DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-17 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A preliminary amendment filed on 07/03/2024, amending paragraph [0001] to indicate the related applications is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 drawn in part to a method of making a bacterial cellulose-metal-organic framework composite, the method comprising: preparing an aqueous fermentation medium comprising water, a cellulose-producing bacteria, a carbon source, and a nitrogen source; adding metal-organic framework particles to the aqueous fermentation medium and fermenting the aqueous fermentation medium to form a hydrogel comprising the metal-organic framework particles embedded in a bacterial cellulose nanofiber network; and converting the bacterial cellulose hydrogel having the metal-organic framework particles dispersed therein into an aerogel comprising the metal-organic framework particles embedded in a bacterial cellulose nanofiber network in a reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 national stage application of PCT/US23/60199 filled on 01/06/2023 and claims domestic priority under 35 U.S. C. 119(e) to provisional application No. 63/297,307 filed on 01/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2024, 02/12/2025 and 06/03/2025 are acknowledged. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is directed in part to the method of making a bacterial cellulose-metal-organic framework composite of claim 1, the method comprising:
preparing an aqueous fermentation medium comprising water, a cellulose-producing bacteria, a carbon source, and a nitrogen source;
adding metal-organic framework particles to the aqueous fermentation medium and fermenting the aqueous fermentation medium to form a hydrogel comprising the metal- organic framework particles embedded in a bacterial cellulose nanofiber network; and
converting the bacterial cellulose hydrogel having the metal-organic framework particles dispersed therein into an aerogel comprising the metal-organic framework particles embedded in a bacterial cellulose nanofiber network, wherein the aerogel has a metal-organic framework particle loading of at least 70 wt. %, based on the combined weight of the bacterial cellulose nanofiber network and the metal-organic framework particles.
Claim 1 is interpreted as adding any metal-organic framework particles to the fermentation medium to form a hydrogel and converting the hydrogel into an aerogel comprising any metal-organic framework particles. The specification conveys possession of the full breadth of claim 1 as there is sufficient description of a representative number of species (NU-1601, NU-1602, UiO-66, NU-901, NU-1000 and MOF-808, see Table 1). However, the limitation in claim 5, “particle loading of at least 70 wt. %”, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the full-breadth of the claim. The disclosure appears to support a MOF loading % of at least 70 wt. % for only MOF-808/BC composites; MOF-808/BC-2 and MOF-808-BC-3 (see Table 2, pg. 11). While in paragraph [0073] (see pg. 18) a UiO-66-NH2/BC composite was synthesized using the same method and culture media with 80 mg/mL UiO-66-NH2, this does not provide support that the applicants were in possession of a UiO-66-NH2 with at least 70 wt. % as the disclosure shows no evidence of this.
Due to the fact that the specification only discloses support for MOF-808/BC composites, and lacks evidence for any other bacterial cellulose metal-organic framework composites that have a particle loading of at least 70 wt. %, one of skill in the art would not recognize from the disclosure that the Applicant was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
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 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, published 09/07/2018, IDS dated 07/03/2024), Terrell et al. (US2022/0220521A1, filed on 01/14/2021) in view of Yuxiang et al. (CN110872386A, published 03/10/2020, IDS dated 07/03/2024).
Ma et al. teaches a method of making bacterial cellulose metal-organic framework composite aerogel using Acetobacter xylinum HN001, a cellulose-producing bacteria, in culture media consisting of 25 g D-glucose (carbon source), 7.5 g yeast (nitrogen source), 10 g peptone (nitrogen source) dissolved in 950 mL of deionized water, using an incubator shaker at 30 °C, then a bacterial cellulose pellicle formed after static cultivation (see pg. 228, 2.2.1. BC aerogel). Ma et al. teaches BC aerogels immersed in Zn(NO3)2·6H2O/ethanol solution to form BC@ZIF-8 and BC aerogels immersed in ZrCl4/DMF solution to form BC@UiO-66 films (see pg.228-229, 2.2.2. BC@ZIF-8 composite aerogel and 2.2.3. BC@UiO-66 and BC@UiO-66@PDA interlayer).
Ma et al. does not teach fermentation of the cellulose-producing bacteria and does not teach adding the metal-organic framework particles to the fermentation media and fermenting to form the hydrogel.
Terrell et al. teaches a biofabrication method comprising providing Gluconacetobacter in a container with culturing media and co-incubating additives with the Gluconacetobacter in the container at a temperature range of 20-30 °C (see paragraph [0007], pg. 1). Terrell et al. teaches that the additives can be organic or inorganic, which may comprise forming a metallized aerogel. (see paragraphs [0007] - [0008], pg. 1). Terrell et al. teaches that “in situ fabrication of cellulose composite precursors promotes uniform distribution of functional components, takes advantage of the cellulose nanofiber network for autonomous generation of a high surface area 3D material, and as a result, enables a simplified fabrication workflow” (see paragraph [0048], pg. 4). Terrell et al. teaches the bacterial culture containing desired components for the composite material (see paragraph [0047], pg. 4). Terrell et al. teaches that “Conventional
techniques generally require chemical processing of plant biomass to obtain cellulose nano fibers followed by their chemical crosslinking. Moreover, functionalization of cellulose materials typically requires many steps and the use of harsh chemicals. Limited conventional methods exist for tethering functional groups to polymer/cellulose scaffolds. Furthermore, these techniques are generally difficult to control with nano/micro precision. Additionally, conventional
chemical processing techniques typically use harsh chemicals and conditions as well as strict environments (e.g., cleanroom). Moreover, it is generally difficult to uniformly impregnate porous materials with nanoparticles or functionalization reagents in a top-down way”.
Terrell et al. does not teach specifically an aqueous fermentation medium comprising water, a cellulose-producing bacteria, a carbon source, and a nitrogen source. Terrell et al. does not teach that the media requires an organic solvent. Terrell et al. does not teach if the biofabrication method is a static fermentation method.
Yuxiang et al. teaches a method of preparing a silicon dioxide/bacterial cellulose composite material by inoculating Acetobacter xylinum in fermentation medium containing sodium silicate that is cultured using static fermentation (see abstract).
Yuxiang et al. does not teach that the media has an organic solvent. Yuxiang et al. does not teach making a bacterial cellulose-metal-organic framework composite.
Claim 1 is directed in part to a method of making a bacterial cellulose-metal-organic framework composite, the method comprising: preparing an aqueous fermentation medium comprising water, a cellulose-producing bacteria, a carbon source, and a nitrogen source; adding metal-organic framework particles to the aqueous fermentation medium and fermenting the aqueous fermentation medium to form a hydrogel comprising the metal- organic framework particles embedded in a bacterial cellulose nanofiber network; and converting the bacterial cellulose hydrogel having the metal-organic framework particles dispersed therein into an aerogel comprising the metal-organic framework particles embedded in a bacterial cellulose nanofiber network. Claim 2 is directed in part to the method of claim 1, wherein the aqueous fermentation medium is free of organic solvent. Claim 3 is directed in part to the method of claim 1, wherein fermenting the aqueous fermentation medium to form a hydrogel comprising the metal-organic framework particles embedded in a bacterial cellulose nanofiber network is carried out at a temperature of no greater than 40 °C. Claim 4 is directed in part to the method of claim 3, wherein the aqueous fermentation medium is free of organic solvent. Claim 6 is directed in part to the method of claim 1, wherein the metal-organic framework particles comprise NU series metal-organic frameworks, or UiO series metal-organic frameworks, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the method of making composite aerogels with metal-organic framework nanoparticles of Ma et al. by adding the nanoparticles in the culture media as taught by Terrell et al. during fermentation of Acetobacter xylinum as taught by Yuxiang et al.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to ferment the nanoparticles with the bacterial cellulose-producing bacteria because Terrell et al. teaches culturing the metal particles with the bacteria can uniformly impregnate the porous bacterial cellulose and does not require harsh chemicals to functionalize the cellulose materials.
One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success because the proposed modification applies the well-known technique of fermentation instead of shaker incubation using media components that are commonly used for both techniques and methods of culturing cellulose-producing bacteria is well known in the art. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, published 09/07/2018, IDS dated 07/03/2024), Terrell et al. (US2022/0220521A1, filed on 01/14/2021) in view of Yuxiang et al. (CN110872386A, published 03/10/2020, IDS dated 07/03/2024) as applied to claims 1-4 and 6 above, and further in view of Dwyer et al. (Applied Materials and Interfaces (published 07/04/2018, IDS dated 07/03/2024).
The teachings of Ma et al. have been discussed above.
The teachings of Terrell et al. have been discussed above.
The teachings of Yuxiang et al. have been discussed above.
Dwyer et al. teaches the use of UiO-66-NH2 MOF particles that are catalytic for Methyl Paraoxon (organophosphate compound) (see pg. 25796, first paragraph).
Claim 7 is directed in part to the method of claim 1, wherein the metal-organic framework particles are catalytic for the hydrolysis of an organophosphate compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention that the UiO-66 MOF in Ma et al. would be catalytic for the hydrolysis of Methyl Paraoxon as taught by Dwyer et al.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to use the UiO-66 to catalyze the hydrolysis of Methyl Paraoxon as because it is taught by Dwyer et al. to catalyze such a reaction.
One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success because it was known in the art as evidenced by Dwyer et al. that UiO-66-NH2 can catalyze the hydrolysis of Methyl Paraoxon. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, published 09/07/2018, IDS dated 07/03/2024), Terrell et al. (US2022/0220521A1, filed on 01/14/2021) in view of Yuxiang et al. (CN110872386A, published 03/10/2020, IDS dated 07/03/2024) as applied to claims 1-4 and 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Carbohydrate Polymers, published 12/2019 IDS dated 07/03/2024).
The teachings of Ma et al. have been discussed above. Ma et al. does not teach applying a polymer base to the aerogel.
The teachings of Terrell et al. have been discussed above. Terrell et al. teaches that biopolymers can be additives in the media (see paragraph [0006], pg. 1). Terrell et al. does not teach applying a polymer base to the aerogel.
The teachings of Yuxiang et al. has been discussed above.
Wang et al. teaches the preparation of Polyethyleneimine-crosslinked cellulose aerogels for combustion CO2 capture that are prepared using wet impregnation methods (see 2.3 Preparation of PIC and PCC aerogels, pg. 2). Wang et al. teaches the use of supercritical CO2 drying to form aerogels (see 3.2. Characteristics of aerogels, pg. 5).
Wang et al. does not teach the cellulose being from bacteria.
Claim 8 is directed to the method of claim 1, comprising applying a polymeric base to the aerogel. Claim 9 is directed in part to the method of claim 8, wherein the polymeric base forms a crosslinked hydrogel that impregnates pores in the aerogel. Claim 10 is directed in part to the method of claim 1, wherein converting the hydrogel into the aerogel comprises supercritical CO2 drying of the hydrogel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the preparation of Polyethyleneimine-crosslinked cellulose aerogels taught by Wang et al. with the methods of preparing bacterial MOF aerogel taught by Ma et al. and Terrell et al. to form a bacterial cellulose MOF aerogel with a PEI base that the base was formed by a crosslinked hydrogel that impregnates the aerogel.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to combine the method of Wang et al. with the methods of Ma et al. and Terrell et al. to expand the area of applicability of the and enhance homogeneity and quality of the manufactured materials.
One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success because both methods are known to create aerogels from cellulose no matter the origin of the cellulose. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claim is in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALTON KIEFER, PhD whose telephone number is (571)272-1235. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 EST.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached at (408)918-7584. 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.
/DALTON EDWARD KIEFER/Examiner, Art Unit 1652
/ROBERT B MONDESI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights