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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged. Applicants point to 37 CFR § 1.475(b) to demonstrate the claims as being directed to categories (1) and (2), thus having unity of invention (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 6-7).
However, this is not found to be persuasive and so the Examiner must respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
The categories in 37 CFR § 1.475(b) do not preclude the finding of an a posteriori lack of unity of invention. 37 CFR § 1.475(b) explicitly indicates “Where a group of inventions is claimed in an application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features.” In this case, there is no special technical feature between the claims, as demonstrated in the Restriction Requirement dated 06/10/2026, and thus a proper lack of unity of invention analysis is provided.
Moreover, Applicants argue there is no search burden on the Examiner (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 7).
However, this is not found persuasive because establishment of a search burden is used to determine whether the Office may require restriction in national applications filed under 35 (U.S.C. 111(a). The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). See MPEP Chapter 1800, in particular MPEP § 1850, § 1875, and § 1893.03(d), for a detailed discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In other words, the requirement regarding a serious search burden does not apply to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. Therefore, the restriction/election requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Claims 14-17 and 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/06/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality:
• Claim 9 should be amended to read as follows: “…wherein the formulation has a pH between 2.5 and 12…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
In claim 13, the term “preferably between 0.81:1 and 1.4:1…” is used. The term “preferably” generates confusion as to whether the limitations following the term “preferably” are necessitated by the claim or not. To correct, the Examiner suggests deleting the term “preferably” from the claim. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting any limitation in claim 13 following the term “preferably” to be optional.
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 1-5, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN-106140114-B), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Zhang teaches a formulation for the production of porous polymer particles (see Zhang at pg. 2, para. 2, teaching a porous composite material; also see Example 1 of Zhang at pg. 5, para. 2-4, teaching an example preparation method of a porous material, where the preparation method includes the formation of a mixture, i.e., a formulation), the formulation comprising:
• a polymer (see Zhang at pg. 5, para. 2-4, teaching an example formulation containing arabic gum, hydroxyethyl chitosan, and poly(malic acid); all three of these materials are polymers);
• a salt, wherein the salt is an antichaotropic salt (see Zhang at pg. 5, para. 2-4, teaching the example formulation as containing ammonium ferric citrate and magnesium sulphate; both of these compounds are antichaotropic salts, also see Applicant’s specification at pg. 6, para. 1-3); and
• at least one buffer (see Zhang at pg. 5, para. 2-4, teaching the example formulation as containing a potassium citrate-citric acid buffer); and
• the at least one buffer is present at a weight ratio of the at least one buffer to the polymer of at least 1:40 (between 1:2 and 1:40, regarding claim 8) (see Zhang at pg. 5, para. 2-4, teaching the preparation of a foam substrate comprising 0.1 parts of arabic gum, 10 parts of hydroxyethyl chitosan, and 20 parts of poly(malic acid) in combination with 1000 parts of deionized water; Zhang then teaches 40 parts of this composition to be mixed with 0.2 parts of chlorella, 0.15 parts of sodium nitrate, 0.06 parts of ammonium ferric citrate, 0.06 parts of magnesium sulphate, and 0.05 parts of potassium citrate-citric acid buffer; it is noted that given 40 parts of the foam substrate mixture is used in the final formulation, the content of each component in the final formulation can be calculated, see Table 1 below:
Component in Foam Substrate of Zhang (Step 1)
Content of Component in Foam Substrate of Zhang
Content of Foam Substrate Composition in Final Formulation (Step 2)
Calculation for Determining the Content of Component in Final Formulation
Content of Component in Final Formulation (Step 2)
Arabic Gum
0.1 parts
40 parts
40 x (0.1/(0.1 + 10 + 20 + 1000)) = 0.00388 parts
0.00388 parts
Hydroxyethyl Chitosan
10 parts
40 x (10/(0.1 + 10 + 20 + 1000)) = 0.388 parts
0.388 parts
Poly(malic acid)
20 parts
40 x (20/(0.1 + 10 + 20 + 1000)) = 0.7766 parts
0.7766 parts
Deionized Water
1000 parts
40 x (1000/(0.1 + 10 + 20 + 1000)) = 38.831 parts
38.831 parts
Table 1. Calculation for determining the concentration of each component in the foam substrate composition of Step 1 of Zhang in the final formulation produced in Step 2 of Zhang.
Once the above concentrations have been calculated, the concentrations of each component in the final claimed formulation are as follows, see Table 2 below:
Component in the Final Formulation (Step 2)
Content of the Component in the Final Formulation
Arabic Gum
0.00388 parts
Hydroxyethyl Chitosan
0.388 parts
Poly(malic acid)
0.7766 parts
Deionized Water
38.831 parts
Chlorella
0.2 parts
Sodium Nitrate
0.15 parts
Ammonium Ferric Citrate
0.06 parts
Magnesium Sulphate
0.06 parts
Potassium Citrate-Citric Acid Buffer
0.05 parts
Total Amount
40.51948 parts
[AltContent: textbox (Calculated from Table 1)][AltContent: ]
Table 2. Concentration of each component in the formulation produced in Example 1 of Zhang in Step 2.
The concentrations above for the formulation in Table 2 correspond to the claimed “formulation;” the formulation of Zhang contains 1.168 parts of total polymer (0.00388 parts of arabic gum + 0.388 parts of hydroxyethyl chitosan + 0.7766 parts of poly(malic acid) = 1.168 parts total polymer), and 0.05 parts of total buffer; thus, the ratio of the buffer to the polymer in Example 1 of Zhang is 0.05:1.168, or 0.0428; this value of 0.0428 falls completely within the claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 2, see Zhang at pg. 5, para. 2-4, teaching the formulation mixture as containing water.
Regarding claim 3, see Table 2 above; Zhang teaches an example containing 1.168 parts of total polymer (0.00388 parts of arabic gum + 0.388 parts of hydroxyethyl chitosan + 0.7766 parts of poly(malic acid) = 1.168 parts total polymer) in 38.831 parts of total water; consequently, given the “parts” are in grams, the content of total polymer is 1.168 grams in 38.831 mL of water, or 1.168 grams in 0.038831 L; thus, the concentration is 1.168 g/0.038831 L = 30.1 g/L; this value of 30.1 g/L falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, see Table 2 above; Zhang teaches an example containing 0.12 total parts of antichaotropic salt (0.06 parts of ammonium ferric citrate + 0.06 parts of magnesium sulphate = 0.12 total parts of antichaotropic salt) in 38.831 parts of total water; thus, given the molar mass of ammonium ferric citrate and magnesium sulphate are 262 g/mol and 120.4 g/mol, respectively, the number of moles of total antichaotropic salt is 0.000727 moles ((0.06 g ammonium ferric citrate/262 g/mol) + (0.06 g magnesium sulphate/120.4 g/mol) = 0.000727 total moles of antichaotropic salt); thus, given there are 0.03831 L of water (38.831 mL water/1000 = 0.038831 L), the concentration of the antichaotropic salt is 0.000727 moles/0.03831 L = 0.0187 M; this value of 0.0187 M falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, see Zhang at pg. 5, para. 2-4, teaching an example formulation containing potassium citrate as a buffer, i.e., a citrate buffer.
Regarding claims 11-12, see Zhang at pg. 5, para. 2-4, teaching an example formulation containing magnesium sulphate, which is a sulphate.
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 6-7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding claims 6-7, while Example 1 of Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 1 outlined above, Example 1 of Zhang fails to explicitly teach the buffer as comprising a combination of a dihydrogen phosphate buffer and a hydrogen phosphate buffer.
However, Zhang does teach their pH regulator (i.e., buffer) may include dipotassium phosphate and monopotassium phosphate, and further teaches examples containing 0.05 parts of a dipotassium phosphate-monopotassium phosphate buffer (see Zhang at pg. 3, para. 6; pg. 6, para. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dipotassium phosphate-monopotassium phosphate buffer as the pH regulator in the formulation of Zhang, as Zhang teaches dipotassium phosphate-monopotassium phosphate as a suitable buffer and further teaches examples using it (see Zhang at pg. 3, para. 6; pg. 6, para. 11).
A dipotassium phosphate-monopotassium phosphate buffer comprises a dihydrogen phosphate buffer and a hydrogen phosphate buffer.
Regarding claim 10, while Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 1 outlined above, Zhang fails to explicitly teach the polymer as including agarose.
However, Zhang teaches the natural polymer used in their composition may include agarose (see Zhang at pg. 3, para. 2; and pg. 9, para. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use agarose as the natural polymer in the porous material of Zhang, as Zhang broadly teaches agarose as a suitable polymer (see Zhang at pg. 3, para. 2; and pg. 9, para. 5).
Regarding claim 13, while Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 1 outlined above, Zhang fails to explicitly teach the weight ratio of the polymer to the antichaotropic salt to range from 0.5:1 to 2:1.
However, Zhang teaches the content of their liquid culture medium, which may include magnesium sulphate, to range from 0.01 to 1000 parts (see Zhang at pg. 3, para. 5; and pg. 4, para. 11). Zhang further teaches the liquid culture medium may be used as one kind, i.e., may contain only one component (see Zhang at pg. 3, para. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use only magnesium sulphate as the liquid culture medium, and set the content of the magnesium sulphate in the liquid medium of Zhang to range from 0.01 to 1000 parts, as Zhang broadly teaches such a content range as suitable for their liquid culture medium and further teaches the liquid culture medium may be used as a single kind (see Zhang at pg. 3, para. 5; and pg. 4, para. 11).
Following the above modification, the liquid culture medium of Zhang contains 0.01 to 1000 parts of antichaotropic salt (magnesium sulphate) and 1.168 parts of total polymer (see Table 2 above; 0.00388 parts of arabic gum + 0.388 parts of hydroxyethyl chitosan + 0.7766 parts of poly(malic acid) = 1.168 parts total polymer). Thus, the ratio of the polymer to the antichaotropic salt ranges from 0.001168 to 116.8 (1.168 parts polymer/0.01 parts salt minimum = 116.8 ratio maximum; 1.168 parts polymer/1000 parts salt maximum = 0.001168 ratio minimum); this range of 0.001168 to 116.8 overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qiu et al. (CN-108262025-A), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Qiu”).
Regarding claim 9, while Zhang teaches the formulation according to claim 1 outlined above, Zhang fails to explicitly teach the formulation as having a pH between 2.5 and 12.
However, Qiu teaches a porous nano-composite material used for adsorbing heavy metal ions (see Qiu at pg. 2, para. 3). Qiu further teaches the pH value of the nanocomposite material can be optimized, and that if the pH is less than 5, the removal efficiency of heavy metal ions is lowered due to protons (H+) competing with heavy metal ions adsorbing to functional groups, and that if the pH is more than 7, the removal rate of the heavy metal ion is reduced due to heavy metal ion hydrolyzing (see Qiu at pg. 4, last paragraph).
Zhang teaches their porous composite material as being used to remove heavy metal ions (see Zhang at pg. 2, para. 6).
Since Qiu teaches that the pH of a porous nanocomposite material impacts heavy metal ion removal efficiency (see Qui at pg. 2, para. 3), the pH of the formulation of Zhang is a result-effective variable. For instance, one of ordinary skill would raise the pH enough so that an excess of competing protons are not present that may reduce heavy metal ion removal, but not too much such that the heavy metal ions hydrolyze, reducing the removal rate even further (see Qiu at pg. 4, last paragraph). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have adjusted, by routine experimentation, the pH of the formulation of Zhang at 20 °C to fall within the claimed range in order to optimize heavy metal ion removal efficiency (see Qui at pg. 2, para. 3). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Andersson et al. (US-20050179151-A1) teach a process of manufacturing one or more polysaccharide beads (see Andersson at Abstract).
Moya et al. (US-20050220982-A1) teach a process for forming polysaccharide structures (see Moya at Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 5 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/JEFFREY EUGENE BARZACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights