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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending (claim set as filed on 3/28/2024). Claims 13-20 are withdrawn after restriction/election requirement. Claims 1-12 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/17/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of benefit to the provisional application no. 63/492,722 filed on 3/28/2023. As such, the effective filing date of this application is 3/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2025 was considered, initialed, and attached hereto. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 1-12 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 the term “inactivated yeast” which renders the claim indefinite as the claimed biodegradable foam is an end product and it is unclear if it contains active or inactive yeast. The instant specification does not use the term “inactivated yeast” beyond reciting the claim 1 language and in fact describes the foam production process as a reaction using “activated yeast” (see specification [0087]). Thus it is unclear if the end product contains yeast that is activated from this process or if the yeast claimed is still in an inactive state. Using the instant specification’s use of the term “activated yeast” to describe the yeast that generates the foam end product, it has been interpreted that the yeast in claim 1 refers to activated yeast. Claims 2-12 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected for being indefinite as they render the gas limitation of the foam end product of claim 1 of which they depend on, unclear. Claim 7 recites that the gas is oxygen produced by a reaction between yeast and hydrogen peroxide during the foam production process. However, claim 1 does not recite hydrogen peroxide within its limitations, and thus it is unclear how the gas could be produced in claim 7 if hydrogen peroxide is not included in the foam end product in claim 1. Claim 10 recites the components of the foam itself wherein the gas is not included in the list even though it is included in claim 1 of which it depends on. Therefore, dependent claims 7 and 10 are rendered indefinite as they do not clearly relay the structural component of the biodegradable foam.
It is unclear if claim 8 is attempting to use Markush grouping of alternatives. If so, Markush groupings should recite “and/or” language and as such, it is unclear if only one or if all the claimed alternatives are required. If applicant uses Markush language, they are required to recite “and/or” in the listing of alternatives members. See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim 10 recites the term “a wax” which renders the claim indefinite. A “meltable wax” was recited in claim 1 of which it depends on, and it is unclear if “a meltable wax” in claim 10 is the same wax as the one in claim 1 or a different one.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glenn (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0308359 A1 – date of publication 11/1/2020), in view of Wu (Wu et al., “Preparation, characterization, and foaming properties of soy protein nanoparticles by the cross-linking reaction induced by microbial transglutaminase”, 2023 Feb 23, Food Hydrocolloids, 140, pgs. 1-7), and further in view of Al-Sultani (Al-Sultani et al., “Taguchi-grey Relational Analysis for Optimizing the Compressive Strength and Porosity of Metakaolin-based Geopolymer”, 2021 Sep 23, Internal Journal of Engineering, 34(11), pgs. 2525-2533).
Glenn’s general disclosure relates to a foam product comprising a foaming agent, a binder, and an excipient (see abstract) which form a matrix when combined into a composition (see [0046]).
Regarding claim 1, Glenn teaches a foam product comprising a protein foaming agent (see [0042]), oxygen gas from the air (see [0095]), and a meltable wax binder (see [0011] and [0032]). Glen also teaches the protein foaming agent, the wax binder, and a fibrous component combine to form a matrix (see [0046]) and that the composition is mixed to trap air within (see [0055]).
Regarding claim 1, Glenn does not teach the protein was cross-linked or addition of the yeast.
Wu’s general disclosure relates to crosslinking soy protein nanoparticles to improve their foaming behaviors by increasing their density and stability (see pg. 1, ¶ 2 and pg. 2, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a soy protein nanoparticle that is treated with a catalyst to become crosslinked (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date to add the crosslinked protein as taught in Wu to the foam product as taught in Glenn. One would have been motivated to do so because Wu teaches that crosslinking the protein increases its density and therefore provides more stability when added to foams (see Wu pg. 2, ¶ 3). The addition of such as stabilizer would be advantageous to Glenn’s disclosure which uses soy proteins as a binder (see Glenn [0049]) in their foam product and discusses how the lack of structural stability causes foam shrinkage over time (see Glenn [0046]). The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding it because Wu concluded that the crosslinked protein nanoparticles demonstrated higher foam stability in their assay (see pg. 7, ¶ 2).
Al-Sultani’s general disclosure relates to using yeast to catalyze a hydrogen peroxide foaming reaction produce porous geopolymer material (see abstract and pg. 2526, ¶ 1 and 9).
Regarding claim 1, Al-Sultani teaches addition of a yeast to a geopolymer mixture containing a hydrogen peroxide foaming agent (see pg. 2526, ¶ 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the effective filing date to add the yeast as taught in Al-Sultani to the foam product as taught in Glenn. One would have been motivated to do so because Al-Sultani teaches that yeast can catalyze the decomposition reaction in the foaming agent to create the porous structure (see Al-Sultani pg. 2526, ¶ 9). This would be an advantage to Glenn’s disclosure which uses a high-speed blender to convert the composition into a foam (see Glenn [0008]), and thus the addition of the yeast would have improved upon the method by reducing their processing time.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches the foam product comprises a fiber component excipient (see Glenn [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches a surfactant foaming agent that under the broadest reasonable interpretation reads on a soap emulsifier (see Glenn [0012]). This is supported by the instant specification which states a surfactant as an equivalent to soap. [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Glenn-Wu-Howard teaches the protein originates from a soy plant (see Glen [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches a reaction between the mixture of the foaming agent hydrogen peroxide and the catalyst yeast (see Al-Sultani abstract and pg. 2526, ¶ 9), wherein a decomposition reaction occurs that releases oxygen gas (see Al-Sultani pg. 2526, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches the wax binder comprises soy wax (see Glenn [0049]).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches the foam product has a density ranging between 0.02-0.4 g/cm3 which converts to 20-400 kg/m3 (see Glen [0055]). This covers the claimed ranges of about 60-400 kg/m3 and about 78-335 kg/m3.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glenn (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0308359 A1 – date of publication 11/1/2020), in view of Wu (Wu et al., “Preparation, characterization, and foaming properties of soy protein nanoparticles by the cross-linking reaction induced by microbial transglutaminase”, 2023 Feb 23, Food Hydrocolloids, 140, pgs. 1-7), in view of Al-Sultani (Al-Sultani et al., “Taguchi-grey Relational Analysis for Optimizing the Compressive Strength and Porosity of Metakaolin-based Geopolymer”, 2021 Sep 23, Internal Journal of Engineering, 34(11), pgs. 2525-2533), and in further view of Narayan (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2006/0111458 A1 – date of publication 5/25/2006).
Modified-Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani’s general disclosure has been set forth above.
Narayan’s general disclosure relates to a starch-based biodegradable foam composition comprising plasticizers such as glycerol/glycerin (see [0029]), which strengthen the foam when added (see [0067]), and chemical modifiers such as dicarboxylic acid.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches a foam product comprising a protein foaming agent (see Glenn [0042]), oxygen gas from the air (see Glenn [0095]), and a meltable wax binder (see Glenn [0011] and [0032]). Modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani also teaches the protein foaming agent, the wax binder, and a fibrous component combine to form a matrix (see Glenn [0046]) and that the composition is mixed to trap air within (see Glenn [0055]). However, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani does not teach a glycerin plasticizer in the foam product.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Narayan teaches a polymer foam comprising a plasticizer and wherein the plasticizer is glycerol (see [0031]).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a glycerol plasticizer as taught in Narayan to the foam product as taught in modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani. One would have been motivated to do so because Narayan teaches that polymer mixtures of starch and glycerol plasticizers exhibited excellent mechanical strength (see Narayan [0067]). The ordinary artisan would have found this to be an advantageous addition to modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani disclosure as they mention adding binders to their starch-containing foam to increase its compressive strength to a desired level (see Glenn [0049]). Thus the addition would have improved upon modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani disclosure by also increasing the foam product’s strength.
Regarding claim 10, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches the foam product comprises protein and wax binders present at a range of about 3-10% wt./wt. (see Glenn [0050]) which is within the claimed ranges of about 6-10% wt./wt. of a protein and about 3-7% wt./wt. of a wax. Modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches an alkaline foaming agent sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) (see Glenn [0042]) that is present at a range of about 1-10% wt./wt. (see Glenn [0051]) which is within the claimed range of about 1-1.3%. As the instant specification does not define what constitutes a strong base, broadest reasonable interpretation was applied to read on alkaline chemical solutions. Additionally, surfactant foaming agents as taught in modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani (see Glenn [0042]) also reads on soap and thus the prior art range of about 3-8% wt./wt. (see Glenn [0051]) also reads on the claimed soap concentration range of about 4.5-6.5% wt./wt. Modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani also teaches a yeast (see Al-Sultani pg. 2526, ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 10, modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani does not teach dicarboxylic acid, glycerol, the specified % wt./wt. of hydrogen peroxide, and the specified % wt./wt. of yeast.
However, regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the effective filing date to optimize the concentration of the yeast in the foam product as taught in modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani to about 5-7% wt./wt. One would have been motivated to do so because modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani teaches that the quantity of foam product ingredients can be adjusted to compensate for foam shrinkage during drying (see Glenn [0046]). As yeast is an ingredient in the foam product as taught in modified Glenn-Wu-Al-Sultani (see Al-Sultani pg. 2526, ¶ 9) it would have only been a matter of routine experimentation of a result-effective variable to adjust the concentration of the yeast to the claimed range as needed to account for shrinkage in the volume of the foam.
Regarding claim 10, Narayan teaches the presence of dicarboxylic acid in a modified starch in the polymer foam (see [0048]) wherein this chemical modifier is present in a range of about 0.5-10% wt./wt. (see [0029]). The claimed range of the dicarboxylic acid is about 0.3-0.4% wt./wt., but the instant specification states that the range can be “about” plus or minus 10% of that value (see specification [0059]) and thus reads on the claimed range. Narayan also teaches glycerol in the polymer foam at a range of about 0.5-25% wt./wt. (see [0029]) which encompasses the claimed range of about 3-7% wt./wt. Narayan teaches a peroxide as a free radical initiator at a range of 0.01-2 % wt./wt. (see pg. 12, claim 6) which falls within the claimed range of 1.5-10% wt./wt.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmalee R. Williams whose telephone number is (571)272-5472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 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, 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.
/E.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights