DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 18, 19, 22-28, 31, 33 and 38-41 are pending. Claims 38-41 are new, and Claims 1-17, 20, 21, 29-30, 32 and 34-37 are canceled.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 08 May 2026, with respect to the grounds of rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The grounds of rejection have been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims in a manner that addresses and overcomes the issues of indefiniteness that required the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); therefore, upon further consideration, said grounds of rejection have been withdrawn. Please consult the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 08 May 2026 for more detail on why the grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that Lopez-Perez et al. (herein referred to as “Lopez”; Phytochemistry 70(4):492-500, 2009) discloses a centrifugation step that produces resin-emb3edded purified plasma membranes for the purpose of measuring vesicles using electron microscopy, which is different from the instant application’s use in downstream separation membrane fabrication. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the vesicles are produced using the method in the instant claims, regardless of later use. The grounds of rejection are therefore maintained.
Applicant further argues that Lopez does not disclose “aquaporins in the vesicles serve to permeate water”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the second paragraph of the introduction recites “aquaporins are transmembrane proteins that function as channels, to facilitate and regulate the permeation of water molecules across biological membranes”. For this teaching, the grounds of rejection stand. Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the art is considered analogous for the reasons detailed in the prior Office action and repeated below.
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.
Claims 18, 22, 24 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopez-Perez et al. (herein referred to as “Lopez”; “Changes in plasma membrane lipids, aquaporins and proton pump of broccoli roots, as an adaptation mechanism to salinity”, PHYTOCHEMISTRY, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 70, no. 4, 1 March 2009 (2009-03-01), pages 492-500, XP026029325, ISSN: 0031-9422, DOI: 10.1016/J.PHYTOCHEM.2009.01.014; found and cited in IDS filed 02/09/2024).
Regarding instant Claim 18, Lopez discloses a method of preparing a vesicle comprised of a material comprising plant plasma membrane components, said vesicle comprising plant-derived transmembrane proteins, in a liquid composition (Abstract; pg. 4942, 2.2, Paragraph [0001]; broccoli root, including plasma membrane vesilces, proteins in cells of roots, such as PIP), comprising extracting the plant plasma membrane components and the plant-derived transmembrane proteins from a plant using ultracentrifugation and/or two-phase partitioning (pg. 498, 4.9, see centrifugation at 100000g for 45 min).
Regarding instant Claim 22, Claim 18, upon which Claim 22 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lopez further discloses wherein the liquid composition comprises a total protein concentration of the liquid composition is below 10 mg/ml (pg. 498, 4.9, see concentration of 1 mg/ml).
Regarding instant Claim 24, Claim 1, upon which Claim 24 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lopez further discloses a separation membrane comprised of a material comprising plant plasma membrane components, said vesicle comprising plant-derived transmembrane proteins (Abstract; pp. 493-494; I. Paragraph [0002]; aquaporins in the vesicles serve to permeate water).
Regarding instant Claim 38, Claim 24, upon which Claim 38 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lopez further discloses wherein the vesicle is obtained without purifying the plant-derived transmembrane proteins from the plant plasma membrane components (Lopez does not disclose such a step).
Regarding instant Claim 39, Claim 24, upon which Claim 39 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lopez further discloses wherein the plant-derived transmembrane proteins are aquaporin water channels (Abstract; pp. 493-494; I. Paragraph [0002]; aquaporins in the vesicles serve to permeate water).
Regarding instant Claim 40, Claim 24, upon which Claim 40 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lopez further discloses wherein the plant-derived components comprise plant plasma membrane phospholipids (Abstract; pp. 493-494, I. Paragraph [0002]; see aquaporins, which are phospholipids).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez-Perez et al. (herein referred to as “Lopez”; “Changes in plasma membrane lipids, aquaporins and proton pump of broccoli roots, as an adaptation mechanism to salinity”, PHYTOCHEMISTRY, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 70, no. 4, 1 March 2009 (2009-03-01), pages 492-500, XP026029325, ISSN: 0031-9422, DOI: 10.1016/J.PHYTOCHEM.2009.01.014; found and cited in IDS filed 02/09/2024) in view of Flemming et al. (herein referred to as “Flemming”, US 6117436).
Regarding instant Claim 19, Claim 18, upon which Claim 19 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lopez further discloses mixing the extracted plant-derived transmembrane proteins with a basic formulation obtained with a phosphate-buffered saline solution (pg. 498, 4.9; see potassium phosphate solution at pH of 7.8).
However, Lopez is silent on the basic formulation also including dissolved polyethylene glycol-hydroxystearate.
Flemming discloses a cosmetic care product with two components in the same field of endeavor, as it solves the mutual problem of extracting plant material using a solution (Abstract; Col. 10, Lines 18-40). Flemming further discloses polyethylene glycol hydroxystearate as a viable solubilizer for the extraction of plant matter (Col. 10, Lines 18-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the basic formulation of Lopez by further including dissolved polyethylene glycol-hydroxystearate as taught by Flemming because Flemming discloses such a compound is a viable solubilizer for the extraction of plant matter (Flemming, Col. 10, Lines 18-40).
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.
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez-Perez et al. (herein referred to as “Lopez”; “Changes in plasma membrane lipids, aquaporins and proton pump of broccoli roots, as an adaptation mechanism to salinity”, PHYTOCHEMISTRY, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 70, no. 4, 1 March 2009 (2009-03-01), pages 492-500, XP026029325, ISSN: 0031-9422, DOI: 10.1016/J.PHYTOCHEM.2009.01.014; found and cited in IDS filed 02/09/2024) in view of Spulber et al. (herein referred to as “Spulber”, US Pat Pub. 2019/0076789; found in IDS filed 12/01/2023).
Regarding instant Claim 25, Claim 24, upon which Claim 25 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, Lopez is silent on the separation membrane comprising an active layer incorporating the vesicle and a porous support membrane.
Spulber discloses self-assembled nanostructures and separation membranes comprising aquaporin water channels and methods of making and using them in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing vesicles comprising transmembrane proteins (Abstract; Paragraphs [0152]-[0154]). Spubler further discloses a semipermeable porous support in a liquid composition that aids in the formation of an active membrane layer via self-assembly of protein nanostructures (Paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the separation membrane and vesicles of Lopez to further comprise the active layer and porous support membrane as taught by Spulber because Spulber discloses the porous support aids in the formation of an active membrane layer via self-assembly of the vesicles (Spulber, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding instant Claim 26, Claim 25, upon which Claim 26 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the active layer comprises the vesicle incorporated in a thin film composite (TFC) layer formed on a porous support membrane (Spulber, Paragraph [0006]; see thin film composite and membrane).
Regarding instant Claim 27, Claim 26, upon which Claim 27 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the TFC layer is formed by interfacial polymerization between a di-amine or tri-amine monomer compound and an acyl halide monomer compound (Spulber, Paragraph [0042]; acyl halide reactant; 1, 3-diaminobenzene).
Regarding instant Claim 28, Claim 27, upon which Claim 28 is dependent, has been rejected above. the combined references further disclose wherein the vesicles are immobilized and/or chemically bound to the TFC layer by naturally occurring free reactive groups on the surface of the vesicles (Spulber, Paragraph [0042]; see amino reactive groups).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez-Perez et al. (herein referred to as “Lopez”; “Changes in plasma membrane lipids, aquaporins and proton pump of broccoli roots, as an adaptation mechanism to salinity”, PHYTOCHEMISTRY, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 70, no. 4, 1 March 2009 (2009-03-01), pages 492-500, XP026029325, ISSN: 0031-9422, DOI: 10.1016/J.PHYTOCHEM.2009.01.014; found and cited in IDS filed 02/09/2024) in view of Daniel et al. (herein referred to as “Daniel”, US Pat Pub. 2021/0324366).
Regarding instant Claim 41, Claim 24, upon which Claim 41 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, Lopez is silent on proteins from the Spinacia genus.
Daniel discloses a supported plant plasma membrane lipid bilayer on-a-chip in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing plant plasma membranes (Abstract; Paragraph [0115]). Daniel further discloses that plant membranes can come from the Spinacia genus (Paragraph [0115]; see spinach).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plant-derived transmembrane proteins or plant plasma membrane components of Lopez to further comprise those that have originated from the Spiancia genus as taught by Daniel because Daniel discloses such a genus is a source for such proteins and/or components (Daniel, Paragraph [0115]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 23 would be considered allowable if not for the dependency on Claim 18, which rejected for the reasons above. A more detailed reasons for allowance will be provided upon allowance of the entire claim set.
Claims 31 and 33 are allowed. Claim 31 is considered allowable at this time, and a more detailed reasons for allowance will be provided upon allowance of the entire claim set.
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 RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights