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 .
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.
This office action is a response to applicant’s communication submitted April 12, 2024. This application claims benefit of provisional US application 63/472,666, filed 06/13/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (pg. 11, para. 0051). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 1-4, 10, 12, and 19-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-4, 10, and 20: Claims 1 and 20 recite the phrase “water-based application”. According to the instant specification, modified CNCs (e.g., modified with APTES) may be utilized to adsorb molecules in an aqueous medium (e.g., a water-based application) (pg. 20, para. 0070). However, the instant application does not clearly define “water-based application”. It is unclear whether the scope is merely adsorbing molecules in an aqueous medium, or includes other water-based applications, such as merely dissolving the product in water, or reactions that use water as a solvent, or a water based composition. The scope of what is to be encompassed by the phrase renders the claims unclear, and thus indefinite. Claims 2-4 and 10 which depend from claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12: The term “contaminant of emerging concern” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “contaminant of emerging concern” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A contaminant of emerging concern is subject to change over time (i.e. what is an emerging concern now, is no longer an emerging concern in the future).
Claim 19 recites, “The device of claim 14”, however, claim 14 is directed to a method. The claims are directed towards separate statutory categories of subject matter and there is no acknowledgement of the difference in statutory category. Thus claim 19 is indefinite as there is a lack in clarity of scope. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the invention. Additionally, Claim 19 recites the limitation "the device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jonoobi (Polymer Testing, 2019, cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claims 1-6, 11, 15-16, 20: Jonoobi teaches modified cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) for removal of impurities from wastewater of licorice processing (abstract). The surface modification of CNCs was conducted by using (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane (APTES) to produce nanocomposite membrane with high efficiency (abstract). According to the instant specification, modification of a CNC with APTES increases hydrolytic stability (pgs. 2-3, para. 0007). The modified CNC possesses sulfate groups and were prepared from sulfated cellulose nanocrystals (pg. 335, col. 2, last para., pg. 337, table 4). The CNC possesses fibers (pg. 335, col. 2, last para.). The modified cellulose nanocrystals were used to make cellulose nanocomposite membranes (pg. 335, col. 1, para. 4). The blend solutions were cased on a glass plate using a film applicator, and then immersed in a coagulation bath containing distilled water (i.e. a film, pg. 335, col. 1, para. 4). The membranes were used to pretreat waste-water from licorice processing to remove dyes and chemical oxygen demand (COD) (i.e. a water-based application, pg. 335, col. 2, para. 2,). The membranes removed up to 94.2% of color and up to 88.5% COD (pg. 338, col. 1, table 6). The color and COD of this type of wastewater is due to many compounds including pollutants such as heavy metals and toxins (i.e. environmental toxins removed, pg. 338, col. 2, para. 2). The waste water contains components which are toxic (pg. 333, col. 1, para. 1).
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nori (Biomacromolecules, 2023, cited on PTO-892) as evidenced by Kim (J. Food Science, 2007, cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claims 1-5, 10-11, 14-17, 19-20: Nori teaches a method of preparing 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane glutaric anhydride (APTES-GA) modified sulfated CNCs from sulfated CNCs (pg. 1104, col. 1, para. 2). Silylation with APTES served to increase the hydrolytic stability of solid CNC films, while the GA served as an organo-linker for antibody immobilization (pg. 1104, col. 1, para. 2). Three fluorescently tagged model cancer antibodies (antiAFP, antiPSA, and antiCEA) were immobilized on modified CNC and then used for the detection of the corresponding antigens (pg. 1104, col. 1, para. 2). Quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring (QCM-D) was used to monitor binding during each step of the immobilization scheme as well as binding of the corresponding antigens (abstract). The CNC-antiCEA was flowed through the QCM-D to form a film on the sensor, followed by CEA antigen for CEA antigen detection (i.e. biomarker, i.e. detection of analyte, pg. 1107, col. 2, para. 2).
Regarding claims 18: Although the device of Nori does not describe the use of detecting carbofuran or Beta-lactoglobulin, according to the instant specification a device comprising the modified CNS on a QCM device are capable of adsorbing carbofuran, beta-lactoglobulin, or a biomarker (pg. 4, para. 0010). Nori teaches the CNC dispersion was spin-coated onto a gold QCM-D sensor and then exposed with APTES (pg. 1105, col. 1, para. 2). Thus a CNC-APTES coated QCM-D sensor device is formed. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)). Wherein the structurally the device as claimed is capable of serving the claimed purpose, claims 18-19 are anticipated.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nori (Auburn University, Thesis, 2019, cited on PTO-892) as evidenced by Kim (J. Food Science, 2007, cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claims 1-5, 10-11, 14-17, 19-20: Nori teaches antibody-antigen immobilization reaction mechanism from ATPES-GA modified sulfated CNCs prepared from sulfated cellulose nanocrystals (pg. 50, figure 21). Nori teaches the modified CNCs are modified with an antibody (pg. 50, figure 21). Nori teaches GA is glutaric anhydride and APTES is 3-aminopropyl-triethoxysilane (pg. xiii, 2nd and 3rd definitions). Nori teaches silylation improves the hydrolytic stability of solid CNC materials (pg. 2, para. 2). Nori teaches spin-coating the modified CNC on a QCM-D gold sensor, forming a film, followed by sensing antigens by passing an antigen solution (pg. 70, section 4.5.3, pg. 71, figure 40B). Nori teaches QCM-D is quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring (pg. xiii, 8th definition). The antigen solution was prepared in PBS (i.e. aqueous solution, pg. 76, section 4.5.4.).
Regarding claims 18: Although the device of Nori does not describe the use of detecting carbofuran or Beta-lactoglobulin, according to the instant specification a device comprising the modified CNS on a QCM device are capable of adsorbing carbofuran, beta-lactoglobulin, or a biomarker (pg. 4, para. 0010). Nori teaches the CNC dispersion was spin-coated onto a gold QCM-D sensor and then exposed with APTES (pg. 70, section 4.5.3). Thus a CNC-APTES coated QCM-D sensor device is formed. Kim discloses that beta-lactoglobulin can be detected using a QCM-D method (pg. 214, abstract). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)). Wherein the structurally the device as claimed is capable of serving the claimed purpose, claims 18-19 are anticipated.
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.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonoobi (Polymer Testing, 2019, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-6, 11, 15-16, 20 above in view of Kocaman (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, cited on PTO-892) and Arunkumar (Journal of Membrane Science, 2014, cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claims 6, 8-9, 13: As discussed above Jonoobi teaches the method of claims 1-6, 11, and 20 and the device of claims 15-16. Jonoobi teaches a novel nanocomposite membranes based on polyethersulfone (PES) and modified cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) for removal of impurities from wastewater of licorice processing (abstract). Jonoobi teaches the absorbent has cationic (i.e. positive) charges on the surface of the adsorbent (pg. 338, figure 6).
Jonoobi does not teach wherein the method or device is used to absorb β-lactoglobulin.
However, Kocoman teaches cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) of 180 nm length and 8 nm diameter were deposited on porous supports by tangential flow filtration followed by salt permeation to form ultrafiltration membranes (abstract). Kocoman teaches CNCs obtained from sulfuric acid hydrolysis possess negatively charged sulfate groups on the nanocrystal surface. Electrostatic repulsion resulting from these negatively charged groups promotes uniform dispersions of cellulose nanocrystals that show good colloidal stability with isotropic behavior in an aqueous medium for dilute concentrations (pg. 36548, col. 1, para. 1). Kocoman teaches the film deposition of CNCs as membranes (pg. 36554, cols. 1-2, bridging para.). Kocoman teaches the ultrafiltration membrane with a tunable rejection for macromolecules such as β -lactoglobulin (abstract, pg. 36556, col. 1, para. 3). Additionally Arunkumar teaches fractionation of bovine α-lactalbumin (ALA) from β-lactoglobulin (BLG)in milk serum permeate(MSP) using tangential flow ultrafiltration (abstract). By placing a positive charge on a 300kDa regenerated cellulose ultrafiltration membrane ,it was possible to increase the selectivity for fractionating ALA and BLG by 180% compared to an uncharged membrane (abstract). Arunkumar teaches β-lactoglobulin is used as a foam stabilizer, and gelling agent, and there is need for obtaining purified dairy protein fractions (pg. 448, col. 1, para. 1).
According to the instant specification, β-lactoglobulin is an allergen (pg. 2, para. 0006).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to use the nanocomposite of Jonoobi for the filtration/absorption of β-lactoglobulin as suggested by Kocoman and Arunkuma. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as the art recognizes the ability of CNCs obtained from sulfuric acid hydrolysis are capable of separating β-lactoglobulin from solution for the purpose of obtaining purified dairy protein fractions for foam stabilizers or gelling agents.
Claims 6, 8-9, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nori (Auburn University, Thesis, 2019, cited on PTO-892) and Kim (J. Food Science, 2007, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 14-20 above in view of Voicu (Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 2021, cited on PTO-892) and Ito (Chem. Lett. 2015, cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claims 6, 8-9, 13, and 18: As discussed above Nori teaches the method of claims 1-6, 11, and 20 and the device of claims 15-16. Nori teaches the immobilization of IgG antibodies (pg. 2, para. 2, pg. 80, para. 2).
Jonoobi does not teach wherein the method is used to detect/absorb beta-lactoglobulin.
However, Voicu teaches cellulose functionalized aminopropyltriethoxysilane for binding and various reactive separation processes (abstract). Voicu teaches the field of adsorbent materials, the use of APTES brings two types of advantages that can be used in parallel or simultaneously (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). On the one hand, it allows the subsequent immobilization of various chemical species that can interact with separate species (heavy metal ions, dyes, micropollutants) by functionalization with proteins, enzymes, complexing molecules (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). On the other hand, the amino groups can effectively participate in the separation process by interaction with sulfonic acid or carboxylic groups derived from dyes, pesticides, or pharmaceutically active substances (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). Ito teaches a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) for the detection of food allergens (abstract). Ito teaches β-lactoglobulin are allergens contained in the milk that can lead to allergic reactions (pg. 981, col. 1, para. 1). Ito teaches a QCM sensor with a monoclonal antibody to B-lactoglobulin for adsorbing beta-lactoglobulin (pg. 981, col. 2, para. 2, figure 1).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to utilize the modify the method of Nori by replacing the antibody with a beta-lactoglobulin antibody for the absorption/detection of beta-lactoglobulin as suggested by Voicu and Ito. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to remove the detect and remove the allergen from milk and QCM devices with this antibody are known in the art for the specific detection of beta-lactoglobulin.. Wherein antibodies are interchangeable species in QCM devices, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Regarding claims 18: Even if assuming for the sake of argument that the device of Nori could not be used to detect beta-lactoglobulin as recited by instant claims 18. The device rendered obvious as described above would.
Claims 6-7, 12-13, 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nori (Auburn University, Thesis, 2019, cited on PTO-892) and Kim (J. Food Science, 2007, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 14-20 above in view of Voicu (Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 2021, cited on PTO-892) and Jia (Sensors and Actuators, 2013, cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 12-13: As discussed above Nori teaches the method of claims 1-6, 11, and 20 and the device of claims 15-16. Nori teaches the immobilization of IgG antibodies (pg. 2, para. 2, pg. 80, para. 2).
Nori does not teach wherein the method is used to detect/absorb carbofuran.
However, Voicu teaches cellulose functionalized aminopropyltriethoxysilane for binding and various reactive separation processes (abstract). Voicu teaches the field of adsorbent materials, the use of APTES brings two types of advantages that can be used in parallel or simultaneously (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). On the one hand, it allows the subsequent immobilization of various chemical species that can interact with separate species (heavy metal ions, dyes, micropollutants) by functionalization with proteins, enzymes, complexing molecules (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). On the other hand, the amino groups can effectively participate in the separation process by interaction with sulfonic acid or carboxylic groups derived from dyes, pesticides, or pharmaceutically active substances (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). Jia teaches a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) functionalized with anti-carbofuran antibody for the detection of carbofuran (abstract). Jia teaches carbofuran is one of the highest toxic insecticides to human beings and the fatal dose to birds can be a single pesticide grain(pg. 400, col. 2, para. 3). With these public concerns in mind, it is imperative to develop sensitive, fast and cost-effective analytical systems (pg. 400, col. 2, para. 3).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to utilize the modify the method of Nori by replacing the antibody with a carbofuran antibody for the absorption/detection of carbofuran as suggested by Voicu and Jia. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect and remove the pesticide from the environment and QCM devices with this antibody are known in the art for the specific detection of carbofuran. Wherein antibodies are interchangeable species in QCM devices, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Regarding claims 18: Even if assuming for the sake of argument that the device of Nori could not be used to detect carbofuran as recited by instant claims 17-18. The device rendered obvious as described above necessarily would.
Claims 7 and 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonoobi (Polymer Testing, 2019, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-6, 11, 15-16, 20 above in view of Voicu (Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 2021, cited on PTO-892) and Narayanan (Pesticide Research Journal, 2016, cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claims 7 and 12-13: As discussed above Jonoobi teaches the method of claims 1-6, 11, and 20 and the device of claims 15-16. Jonoobi teaches the silylation of CNC can improve the efficacy of nanocomposite membranes comprising polyethersulfone to remove the water impurities, which may be suggested as simple technique for water filtration (abstract).
Jonoobi does not teach wherein the method is used to absorb carbofuran.
However, Voicu teaches cellulose functionalized aminopropyltriethoxysilane for binding and various reactive separation processes (abstract). Voicu teaches the field of adsorbent materials, the use of APTES brings two types of advantages that can be used in parallel or simultaneously (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). On the one hand, it allows the subsequent immobilization of various chemical species that can interact with separate species (heavy metal ions, dyes, micropollutants) by functionalization with proteins, enzymes, complexing molecules (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). On the other hand, the amino groups can effectively participate in the separation process by interaction with sulfonic acid or carboxylic groups derived from dyes, pesticides, or pharmaceutically active substances (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 3). Narayanan teaches biopolymer composites employing carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) and organoclays modified with aminopropyltriethyoxysilane for the adsorption of carbofuran (abstract). Narayanan teaches carbofuran is a pesticide (pg. 33, figure 5).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to utilize the composition of Jonoobi for the absorption of pesticides such as carbofuran as suggested by Voicu and Narayanan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to remove the pesticide from the environment and aminopropyltriethyoxysilane modified composites are capable of adsorbing this pesticide specifically.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL L GALSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0933. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/S.L.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/ANDREA OLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights