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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“160 g/L,” in line 9 should read “160 g/L, and”.
“wherein” in line 10 should read “wherein:”.
“solution; adding” in line 16 should read “solution, adding”.
“thoroughly; and” in line 17 should read “thoroughly, and”.
“wherein in the sodium alginate-starch mixed solution, the concentration of the sodium alginate is 22.5 g/L to 27.5 g/L, and the concentration of the corn starch is 120 g/L to 160 g/L” in lines 18-20 should be omitted (because the exact same limitation has already been recited in lines 8-9 of claim 1).
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: “25 g/L, and” in line 9 should read “25 g/L and”.
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.
Claims 1-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "A use of a broad bean protein and starch-based foamed hydrogel in preparation of a vibration-damping packaging" in lines 1-2. This limitation is rejected as being indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (note that the steps recited in claim 1 are steps of the preparation method of the broad bean protein and starch-based foamed hydrogel, not steps of the use of the broad bean protein and starch-based foamed hydrogel). Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). The examiner suggests replacing “A use of a broad bean protein and starch-based foamed hydrogel in preparation of a vibration-damping packaging, wherein a preparation” in lines 1-2 of claim 1 with “A preparation” in order to overcome this rejection. Please note that if this change is made, then “The use of the broad bean protein and starch-based foamed hydrogel in the preparation of the vibration-damping packaging according” in lines 1-2 of claims 2-4 must be changed to “The preparation method according” and “the vibration-damping packaging” in line 4 of claims 3 and 4 must be changed to “a vibration-damping packaging”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "stirring the broad bean protein solution with a concentration of 60 g/L until foaming" in lines 3-4. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the stirring step recited in lines 3-4 of claim 1 or to a totally new stirring step.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "under stirring, adding the sodium alginate-starch mixed solution in the volume of twice the volume of the broad bean protein solution, followed by stirring until homogeneous" in lines 4-6. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the adding sodium alginate-starch mixed solution step recited in lines 4-6 of claim 1 or to a totally new adding sodium alginate-starch mixed solution step.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "adding the calcium carbonate until the final concentration of the calcium carbonate reaches 10 g/L, and further stirring thoroughly to produce the broad bean protein and starch-based foamed hydrogel" in lines 6-8. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the adding calcium carbonate step recited in lines 6-8 of claim 1 or to a totally new adding calcium carbonate step.
For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 2 as if it instead reads as follows:
“The preparation method according to claim 1, wherein stirring the broad bean protein solution comprises stirring the broad bean protein solution with a concentration of 60 g/L until foaming, wherein adding the calcium carbonate comprises adding the calcium carbonate until the final concentration of the calcium carbonate reaches 10 g/L, and wherein in the sodium alginate-starch mixed solution, the concentration of the sodium alginate is 25 g/L and the concentration of the corn starch is 140 g/L.”
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the closest prior art reference found by the examiner, Li et al. (CN 115260772 A), hereinafter Li, discloses a preparation method of a foamed hydrogel from soybean protein solution, sodium alginate solution, and calcium carbonate (see Page 4 line 59 – Page 5 line 18 and Page 5 line 59 – Page 6 line 17 of Machine Translation of CN 115260772 A).
However, Li, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious a preparation method of a foamed hydrogel from broad bean protein solution, sodium alginate-starch mixed solution, and calcium carbonate, the method comprising the specific steps and specific quantities recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-4, they are indicated as being allowable solely because they depend from claim 1 which is allowable as explained above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights