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 II, claims 10-20 in the reply filed on 18 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) set forth on page 1 of the reply. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have been shown to be distinct and a search burden has been demonstrated by at least the different classification of the two groups of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 18 September 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sannino et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0319042 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sannino et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0009], [0011]-[0013], [0016], [0037], [0045], [0047], [0050], [0059] and [0063]) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0009] (processes for producing hydrogels (which are porous products) by cross-linking a soluble polysaccharide derivative with a poly-carboxylic acid) and [0002] (hydrogels are capable of absorbing and retaining large amounts of water (i.e., the same function as a sponge)) of Sannino et al), including (a) providing a cellulose or cellulose derivative (see paragraph [0037] (soluble polysaccharide derivative is a hydroxyalkyl polysaccharide (e.g., hydroxyethyl-cellulose)) of Sannino et al); (b) providing a solution including citric acid and water (see paragraph [0016] (solution including citric acid (i.e., a poly-carboxylic acid) and water) of Sannino et al); (c) mixing the cellulose or its derivative into the solution of citric acid and water to create a cellulose-citric acid solution (see paragraph [0011] (stirring (i.e., mixing) a polysaccharide derivative (e.g., hydroxyethyl-cellulose), poly-carboxylic acid (e.g., citric acid) and water) of Sannino et al); (d) lyophilizing the cellulose-citric acid solution (see paragraph [0050] (the polysaccharide derivative/poly-carboxylic acid can be isolated from the solution by freeze drying (i.e., lyophilizing)) of Sannino et al); and (e) heating the lyophilized cellulose-citric acid mixture to cause cross-linking of the cellulose derivative and citric acid, thereby producing an absorbent, porous product (see paragraph [0063] (heating the evaporated (i.e., lyophilized) material to cross-link the cellulose derivative) of Sannino et al). Regarding the expression “for supporting plant growth” in the preamble of claim 10, this expression is a statement of intended use, is not a claim limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (see MPEP §2111.02(II)).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, see paragraph [0050] (freeze drying (i.e., lyophilizing) is a drying process which removes liquid (e.g., water, unreacted acid) from a material.
Regarding claim 14, see paragraph [0047] (aqueous solution of cellulose derivative and poly-carboxylic acid is formed at from about 10-100°C) of Sannino et al.
Regarding claim 15, see paragraph [0011] (stirring) of Sannino et al.
Regarding claim 16, see paragraph [0059] (heat-treated at about 100-250°C for cross-linking) of Sannino et al.
Regarding claim 17, see paragraphs [0012] (polysaccharide derivative is at least about 0.25% to about 30%) and [0013] (poly-carboxylic acid is from about 0.01% to about 5%) of Sannino et al.
Regarding claim 19, see paragraph [0037] (soluble polysaccharide derivative is a hydroxyalkyl polysaccharide (e.g., hydroxyethyl-cellulose)) of Sannino et al.
Regarding claim 20, see paragraph [0045] (poly-carboxylic acid is food-grade or pharmaceutical-grade) of Sannino et al.
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.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sannino et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0319042 A1) as applied to claims 10, 11, 13-17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of either Mikkonen et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,441,206 B1) or Wu (WO 2022/165940 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sannino et al does not teach (1) removing unreacted citric acid by dialysis. Mikkonen et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 16, lines 1-2) teaches removing unreacted citric acid by dialysis (see col. 16, lines 1-2 (unreacted citric acid was removed by filtration (e.g., dialysis)) of Mikkonen et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove unreacted citric acid by dialysis in the process of Sannino et al in view of Mikkonen et al in order to remove unreacted citric acid from a material. Wu (see the entire document, in particular, paragraph [0081] of the translation) teaches removing unreacted citric acid by hydrolysis (see paragraph [0081] (powder is purified by dialysis to remove excess unreacted citric acid) of Wu), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove unreacted citric acid by dialysis in the process of Sannino et al in view of Wu in order to remove unreacted citric acid from a material.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sannino et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0319042 A1) as applied to claims 10, 11, 13-17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Yao et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,268,405 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Sannino et al does not teach (1) a porous product with pores having a diameter of from about 0.01 mm to greater than 1 mm. Yao et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 5-6; col. 3, lines 8-11 and 13-16) teaches a process (see col. 1, lines 5-6 (methods of making hydrogels (i.e., porous products)) of Yao et al), including a porous product with pores having a diameter of from about 0.01 mm to greater than 1 mm (see col. 3, lines 13-16 (porous freeze-thaw hydrogel having a pore diameter of about 0.02-2.0 mm) of Yao et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a porous product with pores having a diameter of from about 0.01 mm to greater than 1 mm in the process of Sannino et al in view of Yao et al in order to manufacture a hydrogel (i.e., a porous product) combining the benefits of conventional physically and chemically cross-linked hydrogels (see col. 3, lines 8-11 of Yao et al).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights