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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN105642286A) in view of Yano (JP2009051680A).
In regards to claim 1, Cui teaches a yolk-shell nanoparticle comprising a mesoporous silica shell (“It can be seen from Fig. 1(a) that the nano-copper oxide mesoporous silica core- shell particles prepared in the thirteenth embodiment of the present invention have uniform size and good dispersibility, and the microspheres have a size of about 700 nm...”; Figure 1)
and one or more copper-based nanoparticles (Para. 0023, “The core-shell structure material prepared by the invention is composed of copper oxide nanoparticles and mesoporous silica, wherein the nano-copper oxide particles are encapsulated in the mesoporous silica shell layer to form a three-dimensional sphere...”)
where there is a void space between the mesoporous silica shell and the copper-based nanoparticles (Figure 1(a)).
Cui does not teach the average pore size of the pores within the mesoporous silica shell is in the range from 10 to 40 nm. Yano teaches that the average pore diameter can be 1-10 nm (Para. 0006, “The present invention provides the following [1] and [2]. [1] A core-shell type composite silica particle comprising silica having a mesopore structure with an average pore diameter of 1to 10 nm and encapsulating a metal or metal compound therein”)...”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the ratio and pH of the mother liquor and the amount of porogen added as taught by Cui to control the hydrolysis rate of the alkyl silicate (Cui, Para. 0013, “By changing the ratio of the mother liquor, the amount of porogen added and the pH value of the mother liquor, the hydrolysis rate of the alkyl silicate can be controlled, thereby adjusting the pore structure of the silica shell...”) and to produce the pore sizes of the silica shell in the claimed range in order to be used as a molecular sieve and allow certain materials to pass through (Yano, Para. 0002, “Since materials with a porous structure have a large surface area, they are widely used as catalyst supports and supports for immobilizing enzymes, functional organic compounds, and the like. In particular, when the pore size distribution of the pores forming the porous structure is sharp, the function as a molecular sieve is expressed, making it possible to use the material as a catalyst carrier having structure selectivity or as a material separating agent”). This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 2, 3, and 4, Cui teaches copper-based nanoparticles are consisting of copper oxide nanoparticles (Para. 0023, “The core-shell structure material prepared by the invention is composed of copper oxide nanoparticles and mesoporous silica...”).
In regards to claim 5, Cui teaches that the copper-based nanoparticles have monodisperse particle sizes (Para. 0026, “The prepared nano-copper oxide mesoporous silica core-shell particles have uniform size, controllable size (200-1000 nm), good dispersibility...”).
In regards to claims 6, 7, 8, and 11, Cui teaches that the copper nanoparticles have a monodisperse particle size from 1-7nm (Para. 0049, “The copper oxide content is 22wt%, the average particle size is 4.7nm, the dispersion is 21.0%, the mesoporous silica content is 78wt%...”).
In regards to claim 10, Cui teaches that the relative amount by weight of copper-based particles relative to the total weight can be 50% by weight, which lies within the claimed range (Para. 0040, “The copper oxide content is 50% by weight, the average particle size is 8.0 nm...”).
Claims 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN10564286A) in view of Qu (“Dendritic core-shell silica spheres with large pore size for separation of biomolecules”, Journal of Chromatography A, Pages 31-37, 2018).
In regards to claim 67-69, Cui teaches a yolk-shell nanoparticle comprising a mesoporous silica shell (“It can be seen from Fig. 1(a) that the nano-copper oxide mesoporous silica core- shell particles prepared in the thirteenth embodiment of the present invention have uniform size and good dispersibility, and the microspheres have a size of about 700 nm...”; Figure 1)
and one or more copper-based nanoparticles (Para. 0023, “The core-shell structure material prepared by the invention is composed of copper oxide nanoparticles and mesoporous silica, wherein the nano-copper oxide particles are encapsulated in the mesoporous silica shell layer to form a three-dimensional sphere...”)
where there is a void space between the mesoporous silica shell and the copper-based nanoparticles (Figure 1(a)).
Cui does not teach or suggest that the average pore size is between 15 to 40, 15 to 30, or 20 to 25 nm. Qu teaches a silica shell where the pore size can be from 7 to 37nm (Page 32, “By adjusting the types of the organic solvents, core-shell silica particles with pore size ranged from 7 to 37 nm were synthesized”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pore sizes in the shell by Qu in the nanoparticle taught by Cui to improve separation performance for biomolecules, as H2S can be considered a biomolecule due to its role as a cytoprotectant (Abstract, “The great efficient separation demonstrates that the wide pore core-shell silica spheres have a great potential for rapid analysis of both small and large solutes with high performance liquid chromatography”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of remarks, filed 09/03/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-11 under 35 USC § 102 and claim 9 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claim set is still rejected with Cui in view of Yano as discussed above.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on page 6 in regards to the average pore size, applicant claims that Yano teaches away from the claimed subject matter. However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2144.II. Yano teaches an overall range of 1-10 nm which overlaps the claimed range of 10-40 nm in the amended claim 1. Therefore, amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §103. Regarding the new claims of 67-69 with a narrower ranges of pore sizes, Qu teaches a spherical silica shell that ranges from 7nm to 37nm, where larger pore sizes are desired due to enhanced separation performance. As H2S can be considered a biomolecule, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the pore sizing of the shell of the nanoparticles taught by Cui in order to increase the separation performance for H2S removal.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on page 6-7 for the yolk-shell structure, Fig. 1(a) of Cui shows a core and a shell that has space in the nanoparticle, where the shell thickness can also be adjusted. This figure from Cui can be compared to Fig. 7a and 11 from the instant drawings filed on 03/23/2022, where there is a shell around a circular core. Cui also teaches that the copper oxide nanoparticle size is less than 10nm while the thickness of the shell layer is 10-400nm (Para. 0023, “The core-shell structure material prepared by the present invention is composed of copper oxide nanoparticles and mesoporous silica, wherein the nano copper oxide particles are wrapped in a mesoporous silica shell layer to form a three-dimensional sphere, the copper oxide content is 5 wt%-70 wt%, the particle size is less than 10 nm, and the dispersion is 5.0%-30.0%; the mesoporous silica content is 30 wt%-95 wt%, the pore size of the mesoporous silica shell layer is 2.0-5.0 nm, the specific surface area is 100-1000 m2/g, and the shell thickness is 10-400 nm; the size of the nano copper oxide mesoporous silica core-shell microspheres is 200-1000 nm”). Therefore, a void space would be present within the nano-copper oxide mesoporous silica core-shell particles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736