aragonite (¶ 2). Blum et al. teaches that the composition may include stabilizers such as amino acids and carboxylic acids at concentrations ranging from about 0.1% to about 15% wt. of the total weight of the stabilized amorphous calcium carbonate (¶ 117), which satisfies all required elements of present claims 5 and 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the stabilizers and their concentration ranges taught by Blum et al. into the calcium carbonate mineralization processes of Takaki et al. and Fritz et al. This is because Blum et al. teaches that amino acids and carboxylic acids stabilize amorphous calcium carbonate and hence regulates its transformation into crystalline calcium carbonate forms such as aragonite. Since Takaki et al. and Fritz et al. are likewise directed to controlled formation of calcium carbonate particles and aragonite-based structures, a person of ordinary skill in in the art would have been motivated to employ the stabilizers disclosed in Blum et al. to improve stability and control over calcium carbonate mineralization in the combined Takaki et al. and Fritz et al. processes, with a reasonable expectation of success because all references utilize compatible aqueous systems to create calcium carbonate in crystalline form.
Conclusions
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYA AHMADI BAZARGANI whose telephone number is (571)272-0211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571) 272-0581. 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.
Arya A. Bazargani, Ph.D.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1613
/MARK V STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613