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 without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
The amendment of 05/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this US patent application. Claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/2026.
Claims 1-5 are currently under examination and were examined on their merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed in this application on 07/09/2024 has been received and considered.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al., Talanta 205: 120126 (2019), in view of Yu et al., Polymers 14: 2573 (2022).
Qiao teaches the production of an enzyme reactor by immobilizing glutaminase onto a bamboo scaffold (see entire document, including page 2, left column, paragraphs 1-2). The glutaminase enzyme was immobilized covalently through a glutaraldehyde cross linker (page 2, right column, paragraphs 3-5; cf. claim 1).
However, Qiao does not teach that the bamboo is delignified bamboo.
Yu teaches that delignification of lignocellulosic materials, such as bamboo, causes the materials to become scaffolds that can be further decorated/grafted with different chemical functional groups, bringing novel and specific functionalities. The mild conditions of delignification reactions do not impact the macrostructure substantially, preserving its original three-dimensional structure (see entire document, including page 2, paragraph 2). Alkali treatment of bamboo resulted in a microstructure with increased pores, decreased density, and the presence of fibers, along with the decomposition of the lignin in the bamboo (page 9, paragraph 2). Delignification largely preserved the macrostructure of the bamboo and revealed micron-scale pores on the cell walls (page 3, paragraph 5; page 4, Figures 1b and 1d; cf. claim 1).
While Qiao does not teach that the bamboo in the bamboo scaffold with immobilized glutaminase is delignified bamboo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use delignified bamboo in the scaffold of Qiao because Yu teaches that delignification of lignocellulosic materials, such as bamboo, causes the materials to become scaffolds that can be further decorated/grafted with different chemical functional groups, bringing novel and specific functionalities without substantial alteration to the macrostructure of the material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that using the delignified bamboo of Yu in the scaffold of Qiao would successfully result in the production of a bamboo scaffold with immobilized glutaminase that has the capacity for further decoration/grafting with different chemical functional groups for the production of novel and specific additional functionalities.
Yu does not teach the presence of sieve tubes or parenchymal cell lumen or the porosity and density of the delignified bamboo in the terms recited in instant claims 1 and 3-5. However, given Yu’s disclosure that the macrostructure of the bamboo is largely preserved by delignification and that the delignification treatment resulted in increased porosity and decreased density, it is highly likely that Yu’s delignified bamboo satisfies the structural limitations of the delignified bamboo of instant claims 1 and 3-5. “As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). The Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicants’ composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from that of discussed references. Therefore, with the showing of the references, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants. Even if, arguendo, the delignified bamboo of Yu does not satisfy the structural limitations of instant claims 1 and 3-5, the instantly recited delignified bamboo would not be patentably distinct from the delignified bamboo of Yu, given Yu’s disclosure of treatments that adjust the porosity and density of the bamboo. See MPEP § 2144.04, which states that changes in size, shape, and proportion have been held by the courts to represent routine expedients that require only ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-5 are rendered obvious by Qiao in view of Yu and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al., Talanta 205: 120126 (2019), in view of Yu et al., Polymers 14: 2573 (2022), and Ghasemi et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 115: 10228-10238 (2011).
As discussed above, claims 1 and 3-5 are rendered obvious by Qiao in view of Yu. However, these references do not teach that the glutaminase enzyme is immobilized through an alkylamine linkage as recited in instant claim 2.
Ghasemi discusses the immobilization of enzymes through covalent attachment with glutaraldehyde (see entire document, including page 10229, left column, paragraph 5). Treatment of the glutaraldehyde-immobilized enzymes with NaCNBH3 led to the reduction of the imine linkages to secondary amines, thus providing a strong immobilization of the enzyme and higher enzyme activity as compared to the glutaraldehyde-linked enzyme not subjected to NaCNBH3 treatment (page 10230, right column, paragraph 3; page 10233, right column, paragraph 3; cf. claim 2; the Examiner notes that the reaction described by Ghasemi would result in the production of an alkylamine linkage).
While Qiao and Yu do not teach the treatment of the glutaraldehyde-immobilized delignified bamboo scaffolds rendered obvious by their teachings with sodium cyanoborohydride, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so because Ghasemi teaches that cyanoborohydride treatment of glutaraldehyde-immobilized enzymes results in a stronger secondary amine covalent linkage and concomitantly increased enzyme activity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that treating the scaffolds rendered obvious by Qiao and Yu with the cyanoborohydride of Ghasemi would successfully result in the improved strength of the crosslinking of glutaminase to the scaffolds of Qiao and Yu.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are rendered obvious by Qiao in view of Yu and Ghasemi and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation…103 likely bars its patentability…if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions……the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 U.S. 2007) (emphasis added).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin M. Bowers, whose telephone number is (571)272-2897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-5:00.
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, Sharmila Landau, can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/Erin M. Bowers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653 07/15/2026
Prosecution Insights