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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 2 in the reply filed on February 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the groups have the same special technical feature and general inventive concept of an amino modification using 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES). This is not found persuasive because since modifying polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) with APTES was known in the art as stated in the previous office communication and restated in the rejections that follow. In addition, the elected group does not require the argued amino modification agent, since it is recited in the alternative to a cyanuric chloride modification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 3 is canceled; claims 1 – 2, 4 – 20 are pending; claims 4 – 20 are withdrawn; claims 1 – 2 have been considered on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 18, 2023, August 21, 2024, December 11, 2024 and June 23, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 – 2 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.
Claims 1 – 2 are drawn to an enzyme immobilization carrier obtained by a process, however are rendered indefinite for reciting “super-crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol” as the phrase is not a term of art and is not adequately defined by the claim language or specification. Clarification is required.
In claim 2, the phrase “self-crosslinking” is not adequately defined by the claim language or specification. It is unclear what steps must be carried out to “self-crosslink” such that one knows what is included and excluded from the scope of the claim; and what steps are required to obtain the claimed enzyme immobilization carrier, particularly since the carrier is defined by how it is made and not what it comprises. While Embodiment 1 discloses combining PVA with hydrochloric acid at 70°C, there is no clear evidence that “self-crosslinking” has occurred under these conditions, but rather appears to be a facilitator for crosslinking agents. Further, this step is not recited into the claim, nor is the term “self-crosslinking” limited to or defined by this process.
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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (2012) in view of Seera et al. (2020).
Regarding claim 1, Zang teaches a catalase (enzyme) immobilization carrier that is obtained by modifying polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) with 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES) and crosslinking with glutaraldehyde (p.73, right col., p.74 2.2), or is an APTES modified crosslinked PVA.
Zang does not teach the immobilized enzyme carrier wherein the PVA is “super-crosslinked.” However, “super-crosslinked” PVA was known and commonly used in the art. In support, Seera teaches PVA that is crosslinked by both physical and chemical means, indicating a dual, or hyper, or double, or “super” crosslinked PVA (abstract). Specifically, Seera teaches polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) that is crosslinked by a freeze-thaw (or “self-crosslinking”) and chemical crosslinker (figure 1, p.6523), indicating the resulting PVA is “super-crosslinked.” As such, at the time the claims were filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use commonly used crosslinked PVA in the carrier of Zang as a matter of routine practice and experimentation, as evidenced by Seera, and with a reasonable expectation for successfully obtaining an effective enzyme immobilization carrier.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUTH A DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8am - 4pm).
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/RUTH A DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights