DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 Status
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-22 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/IB2018/055337 filed on 07/18/2018, which claims domestic priority to provisional application 62/534,751 filed on 07/20/2017.
Claim Interpretation
The term “for use as a” in claims 10-12 are interpreted as an intended use it does not appear to result in a structural difference to the instantly claimed formulation.
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.
a) Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
Lopez et al “Ag/TiO2-SiO2 Sol Gel Nanoparticles to use in Hospital-Acquired Infections” (Lopez, 2015) was published in 2015. Lopez recites a Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) Claims 1-2, 4, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
Gorne (WO2010150036A1) was published in 2010. Gorne recites a sol-gel process for manufacturing a nano-material of silica, titania or silica-titania oxides which are functionalized and hydroxylated in order to get a biocompatible nanostructured materials having a Ti:Si range of compositions from 100:0 to 0:100, nanoparticles between 1 nm to 30 nm of coordinated platinum (II) were dispersed on the surface and bonded in the net of the material. The particle size of the support that ranges between 10 nm to 1 μm comprising the steps of: a) Mixing deionized water, solvent, carboxylic acid, EDTA, gaba amino butyric acid, and different platinum compound (i.e. hexachloroplatinic acid, platinum acetate, platinum acetylacetonate, tetraamine platinum chloride, etc.). b) Adjusting and monitoring the pH of the solution (from 2 to 12). c) Adding metal alkoxide or a mixture of metal alkoxides to the solution, where R = from C2 to Ci0. d) Refluxing the colloidal solution over a period from 1 hr. to 40 days. e) Drying the samples under vacuum conditions in order to remove excess water, alcohol and organic residual at different temperatures and time f) Adding a desired amount of platinum (Gorne at claim 1). Gorne recites wherein the platinum compound is bound as coordinated nanoparticles or metallic nanoparticles (Gorne at claim 3). Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: Pt(NHs)4Cl2 was dissolved in ethanol and distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. The evaporation of the solvent and water was performed at room temperature. The dry solid was crushed and later characterized (Gorne at Example 1). Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: H2PtCI6.6H2O was dissolved in distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, ethanol, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. The evaporation of the solvent and water was performed at room temperature. The dry solid was crushed and later characterized (Gorne at Example 2).
c) Claims 1, 4, 7, 13, 15, 17-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
T. Lopez et al “Cu/TiO2-SiO2 nanostructured materials for brain cancer treatment.” (T. Lopez, 2014) was published in 2014. T. Lopez recites;
PNG
media_image2.png
248
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(T. Lopez at page 372).
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.
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.
A) Claims 1, 4-5, 9-13, 15-16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al (Lopez, 2015).
Lopez recites the formation of a sol-gel that produces is used to make nanoparticles (Lopez at Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lopez created the sol-gel in a single continuous method that included the reactants deionized water, titanium inert-butoxide, tetraethyl orthosilicate, silver nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ethylic alcohol, Gamma-aminobutyric acid (aka GABA), and tetraethoxysilane (aka TEOS) (Lopez at Materials and Methods). The gel is then dried to remove water and alcohol. A powder was produced from the dried gel through manual grinding. Lopez further recites antimicrobial activity of the particles (Lopez at Antimicrobial activity). Lopez teaches that the sol-gel powder was used in a suspension (Lopez at Material and Methods).
Lopez is discussed in the Anticipation Rejection supra. Lopez differ from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Lopez to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, Lopez recites the formation of a sol-gel that produces its final product in the form of nanoparticles (Lopez at Figure 1). Lopez created the sol-gel in a single continuous method that included the reactants deionized water, titanium inert-butoxide, tetraethyl orthosilicate, silver nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ethylic alcohol, Gamma-aminobutyric acid (aka GABA), and tetraethoxysilane (aka TEOS) (Lopez at Materials and Methods). The sol-gel forms nanoparticles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and sulfate and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains silver therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 4, Lopez teaches that the gel created by the sol-gel process is then dried and manual ground. Therefore, Lopez teaches a gel. One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 5, Lopez teaches that the sol-gel powder was used in a suspension (Lopez at Material and Methods).
Regarding instant claim 9-12, Lopez teaches that the sol-gel is intended for nosocomial infections and that the sol-gel has antibacterial properties. As claims 10 -12 do not add any further ingredients or steps they are considered an intended use of the composition of claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 13, Lopez recites the formation of a sol-gel that produces its final product in the form of nanoparticles (Lopez at Figure 1). Lopez created the sol-gel in a single continuous method that included the reactants deionized water, titanium inert-butoxide, tetraethyl orthosilicate, silver nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ethylic alcohol, Gamma-aminobutyric acid (aka GABA), and tetraethoxysilane (aka TEOS) (Lopez at Materials and Methods). The sol-gel forms nanoparticles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and sulfate and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains silver therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 15, Lopez teaches that the gel created by the sol-gel process is then dried and manual ground. Therefore, Lopez teaches a gel. One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 16, Lopez teaches that the sol-gel powder was used in a suspension (Lopez at Material and Methods).
Regarding instant claim 18, Lopez recites the formation of a sol-gel that produces its final product in the form of nanoparticles (Lopez at Figure 1). Lopez created the sol-gel in a single continuous method that included the reactants deionized water, titanium inert-butoxide, tetraethyl orthosilicate, silver nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ethylic alcohol, Gamma-aminobutyric acid (aka GABA), and tetraethoxysilane (aka TEOS) (Lopez at Materials and Methods). The sol-gel forms nanoparticles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and sulfate and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains silver therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 20, Lopez teaches that the gel created by the sol-gel process is then dried and manual ground. Therefore, Lopez teaches a gel. One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 21, Lopez teaches that the sol-gel powder was used in a suspension (Lopez at Material and Methods).
B) Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorne (WO2010150036A1).
Gorne recites a sol-gel process for manufacturing a nano-material of silica, titania or silica-titania oxides which are functionalized and hydroxylated in order to get a biocompatible nanostructured materials having a Ti:Si range of compositions from 100:0 to 0:100, nanoparticles between 1 nm to 30 nm of coordinated platinum (II) were dispersed on the surface and bonded in the net of the material. The particle size of the support that ranges between 10 nm to 1 μm comprising the steps of: a) Mixing deionized water, solvent, carboxylic acid, EDTA, gaba amino butyric acid, and different platinum compound (i.e. hexachloroplatinic acid, platinum acetate, platinum acetylacetonate, tetraamine platinum chloride, etc.). b) Adjusting and monitoring the pH of the solution (from 2 to 12). c) Adding metal alkoxide or a mixture of metal alkoxides to the solution, where R = from C2 to Ci0. d) Refluxing the colloidal solution over a period from 1 hr. to 40 days. e) Drying the samples under vacuum conditions in order to remove excess water, alcohol and organic residual at different temperatures and time f) Adding a desired amount of platinum (Gorne at claim 1). Gorne recites wherein the platinum compound is bound as coordinated nanoparticles or metallic nanoparticles(Gorne at claim 3). Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: Pt(NHs)4Cl2 was dissolved in ethanol and distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. The evaporation of the solvent and water was performed at room temperature. The dry solid was crushed and later characterized (Gorne at Example 1). Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: H2PtCI6.6H2O was dissolved in distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, ethanol, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. The evaporation of the solvent and water was performed at room temperature. The dry solid was crushed and later characterized (Gorne at Example 2). Gorne teaches the administration form can be: a) nanoparticle suspension in physiological compatible fluids (Gorne at Detail of the invention 12).
Gorne is discussed in the Anticipation Rejection supra. Gorne differ from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Gorne to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: H2PtCI6.6H2O was dissolved in distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, ethanol, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. The evaporation of the solvent and water was performed at room temperature. The dry solid was crushed and later characterized (Gorne at Example 2). The sol-gel forms nanostructured particles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains platinum therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 2, Gorne recites different platinum compound (i.e. hexachloroplatinic acid, platinum acetate, platinum acetylacetonate, tetraamine platinum chloride, etc.) (Gorne at claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 4, Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: H2PtCI6.6H2O was dissolved in distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, ethanol, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. (Gorne at Example 2). One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 5, Gorne teaches the administration form can be: a) nanoparticle suspension in physiological compatible fluids (Gorne at Detail of the invention 12).
Regarding instant claims 9-12, Gorne teaches the administration form can be: a) nanoparticle suspension in physiological compatible fluids (Gorne at Detail of the invention 12). The composition of Gorne is intented to treat a patient. As claims 10 -12 do not add any further ingredients or steps they are considered an intended use of the composition of claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 13, Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: H2PtCI6.6H2O was dissolved in distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, ethanol, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. The evaporation of the solvent and water was performed at room temperature. The dry solid was crushed and later characterized (Gorne at Example 2). The sol-gel forms nanostructured particles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains platinum therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 14, Gorne recites different platinum compound (i.e. hexachloroplatinic acid, platinum acetate, platinum acetylacetonate, tetraamine platinum chloride, etc.) (Gorne at claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 15, Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: H2PtCI6.6H2O was dissolved in distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, ethanol, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. (Gorne at Example 2). One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 16, Gorne teaches the administration form can be: a) nanoparticle suspension in physiological compatible fluids (Gorne at Detail of the invention 12).
Regarding instant claim 18, Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: H2PtCI6.6H2O was dissolved in distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, ethanol, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. The evaporation of the solvent and water was performed at room temperature. The dry solid was crushed and later characterized (Gorne at Example 2). The sol-gel forms nanostructured particles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains platinum therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 19, Gorne recites different platinum compound (i.e. hexachloroplatinic acid, platinum acetate, platinum acetylacetonate, tetraamine platinum chloride, etc.) (Gorne at claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 20, Gorne teaches that a sample was prepared as follow: H2PtCI6.6H2O was dissolved in distilled water. The solution was stirred continuously under constant reflux. After the salt was completely dissolved, ethanol, gamma-aminobutyric acid and TEOS were added. The resulting sol was maintained under constant flux and continuous stirring until the gel was formed. (Gorne at Example 2). One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 21, Gorne teaches the administration form can be: a) nanoparticle suspension in physiological compatible fluids (Gorne at Detail of the invention 12).
C)Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-13, 15, 17-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over T. Lopez (Lopez et al, 2014).
T. Lopez et al “Cu/TiO2-SiO2 nanostructured materials for brain cancer treatment.” (T. Lopez, 2014) was published in 2014. T. Lopez recites;
PNG
media_image2.png
248
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(T. Lopez at page 372).
T. Lopez is discussed in the Anticipation Rejection supra. T. Lopez differ from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of T. Lopez to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, T. Lopez recites a sol-gel created using tetraethyl orthosilicate (aka TEOS), titanium n-butoxide, GABA, copper (II) acetylacetonate, and ammonium tetrachlorocuprate (II) dehydrate (T.Lopez at Sample preparation). The sol-gel forms nanostructured particles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains copper therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 4, T. Lopez teaches that the sol-gel process creates a gel which is then dried to create a xerogel (T.Lopez at Sample preparation). One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 7, T. Lopez recites a sol-gel created using copper (II) acetylacetonate and ammonium tetrachlorocuprate (II) dehydrate (T.Lopez at Sample preparation).
Regarding instant claim 10-12, As claims 10 -12 do not add any further ingredients or steps they are considered an intended use of the composition of claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 13, T. Lopez recites a sol-gel created using tetraethyl orthosilicate (aka TEOS), titanium n-butoxide, GABA, copper (II) acetylacetonate, and ammonium tetrachlorocuprate (II) dehydrate (T.Lopez at Sample preparation). The sol-gel forms nanostructured particles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains copper therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 15, T. Lopez teaches that the sol-gel process creates a gel which is then dried to create a xerogel (T.Lopez at Sample preparation). One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 17, T. Lopez recites a sol-gel created using copper (II) acetylacetonate and ammonium tetrachlorocuprate (II) dehydrate (T.Lopez at Sample preparation).
Regarding instant claim 18, T. Lopez recites a sol-gel created using tetraethyl orthosilicate (aka TEOS), titanium n-butoxide, GABA, copper (II) acetylacetonate, and ammonium tetrachlorocuprate (II) dehydrate (T.Lopez at Sample preparation). The sol-gel forms nanostructured particles therefore it is nanostructured. The sol-gel contains GABA and would therefore be biocompatible. The sol-gel contains copper therefore it is biocatalytic. The sol-gel process produces a inter-knit network with a supported coordinate metallic atom.
Regarding instant claim 20, T. Lopez teaches that the sol-gel process creates a gel which is then dried to create a xerogel (T.Lopez at Sample preparation). One would be motivated to use the sol-gel in its original gel form to reduce cost and reduce production time. Not having dry and manually grind the gel would save both time and cost.
Regarding instant claim 22, T. Lopez recites a sol-gel created using copper (II) acetylacetonate and ammonium tetrachlorocuprate (II) dehydrate (T.Lopez at Sample preparation).
D) Claims 7, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorne (WO2010150036A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Lopez and Ortiz-Islas et al (Lopez et al, 2013).
The teachings of Gorne are discussed above.
The teachings of Gorne differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not specifically teach the use of copper. The teachings of Lopez and Ortiz-Islas cure this deficit.
Lopez and Ortiz-Islas recites;
“In order to obtain a compatible TiO2 material, its surface was functionalized with sulphate, phosphate, and γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) molecules using sulfuric acid (95.98%) (REASOL, Iztapalapa, México City, México), phosphoric acid (85%) (MONTERREY, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, México) and GABA (99%) (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) as precursors, according to the following procedure: First, 1 g of γ-aminobutyric acid was dissolved in a mixture of 115 mL of ethyl alcohol (96%) (Alfimex, México City, México) and 72 mL of deionized water, under constant stirring. Then, five drops of sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid were added to the mixture, refluxed at 70°C. Then, 70 mL of titanium n-butoxide (97%) (Sigma-Aldrich) were slowly added dropwise to the acid mixture. After this point, the mixture was stirred and refluxed at 70°C during 24 hours. Finally, the water and ethanol excess was removed from the gel, and the resultant powder was dried at 70°C during 2 days.
Cu(Oac)2/TiO2 and Cu(acac)2/TiO2 materials
The Cu complexes used for this study were Cu(Oac)2 and Cu(acac)2 (99.99%) (both Sigma-Aldrich). The amounts used were calculated to obtain molar ratios of water:alkoxide 16:1 and ethanol:alkoxide 8:1. The amount used of each Cu complex was 10% mol in TiO2.
The procedure was as follows: the adequate amount of the Cu complex was dissolved in 115 mL of ethyl alcohol and 52 mL of deionized water, while 1 g of GABA was dissolved in 20 mL of deionized water. Both solutions were mixed and refluxed at 70°C under constant stirring. After this stage, the procedure followed the same steps required to prepare the sample of functionalized-TiO2.”
(Lopez and Ortiz-Islas at Methods). Lopez and Ortiz-Islas further teaches that the cytotoxic effect of Cu complexes, Cu-TiO2 and cis-Pt, in a dose-dependent manner, was observed in all the cell lines. Cu complexes alone and those loaded on TiO2 exerted a better cytotoxic effect towards all cells than did the cis-Pt compound (Lopez and Ortiz-Islas at Conclusions). Lopez and Ortiz-Islas further teaches that low concentrations of Cu complexes alone were necessary to obtain 90% cell death, while high concentrations of cis-Pt were necessary to obtain the same effect (Lopez and Ortiz-Islas at Conclusions).
The teachings of Lopez and Ortiz-Islas differ from instant claim 1 insofar as they do not specifically teach the use of silica. The teachings of Gorne cure this deficit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to have combined or substituted the platinum of Gorne with copper for the benefit of better cytotoxic effect at lower doses as taught by Lopez and Ortiz-Islas. See MPEP 2144.06. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both Gorne and Lopez and Ortiz-Islas teach the use of sol-gels with GABA and coordinate metal ions to impact cancer cells. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims in view of Prevo and Asgari have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/20/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Application No. 16/632,843 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-6812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays.
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, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights