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 Application
Claims 1-22 filed on 9/18/2024 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubeyitogullari et al. (Carbohydrate Polymers 147 (2016) 125-132) in view of Soares et al. (Carbohydrate Polymers 255,117526 (2021) and further in view of Glab et al. (Materials 2021, 14(16),4443); Batista et al. (International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2020 156,773-782) and Chen et al (ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 202 12(6) :7795-7804) providing evidentiary support.
Ubeyitogullari discloses starch bioaerogels prepared from starch including formation of starch aerogels by solvent exchange and supercritical CO2 drying (Fig 1). Ubeyitogullari does not disclose incorporating chitosan into the starch bioaerogel.
Soares et al. disclose mixed starch/chitosan hydrogels, wherein chitosan partially replaces starch, and report that incorporation of chitosan provides technological functionality to the starch hydrogel, including modulated elasticity and controlled release properties (conclusion) depending on the proportion of starch replaced by chitosan.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to incorporate chitosan, as taught by Soares, into the starch hydrogel precursor of Ubeyitogullari in order to modify/improve the physical properties of the starch gel, and thereafter subject the modified gel to Ubeyitogullari’s solvent exchange and supercritical CO2 drying process, thereby obtaining a starch bioaerogel as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Glab discloses starch-modified chitosan hydrogels with improved sorption properties prepared using a 1% chitosan solution (solubilized form, Section 2.3) demonstrating the known use of relatively low concentrations of chitosan concentrations in starch-containing systems. It would have been obvious to employ low chitosan concentration in the Ubeyitogullari/Soares modified hydrogel with the amount selected to obtain the desired gel properties, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, Ubeyitogullari discloses starch bioaerogels prepared from starch hydrogel precursors using solvent exchange and supercritical CO2 drying. Ubeyitogullari does not disclose incorporation of chitosan. Soares discloses incorporating chitosan into starch hydrogels by partially replacing starch with chitosan and demonstrates that chitosan modifies the physical properties of the starch hydrogel. Glab further discloses incorporating chitosan into a starch-containing hydrogel in solubilized form. It would therefore have been obvious to incorporate the chitosan taught in Soares into Ubeyitogullari’s starch hydrogel precursor in solubilized form as taught in Glab and thereafter process the modified hydrogel according to Ubeyitogullari to obtain a starch/chitosan bioaerogel with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a bioaerogel of Ubeyitogullari having modified physical properties.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 11-12 which recite specific chitosan concentrations, Soares discloses varying the amount of chitosan in starch/chitosan hydrogels and demonstrates that chitosan content affects gel properties, thereby establishing chitosan concentration as a result-effective variable. Glab further shows that use of relatively low concentrations of the solubilized chitosan in starch-containing hydrogel systems is beneficial. It would have been obvious to optimize the amount of chitosan through routine experimentation to obtain desired gel and aerogel properties, including amounts within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 4-6and 13-15, Ubeyitogullari employs amylose-containing starch (wheat starch, about 25% amylose), and discloses prior art with high-amylose corn starch containing about 75% amylose, producing aerogels with high surface area, falling within the claimed range of 27-80%.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Ubeyitogullari discloses varying starch concentration in forming hydrogels and resulting bioaerogels and recognizes starch concentration as affecting aerogel properties. Accordingly, selection of a starch concentration within the claimed range would have constituted routine optimization of a known result-effective variable.
Regarding claims 8,10 and 17-18, Ubeyitogullari discloses formation of the starch hydrogel precursor followed by solvent exchange (alcogel formation) and supercritical carbon dioxide drying to obtain the bioaerogel while Glab discloses reparation and incorporation of chitosan in solubilized form. Application of Ubeyitogullari’s known aerogel-processing steps to the starch/chitosan hydrogel suggested by Soares and Glab would have predictably produced the corresponding starch/chitosan bioaerogel having the claimed processing characteristics.
Regarding claims 19-20, Chen and Zhang disclose that the porous biopolymer aerogels can be used as templates for oil structuring by absorbing edible oil into the aerogel pores thereby forming oleogels. It would have been obvious to employ the starch/chitosan bioaerogel resulting from the methods in Ubeyitogullari, Soares and Glab as a porous aerogel template to absorb and structure oil and thereby obtain the claimed oleogel and employ the resulting structured edible-oil material in a food product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Soares establishes that varying chitosan content affects physical properties of starch/chitosan gels, while Batista discloses chitosan- containing polysaccharide aerogels and investigates the influence of chitosan content on the characteristics and textural properties of the resulting aerogels. Thus, chitosan content was recognized as a variable affecting both precursor-gel and resulting aerogel properties. It would have been obvious to optimize chitosan content through routine experimentation to obtain desired aerogel properties including shrinkage, density, microporosity, and oil-structuring capacity recited in claim 22. Furthermore, Chen shows the relationship between porous aerogel structure and oil absorption/structuring. Accordingly, selection of a chitosan concentration providing the recited aerogel and oil-structuring properties would have constituted routine optimization of a known result-effective variable.
Claims 1-22 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights