DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/070401, filed 20 July 2022, which claims foreign priority to GB2110423.7, filed 20 July 2021, and GB2110426.0, filed 20 July 2021.
The preliminary amendment filed 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-17, 19-22, 26 and 27 are pending in the current application. Claims 15-17, 19-22, 26 and 27 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention, see below. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 14 are examined on the merits herein.
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 of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-11 and 14 in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-17, 19-22, 26 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant’s election of “silver nitrate” as the species of “antimicrobial agent precursor/metal” and “Dispersin B (Seq ID No 9)” as the species of “protein/peptide” in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the steps necessary to arrive at an antimicrobial cellulose-containing microporous superabsorbent composition.
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 1 recites the broad recitation “aqueous solution”, and the claim also recites “preferably comprising an alkaline reagent”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are 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.
Similarly, claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 11 are indefinite for the recitation of “preferably”.
The recitation “contacting the cellulose or the functionalized cellulose with the antimicrobial peptides and/or proteins” in claim 5 lacks antecedent basis, because it is not positively recited in claim 1. Additionally, claim 5 is describing additional step d1, however, claim 1 does not recite steps a, b, c or d.
It appears Applicant might have intended for claim 5 to depend from claim 2. For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as depending from claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hepworth et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0202940, cited in IDS submitted 17 April 2024).
Hepworth et al. disclose preparing cellulose-containing particles, the method includes taking plant material and drying them prior to forming them into particles (para [0027]). The particles can be formed by grinding or milling to provide a required diameter size (para [0028]). Preferably, the plant material is crushed and then comminuted to particles of the desired size (para [0029]). The obtained cellulose particles have a mean average diameter of from 50 µm to 600 µm, or from 250 µm to 550 µm (para [0033]). The cellulose-containing particle can then be treated with an aqueous solution of an alkali or alkaline earth metal peroxide (e.g. sodium peroxide or barium peroxide), (para [0042], [0043]). In an example, dried sugar beet pellets were ground into powder using a flour mill (para [0087]). The particles had a diameter of 75-150 µm, or 150 µm and above. Sugar beet powder having a particle diameter size up to 700 µm (para [0090]).
Hepworth et al. disclose converting the plant material into particles prior to processing to degrade the cell wall enables the viscosity of the mixture to be kept at a level which facilitates processing steps such as reagent addition, heating and washing (para [0013]). The role of the peroxide reagent is to aid in releasing cellulose from the plant (para [0042]).
In example 7, 30 g dry untreated sugar beet powder was produced by grinding the plant material to a diameter size below 800 µm. The material was allowed to hydrate, and was fond to increase swelling capacity by 683% (para [0101]).
Hepworth et al. disclose the cellulose-containing material can be used as part of a coating to enhance the visual appearance of paper or cardboard, and composites; it can be used in personal care products, including soaps, shampoos, shower, bath and body gels as well as in skin creams, lotions and cosmetics where it can enhance the rheology of the product (claims 23-27; para [0060], [0068], [0076]).
While Hepworth et al. do not disclose the obtained product is “microporous” or a “superabsorbent composition”, the method steps disclosed by Hepworth et al. are the same as the active method steps recited in present claim 1. Furthermore, the particulated plant material was found to swell by 683%. Thus, the cellulose particles of Hepworth et al. are necessarily microporous and superabsorbent.
Thus, the disclosure of Hepworth et al. anticipates claim 1 of the present application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth et al. in view of Auger et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0146679, cited in PTO-892).
Hepworth et al. teach as discussed above.
Hepworth et al. do not expressly contact the microparticles with an antimicrobial agent precursor under conditions inducive to the formation, attachment or binding of an antimicrobial agent, and isolating the antimicrobially modified microporous superabsorbent composition/film (claim 2, steps d and e).
Auger et al. teach an antimicrobial material comprising nanocellulose to which silver nanoparticles are attached by microwave irradiation (para [0001]). Cellulose is a desirable material, because it is biodegradable, recyclable and carbon-neutral (para [0002]). These materials can be used in the food industry as food papers and/or films (para [0005]). Auger et al. teach it is preferable that they have antibacterial properties, to enable longer storage of the foods contained in these packages (para [0006]). The incorporation of antibacterial agents, including antibacterial peptides and silver with cellulose-based materials has been taught (para [0007]-[0008]). Microwave irradiation allows for the silver to be permanently immobilized to cellulose, such that the silver is not leached from the material (see para[0021]-[0031]).The silver used is preferably silver nitrate (claim 6). The final antimicrobial composition may be dried to remove any aqueous solvents (para [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contact the microparticle-based cellulose material of Hepworth et al. with silver nitrate and irradiate it, because it confers antimicrobial properties to the cellulose material, whereby silver is permanently attached to the cellulose.
Starting from Hepworth et al., the ordinary artisan would have looked to the teaching of Auger et al., because in the same field of endeavor of preparing cellulose-based materials, Auger et al. found they could be functionalized to have antibacterial properties.
The use of irradiation to attach silver is quick and inexpensive, and does not require extreme reaction conditions. The resulting product is a cellulose having silver permanently attached, and not at risk of losing or leaching silver over time.
Thus, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious over the combined teaching of the prior art.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth et al. in view of Auger et al. as applied to claims 1, 2 and 9 above, and further in view of Gonzalez et al. (International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2017, vol. 105, pp. 741-748, cited in IDS submitted 17 April 2024).
Hepworth et al. teach as discussed above.
Hepworth et al. do not expressly disclose contacting the cellulose particulate material with TEMPO, and contacting the cellulose with antimicrobial peptides/proteins (claim 5).
Auger et al. teach as discussed above.
Gonzalez et al. teach a method for immobilizing antimicrobial peptides onto cellulose nanopaper, the method comprises oxidizing cellulose nanofibers with TEMPO (abstract). Gonzalez et al. teach antimicrobial peptides are advantageous to antibiotics because they can target a variety of organisms, which have difficulty building resistance against them (p.741). In the method, plant material was dispersed in water, whereupon NaBr and TEMPO were dissolved. After dispersion, NaClO was added while maintaining the pH at 10. Afterwards, NaOH was added until constant pH. The oxidized cellulose was rinsed with water to eliminate reactants (p.742, section 2.2.2.). A solution of the antimicrobial peptide was prepared, and treated with the cellulose material (p.743, 2.2.4). The obtained cellulose was dried. The cellulose and peptide appear to be bound electrostatically via the negatively charged COO- on cellulose, and the positively charged peptide (p.746, last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat cellulose with TEMPO, and subsequently attach antimicrobial peptides, as well as functionalize the cellulose with silver.
Auger et al. and Gonzalez et al. are similarly concerned with preparing antimicrobial cellulose, including via electrostatic means. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify cellulose with TEMPO prior to treating it with the antimicrobial peptide and silver, because TEMPO causes the cellulose to form a negative COO- charge, which electrostatically binds to the positively charged peptides and silver.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform a rinsing step to remove any non-reacted antimicrobial agent precursor and/or reaction products, because Gonzalez et al. teach rinsing TEMPO-treated cellulose with water to eliminate reactants. While the prior art references do not disclose treating peptide-treated cellulose or silver-treated cellulose with water, one having ordinary skill in the art would have routinely optimized purification steps to obtain a higher purity product.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the combined teaching of the prior art.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth et al. in view of Auger et al. as applied to claims 1, 2 and 9 above, and further in view of Gonzalez et al. (International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2017, vol. 105, pp. 741-748, cited in IDS submitted 17 April 2024) and Metcalf et al. (US Patent No. 12,076,215, cited in PTO-892).
Hepworth et al. teach as discussed above.
Hepworth et al. do not expressly disclose dispersin B (present claim 9).
Auger et al. teach as discussed above.
Metcalf et al. teach preparing fabric materials comprising gel-forming hydrofibers for disrupting a biofilm (abstract). The layer of gel-forming fibers can comprise cellulose, and modified cellulose (col.1-2, bridging para). The device further comprises an anti-biofilm agent (col.2:18-24). The anti-biofilm agent includes silver and dispersin B (see for example, col.5:40-54). The device may be in the form of fabric material (example 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat cellulose with TEMPO, and subsequently attach dispersin B as an antimicrobial peptides, as well as functionalize the cellulose with silver.
Auger et al. and Gonzalez et al. are similarly concerned with preparing antimicrobial cellulose, including via electrostatic means. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify cellulose with TEMPO prior to treating it with the antimicrobial peptide and silver, because TEMPO causes the cellulose to form a negative COO- charge, which electrostatically binds to the positively charged peptides and silver.
The ordinary artisan would specifically have been motivated to attach dispersin B, because it is a recognized antimicrobial peptide, taught for use in combination with absorbent cellulose material to disrupt a biofilm. It is also recognized as an alternative to silver. Since they are both recognized for the same purpose, it would have been obvious to include one or the other, or both. See MPEP 2144.06(I) and (II), “"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose” and “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents”.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform a rinsing step to remove any non-reacted antimicrobial agent precursor and/or reaction products, because Gonzalez et al. teach rinsing TEMPO-treated cellulose with water to eliminate reactants. While the prior art references do not disclose treating peptide-treated cellulose or silver-treated cellulose with water, one having ordinary skill in the art would have routinely optimized purification steps to obtain a higher purity product.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the combined teaching of the prior art.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth et al. (cited above) in view of Auger et al., Gonzalez et al. (cited above) and Metcalf et al., as applied to claims 3, 5-6, 8-11 and 14 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (BioResources, 2018, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 5965-5975, cited in PTO-892).
Hepworth et al. teach as discussed above.
Hepworth et al. do not expressly disclose the concentration of the cellulose from 0.1 to 10% (w/v), (present claim 7).
Agnes et al., Gonzalez et al. and Metcalf et al. teach as discussed above.
Lin et al. teach optimizing reaction conditions of oxidizing cellulose from plant material with TEMPO/NaBr/NaClO (title and abstract). Lin et al. teach treating a 1 wt.% pulp slurry with 0.08 g TEMPO (p.5966, Methods). Lin et al. teach peak oxidation occurred at pH 10.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat 1 wt.% cellulose with TEMPO, because Lin et al. found this could result in an optimal amount of oxidized cellulose.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the combined teaching of the prior art.
Conclusion
In view of the rejections to the pending claims set forth above, no claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAHAR A CRAIGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Noon-8pm 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, 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.
/BAHAR CRAIGO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights