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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of t/e previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/5/2025 has been entered.
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 8/13/2025 wherein claims 1, 5 and 36 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 26, 31, 35-39, 41 and 42 are presented for examination on the merits.
The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed 8/13/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36 and 39 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Sathishkumar et al. (Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2015, 114, 232-240), evidenced by Varki et al. (Chapter 20: Essentials of Glycobiology, 1999, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 19 pages) have been fully considered and are considered persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/13/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 39 and 42 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Belgorodsky et al. (WO 2014/106830; of record), evidenced by Masuda et al. (J. Nat. Prod., 2007, 70, 1089-1092), in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0073065) have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive and are MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the Office Action mailed 5/5/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/13/2025 regarding the rejection of claim 26 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Belgorodsky et al. (WO 2014/106830; of record), evidenced by Masuda et al. (J. Nat. Prod., 2007, 70, 1089-1092), in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0073065), and further in view of Foss et al. (US 2015/0044449) have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive and are MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the Office Action mailed 5/5/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/13/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 31 and 37 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Belgorodsky et al. (WO 2014/106830; of record), evidenced by Masuda et al. (J. Nat. Prod., 2007, 70, 1089-1092), in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0073065), and further in view of Hendler et al. (Chem Comm, 2011, 47, 7419-7421) have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive and are MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the Office Action mailed 5/5/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/13/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 38 and 41 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Belgorodsky et al. (WO 2014/106830; of record), evidenced by Masuda et al. (J. Nat. Prod., 2007, 70, 1089-1092), in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0073065), and further in view of WHO: Silver as a Drinking-Water Disinfectant (2018, 105 pgs) have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive and are MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the Office Action mailed 5/5/2025.
In response to the 103 rejections, Applicant asserts the following:
Belgrodsky cautins against reaction under acidic conditions stating that AgNO3 in jellyfish protein under acidic conditions yields undesired results. Moreover, the acidic process results in a population consisting essentially of hexagon and triangular particles
In response to A, the Examiner acknowledges that Belgorodsky teaches that a pH of 3-5 leads to undesirable results. However, this pH range does not encompass acidic pH values above 5, e.g. 5.1 to 7. Regardless, Belgorodsky still teaches a process wherein a metal cation is reduced by reaction with glycoprotein under alkaline conditions (e.g. pH 9).
Applicant’s argument that the previous alternative nature of the pH conditions has been mitigated is considered unpersuasive as the claims recite “wherein the preselected form is produced following the following criteria: an acidic pH condition provides a population of nanostructures and microstructures consisting essentially of hexagon and triangular shaped particles; and a basic pH condition provides a population consisting essentially of circular particles of nanometric sizes.” Although the relationship between the acidic and basic conditions are tied together by ‘and’, the introduction to both conditions states that the ‘preselected form is produced’ by the following criteria, the criteria being that acidic conditions yield hexagonal particles and basic conditions yield circular particles. The limitation still reads as a) if one preselects hexagonal particles, the method should use acidic conditions and b) if one preselects circular particles, the method should use alkaline conditions. The claims do not read as requiring the method to include both the acidic and basic conditions.
In any case, carrying forward the alkaline process of Belgorodsky would result in the array of particles characterized as described. That is, a basic pH would provide a population of particles of circular nanometric sizes (which Belgorodsky describes). Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
Maintained Rejections, of Record
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 39 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belgorodsky et al. (WO 2014/106830; of record), evidenced by Masuda et al. (J. Nat. Prod., 2007, 70, 1089-1092), in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0073065; of record).
Belgorodsky is directed to a jellyfish derived polymer comprising a jellyfish protein and at least one additive wherein the protein comprises mucin and collagen (see claim 1) (see instant claims 1, 9). It is noted that mucin is the identified glycoprotein of the instant claims (see instant claims 1 and 9). Regarding the limitation that the mucin be ‘Q-mucin’, Masuda is cited as evidence that “Q-mucin” corresponds to qnuimucin which is a novel glycoprotein found in jellyfish (which is the source of mucin in Belgorodsky). Thus, the species of mucin of Belgorodsky would be expected to include Q-mucin.
Additives include metal ions, e.g. salts, and metal nanoparticles (see [0007, 0047]) (see instant claims 1, 12, 16 and 24). Exemplified metals include copper, silver and gold (see [0047]) (see instant claim 13). The metal nanoparticles are described by Beldorosky as having a particle size of 40 nm (see [0076]) (see instant claims 25 and 36).
Of particular relevance is [0074] which describes a method of mixing jellyfish protein material and silver nitrate (‘metal precursor’, ‘metal salt’) (see instant claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 32 and 33) at room temperature (see instant claim 4 and 6) at a pH of 9 (see instant claims 1, 2, 5, 32 and 33) to form a final product (see instant claim 35). It is noted that pH values used for the process of making the jellyfish derived polymer material may also be performed at a pH of 7 (see [0048]) (see instant claims 1, 2 and 42) wherein the pH is achieved via borate buffer (see [0076]) (see instant claims 19 and 22).
Belgorodsky states that their room temperature method is sufficient for permitting reductive transformation of the metal species (see [0077])) (see instant claims 4 and 8).
Methods of using the jelly fish derived polymers include providing the polymers onto a surface so as to provide antibacterial qualities (see [0026]) (see instant claim 39).
Regarding the instant claims requirement that an acidic pH provide a population of nanostructures and microstructures (which Belgorodsky achieves) or provide a population of hexagon and triangular shaped particles (which Belgorodsky does not) or a basic pH which provides a population of particles of nanometric sizes (which Belgorodsky achieves), these are inherent to the prior art.
Belgorodsky fails to teach the method as preselecting the form of the metal particles desired to be produced.
Bowen is directed to structured substrates and their process of manufacture wherein the structured substrates comprise a plurality of metallic (e.g. Au, Ag, et c.) nanoparticles (see [0061]) wherein their shape is selected prior to synthesis wherein the shape can be triangular, polygonal, spherical and so on (see [0056]). It would have been an obvious modification of Belgorodsky to select a desired particle shape prior to performing synthesis of the particles as such would have been an obvious step in process planning. One of ordinary skill knowing that the process can be tailored to produce a variety of particle shapes would begin a method process whereby the end result would be preselected prior to performing the laboratory processes.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 26 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belgorodsky et al. (WO 2014/106830; of record), evidenced by Masuda et al. (J. Nat. Prod., 2007, 70, 1089-1092), in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0073065; of record) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 39 and 42 above, and further in view of and Foss et al. (US 2015/0044449).
Belgorodsky fails to teach the nanoparticles as having a size between 1-5 microns.
Foss is directed to antimicrobial/antifungal materials. These materials may comprise silver microparticles having a size of between 800 nm to 20 microns (see [0014]) (see instant claim 26). Thus, given that it was known that silver microparticles having a size between 800nm and 20 microns are known to exist and exhibit antimicrobial activity, it would have been an obvious modification of Belgorodsky to use such sized particles in the jellyfish protein material with a reasonable expectation for success.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 31 and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belgorodsky et al. (WO 2014/106830; of record), evidenced by Masuda et al. (J. Nat. Prod., 2007, 70, 1089-1092), in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0073065; of record) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 39 and 42 above, and further in view of Hendler et al. (Chem Commun, 2011, 47, 7419-7421; of record).
Belgorodsky fails to teach their method as further separating the metal particles from the glycoprotein. Belgorodsky fails to teach their method as producing a film comprising the nanoparticles.
Hendler is directed to synthesis of silver nanoparticles in mucin glycoprotein. It is taught that the reaction to produce the silver nanoparticles is performed inside a natural mucin glycoprotein without the help of an external educing agent by using the reducing properties of the host mucin. Upon synthesis of the silver nanoparticles, the nanoparticles may be isolated from the glycoprotein via phase separation and precipitation (see page 7420-74211). Moreover, Hendler teaches that their silver mucin material may be provided as a film (see page 7420) (see instant claim 37). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Belgorodsky’s method to further include isolation the silver nanoparticles with a reasonable expectation for success in said particles being suitable for antimicrobial activity. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 38 and 41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belgorodsky et al. (WO 2014/106830; of record), evidenced by Masuda et al. (J. Nat. Prod., 2007, 70, 1089-1092), in view of Bowen et al. (US 2018/0073065; of record) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 39 and 42 above, and further in view of WHO: silver as a Drinking-Water Disinfectant (2018, 105 pgs)
Belgorodsky fails to teach using the silver mucin material in a method of disinfecting water.
WHO states that silver is a known antimicrobial material and that silver nanoparticles may be used to treat surfaces and substances in need of disinfection. In particular, the use of silver nanoparticles to disinfect water is described (see page 2) (see instant claims 38 and 41). Thus, it would have been obvious to use the silver nanoparticles and material of Belgorodsky as a means of water treatment with a reasonable expectation that the antimicrobial silver would provide desired disinfection. See MPEP 2143(I)(C) which states that the use of a known technique (disinfect water with silver) to improve similar methods (provide general antimicrobial activity) in the same way is indicia of obviousness.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. 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).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611