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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 12, 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 12 is amended. Claims 1-11 are cancelled. Claims 26-27 are newly added.
Claims 12-14, 16, 18, 21-22 and 24-27 are currently pending and considered in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 18, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on February 12, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 12, and dependent Claims 13-14, 16, 18, 21-22 and 24-27, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites clustered crystals and steps of treating the clustered crystals. The claim also recites a magnetic body comprising magnetic particles, and further wherein the magnetic particles comprises crystals. It is unclear if the crystals forming the clustered crystals and crystals of the magnetic particles are the same or not. It is unclear if the magnetic body are clustered crystals and the crystals are the magnetic particles, or if the magnetic body is merely the plural collection of magnetic particles and the plural collection of clustered crystals.
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.
Claims 12-14, 16, 18, 21-22 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy (previously cited, “One-pot solvothermal synthesis and performance of mesoporous magnetic ferrite MFe2O4 nanospheres”) in view of:
Cheng (previously cited, CN 110605120 A, English Machine Translation provided),
Janjua (previously cited, US 20190366305 A1),
Cao (previously cited, “Mesoporous Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Prepared by Polyacrylic Acid Etching and Their Application in Gene Delivery to Mesenchymal Stem Cells”),
Enomura (previously cited, US 20100243947 A1) and
Guardia Giros (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 31, 2023, US 20150064103 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 16 and Claim 22,
Reddy discloses forming a magnetic body (Abstract), comprising:
mixing iron chlorides and/or cobalt chloride hexahydrates in ethylene glycol (EG) to form a clear solution, adding sodium acetate, and stirring at 50C for 30 minutes to obtain a homogenous brown solution (Pg. 38, section 2.1), which reads on heating a magnetic precursor and a polar organic solvent (EG) to generate crystals (see also sect. 2.2, brown solution indicative of generating crystals; see also Results and Discussion, para. 2 and further Fig. 1, crystal grain nucleation from raw material mixture, and further growth of nucleated crystals in EG solution during solvothermal heating).
While Reddy discloses heating for 30 minutes, which reads on (Claim 16) the claimed range of 30-120 minutes, Reddy fails to disclose the claimed temperature range of (Claim 12, Claim 16) 60-90C (see above, Reddy discloses 50C).
Cheng similarly teaches mixing raw materials at a temperature of 50-60C for 30-60 minutes in order to dissolve raw materials thoroughly prior to solvothermal heating at 180-240C (para. [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have (Claim 12, Claim 16) heated the raw materials within the range of 50-60C and (Claim 16) for 30-60 minutes, as taught by Cheng, for the invention disclosed by Reddy, in order to ensure that the raw materials form a homogenous solution and thoroughly dissolved prior to solvothermal heating (see teaching above). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Further, Applicant has not provided criticality of the range, and it has been recognized that discovering a workable range involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Reddy fails to disclose wherein the raw material further comprises (Claim 12) water and (Claim 22) water within a range of 1-30vol% relative to the polar organic solvent.
Janjua discloses wherein the solvent may be a mixture of polar organic solvents, and particularly EG and water ([0089]; para. [0017], solvent is combination of two solvents of EG and water, wherein water is 10-90%, including 30%). Janjua teaches wherein the polarity is tailored using the mixture of solvents to provide narrower particle distributions (para. [0131], wherein product B which uses a mixture of EG and water comprises a narrower size distribution of magnetic particles than those produced with EG alone in product A; Table 1; Fig. 7A-7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have (Claim 12) used water and further to have (Claim 22) used water in an amount of 10-30vol% relative to the polar organic solvent EG, as taught by Janjua, for the invention disclosed by Reddy, in order to produce narrower particle size distributions.
Reddy further discloses heating nucleated crystals (brown solution) to 160-200C for 16-24 hours in order to form nanospheres (Sect. 2.2, 160, 180 and 200C at 16hours and 160C for 8h and 24h), which reads on raising a temperature within 170-195C for 20-80 hours and clustering the crystals.
Additionally, Reddy teaches wherein the solvothermal time affects the size and magnitude of magnetic properties of the nanospheres (Sect. 3, Results and discussion, para. 1). Reddy specifically teaches wherein increasing reaction time increases particle size (Pg. 39, para. 4). Thus, Reddy teaches wherein the solvothermal reaction time is a result-effective variable, the result being nanosphere size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a duration of 24 hours, or one within the claimed range of 20-80 hours, in order to tailor nanosphere size and magnetic properties (see teachings above), and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05.1; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Reddy further discloses wherein the nanospheres (magnetic particles) comprise a size such as 150-220nm or 130-190nm, with primary particles (crystals) comprising a size of 10-30nm (Pg. 41, para. 2-3), which reads on the claimed range of 10-40nm crystals and the claimed average magnetic particle diameter to crystal size ratio of 1.5-10 (130-190nm nanosphere size to 10-30nm crystal (primary particle) size comprises a ratio of 4.3-19; 150-220nm nanosphere size to 10-30nm crystal size comprises a ratio of 5-22).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Reddy fails to disclose further mixing and bonding the surface of the nanospheres (clustered crystals) with a primary surface treatment agent.
Cao discloses mixing synthesized ferrite nanoparticles with a hot PAA solution (surface treatment) in order to etch and bond the surface of the nanoparticles with the PAA, followed by coating with PEI, to produce an ideal mesoporous surface for drug delivery and relatively high efficient DNA loading (Pg. 937, Preparation of m-IONPs through polyacrylic acid etching, see PAA-stabilized IONPs and wherein PEI is grafted via an interaction from the PAA bonded to IONP; see also Pg. 940, Col. 1, Discussion, “the surface of IONPs is protected densely by PAA as a result of strong chelation between the carboxyl groups and iron atoms”; Fig. 1; Pg. 937, Results, all para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have surface treated and bonded the surface of the nanospheres of Reddy with hot PAA solution and PEI coating, as taught by Cao, in order to produce an ideal mesoporous surface for drug delivery and efficient DNA loading DNA, which is desired by Reddy (see teaching above; see Reddy, Introduction, para. 1-3, desired for drug delivery systems and in vivo applications).
Cao fails to disclose wherein the surface treatment agent PAA further comprises an alkyl based phosphoric acid-based compound or an alkylcarboxylic acid-based surface treatment agent.
Enomura teaches wherein the dispersant coated on a magnetic particle may include commercially available Disperbyk dispersants, which are alkyl phosphoric acid-based compounds (such as Disperbyk-180), acetic acid, which is an alkycarboylic acid-based surface treatment agent, phosphoric acids, PEI (polyethylene imine) and polyacrylic acid (PAA), and teaches wherein these dispersants may be used alone or in combination of two or more, and in order to provide excellent dispersability in solution (para. [0406]). Enomura therefore also demonstrates the art equivalence of using dispersants of PAA, PEI, phosphoric acids, acetic acid and commercially available alkyl phosphoric acid-based dispersants for the surface modification of magnetic nanoparticles, in addition to the combined use of such dispersants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least one of phosphoric acids, acetic acid and commercially available alkyl phosphoric acid-based dispersants, as taught by Enomura, for the surface treatment agent and invention disclosed by Reddy and Cao, in order to provide excellent and tailorable dispersability of the magnetite particles in solution (see teaching above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these surface treatments as the primary surface treatment agent, or in combination with the PAA and/or in addition to the PEI surface treatment agent disclosed by Cao, to further tailor the dispersability of the magnetite particles.
Therefore, Reddy in view of Cao and Enomura disclose wherein the primary surface treatment agent comprises an alkyl based phosphoric acid-based compound or an alkylcarboxylic acid-based surface treatment agent, as claimed.
Cao further discloses wherein the surface treatment agent is hot PAA and further mixed with the nanospheres at 240C, which reads on the claimed elevated temperature (Pg. 937, Col. 1, Preparation of m-IONPs Through Polyacrylic Acid Etching; both 240C and ‘hot’ solution read on elevated temperature); and
wherein the PAA treated particles are collected, washed and redispersed in solution prior to PEI coating which occurs for 30 minutes (Pg. 937, Preparation of m-IONPs Through Polyacrylic Acid Etching).
Cao however does not disclose cooling to the range of 50-90C or wherein PEI coating occurs at this temperature range. Therefore, Cao fails to disclose cooling from the elevated temperature to 50-90C and (Claim 22) maintaining at this temperature for 30-120 minutes.
Guardia Giros teaches wherein functionalization with ligands using ligand exchange occurs at temperatures below 120C, and at temperatures between 70-90C, and for a time of 60 minutes, in order to stabilize and complete the reaction while reducing the need for additional, room temperature purification steps (para. [0066]; [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cooled the primary surface agent treated nanospheres to a temperature below 120C, preferably 70-90C, to then directly functionalize the primary surface agent treated nanocrystals with the PEI (and for example, further with an alkyl phosphoric acid based compound or alkylcarboxylic acid-based compound – see above teaching by Enomura), and (Claim 22) for a time of 60 minutes, as taught by Guardia Giros, for the invention disclosed by Reddy, Cao and Enomura. One would be motivated to do this in order to modify the surface through functionalization with PEI and the like without the need for the additional (in-between) collecting, washing, and redispersion steps, and to ensure stabilization and completion of the reaction during functionalization (see teaching above).
Reddy discloses a narrow particle size distribution by using the temperature 180C (Pg. 39, Para. 1), and Cao demonstrates images wherein the particle diameter sizes are substantially similarly after surface treatment (Fig. 1b and Fig. d; Pg. 937, Col. 2, Results, Para. 1). However, Reddy and Cao fail to disclose wherein the particle diameter variation coefficient of the magnetic body is 5-30%.
Reddy and Cao further fail to disclose an SAR value of 60 W/g or more under the claimed conditions (measured at a frequency of 310kHz).
Guardia Giros further teaches a high SAR (specific absorption rate) is desired in order to provide efficient hyperthermia treatment with minimum invasiveness to a patient, and in order to be safe for the human body and useable for drug delivery systems, which is further a concern of Reddy (and Cao) (see Guardia Giros, para. [0003]; para. [0084]; see Reddy, Introduction; see Cao, Pg. 936, Introduction). Guardia Giros also teaches wherein, like Reddy, iron oxide nanoparticles are synthesized from Fe(III) chlorides and a solvothermal process ((para. [0041]-[0045], Fe3O4 from Fe(III) and Fe(II) chlorides).
Guardia Giros also teaches wherein a wide distribution of particle size negatively impacts hyperthermia performance and teaches obtaining nanoparticles with particle size distribution coefficients (granulometric distribution standard deviation) of less than 20%, preferably less than 15%, thereby producing SAR values greater than 60 W/g, including for frequencies of 310Hz (para. [0012]; para. [0042]; para. [0027]-[0031] and Fig. 8a-b; see also Fig. 17 (Table 3); 12.5+/-1nm, 19+/-3nm, 25+/-4nm, 38+/-9nm give variations of 8%, 16%, 16% and 24%, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a high SAR, such as 100 W/g or more at 310Hz, which reads on the claimed SAR of 70W/g at the claimed conditions, and a low particle size distribution coefficient, such as 15% or less, as taught by Guardia Giros, in order to comprise a drug delivery agent which is safe for the human body and one which may be efficiently hyperthermially released (see teachings above by Guardia Giros).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 13, Reddy discloses wherein the content of cobalt and ferric chloride (magnetic particle precursor) in the raw material is 0.1125M, which reads on the claimed range of 0.025-0.125M (sect. 2.2, 1.5mmol of cobalt chloride hexahydrate and 3.0mmol of ferric hexahydrate in 40ml of EG).
Regarding Claim 14, Reddy discloses wherein the raw material further comprises sodium acetate, which reads on a base, and wherein the content in the raw material is in a range of 0.4-2.0M (sect. 2.2, 40ml of Eg; Pg. 39, 3.6 g of NaAc; 3.6g of NaAc in 40ml solution equates to 1.1M).
Regarding Claim 18, Reddy is silent towards the heating rate for raising the temperature of the raw material to 60-90C (see teaching by Cheng) to form the homogenous brown solution (see Claim 16 above).
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have achieved a heating rate within the claimed range because the claimed values are merely a workable range, and Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the required heating rate to achieve homogenous solutions of the components disclosed by Reddy. One would also be aware of equipment cost and limitations to achieve certain heating rates. It has been recognized that discovering a workable range involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 21, Reddy is silent towards heating rates for reaching the solvothermal reaction temperature.
Guardia Giros further teaches wherein the heating rate to reach the reflux temperature may be varied in order to tailor the nanoparticle size, and are preferably 1-7 C/min for obtaining monodisperse granulometric distributions in terms of shape and size (para. [0063]; see Fig. 4 and Fig .16 (Table 2), reducing the heating rate from 7 C/min to 2.5 C/min and 1.6 C/min increases the nanoparticle size from 22nm to 28nm and 31 nm, respectively). Guardia Giros there further teaches wherein heating rate is a result effective variable, the result being particle size and particle size/shape distribution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heating rate of 1-7C/min, which reads on the claimed 1.5-5 C/min, as taught by Guardia Giros, for the invention disclosed by Reddy, in order to tailor the nanoparticle size and to obtain a monodisperse granulometric distributions in terms of shape and size (see teaching above). Further, Guardia Giros demonstrates wherein heating rate is a result effective variable, the result being particle size and particle size/shape distribution, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05.1; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding Claim 26, Reddy discloses wherein the magnetic nanoparticles (nanospheres) have an average particle diameter in the range of 20-300nm (Pg. 41, para. 3-4; 150-220nm and 130-190nm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 27, Reddy discloses maintaining the crystals for 24 hours (see sect. 2.2 and Claim 12 above), but fails to disclose a period of more than 24 hours and up to 80 hours as claimed; however, 24 hours is extremely close to the claimed more than 24 hours, and it is the examiner’s position that the durations in question are so close that it is prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. See MPEP2144.05.1.
Further, Reddy teaches wherein the solvothermal time affects the size and magnitude of magnetic properties of the nanospheres (Sect. 3, Results and discussion, para. 1). Reddy specifically teaches wherein increasing reaction time increases particle size (Pg. 39, para. 4). Thus, Reddy teaches wherein the solvothermal reaction time is a result-effective variable, the result being nanosphere size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a duration of 24 hours, or one within the claimed range of 20-80 hours, in order to tailor nanosphere size and magnetic properties (see teachings above), and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05.1; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy (previously cited, “One-pot solvothermal synthesis and performance of mesoporous magnetic ferrite MFe2O4 nanospheres”) in view of Cheng (previously cited, CN 110605120 A, English Machine Translation provided), Janjua (previously cited, US 20190366305 A1), Cao (previously cited, “Mesoporous Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Prepared by Polyacrylic Acid Etching and Their Application in Gene Delivery to Mesenchymal Stem Cells”), Enomura (previously cited, US 20100243947 A1) and Guardia Giros (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 31, 2023, US 20150064103 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, in further view of:
Hong (previously cited, “Controlled synthesis of hollow magnetic Fe3O4nanospheres: Effect of the cooling rate”).
Regarding Claim 24, Cao and Guardia Giros fail to disclose a cooling rate for cooling from primary surface treatment agent modification (240C) to PEI layer functionalization (70-90C). However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use natural cooling unless stated otherwise, and as a means to reduce cost and the need for cooling equipment. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize natural cooling to comprise either furnace cooling or air cooling.
Hong for example teaches wherein furnace and air cooling rates are on the order of 1C/min when cooling from 200C to 90C (Fig. 1 of Hong).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cooling rate of reaching the functionalization temperatures for PEI layer formation taught by Guardia Giros (i.e., to reach 70-90C), comprise a cooling rate of 0.5-5C/min, as demonstrated by Hong, and as claimed. Further, applicant has not provided criticality of the range, and it has been recognized that discovering a workable range involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy (previously cited, “One-pot solvothermal synthesis and performance of mesoporous magnetic ferrite MFe2O4 nanospheres”) in view of Cheng (previously cited, CN 110605120 A, English Machine Translation provided), Janjua (previously cited, US 20190366305 A1), Cao (previously cited, “Mesoporous Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Prepared by Polyacrylic Acid Etching and Their Application in Gene Delivery to Mesenchymal Stem Cells”), Enomura (previously cited, US 20100243947 A1) and Guardia Giros (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 31, 2023, US 20150064103 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, in further view of:
Chiaradia (“Incorporation of superparamagnetic nanoparticles into poly(urea-urethane) nanoparticles by step growth interfacial polymerization in miniemulsion”).
Regarding Claim 25, Cao and Guardia Giros fails to disclose wherein the method comprises a fourth step of mixing the magnetic particles surface-treated in the third step with a secondary surface treatment agent, wherein the secondary surface treatment agent is a polyurethane-based surface treatment agent, a polyurea-based surface treatment agent, a poly(urethan-urea)-based surface treatment agent and/or a polyester-based surface treatment agent.
Chiaradia teaches wherein a magnetic particle which has been coated and surface treated with a primary surface treatment agent (OA) is further encapsulated in a PUU (poly(urea-urethane) polymeric shell in order to protect the magnetic nanoparticles, improve stability against aggregation, maintain high magnetic response, and allow for further functionalization (Abstract; Pg. 597, Para. 1 Conclusions; see para. [0406] of Enomura, wherein oleic acid and PEI are art equivalent surface treatment agents for magnetic nanoparticles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a fourth step of mixing the magnetic particles surface-treated in the third step (Fe3O4-PAA-PEI particles) with a secondary surface treatment of PUU, as taught by Chiaradia, for the invention disclosed by Reddy and Cao, in order to protect the magnetic nanoparticles, improve stability against aggregation, maintain high magnetic response, and allow for further functionalization (see teachings by Chiaradia above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 12, 2026, with respect to Claim 12, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cao in view of Janjua, Reddy, Cheng, Enomura and Guardia Giros, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the magnetic particle size and crystal structure. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Reddy in view of Cheng, Janjua, Cao, Enomura and Guardia Giros, as detailed above.
Regarding the surface treatment step of Cao: Applicant argues that Cao does not teach surface treating after clustering the crystals. Applicant argues that the claimed method requires the material resulting from the second step (clustering) is mixed with the surface treatment.
Applicant argues if the surface treatment occurs any time before clustering completion, the surface treatment agent is introduced to the surface of crystals rather than the surface of the magnetic particles and does not exhibit the desired calorific properties.
Applicant argues that Cao applies the surface treatment after recovery and redispersion of the particles, and it is difficult to conclude if the treatment is therefore applied to the same material resulting from the clustering step.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Cao does not disclose applying the surface treatment step during solvothermal processing or during nanoparticle formation. The surface treatment is applied after particles have already been formed. Additionally, the claims do not prohibit intervening steps after clustering and before surface treatment, and the claims do not recite wherein the material is in exactly the same state (i.e., in the same solution from clustering) during the surface treatment.
Regarding the clustering step of Reddy:
Applicant argues that Reddy does not disclose the clustering step because Reddy uses a one pot solvothermal process where particles nucleate, grow, aggregate and form nanosphere simultaneously, and that aggregation occurs as particle formation itself and not as a clustering treatment.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Nucleation reads on crystal formation and aggregation reads on clustering. As explained in the rejection above, the brown solution indicative of nucleation (crystal formation) occurs in a first step, prior heating to the solvothermal temperature (aggregation and nanosphere formation). Additionally, the steps are the same as claimed and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that clustering would occur as claimed because the solution composition, and heating times and temperatures, are the same as claimed. It is unclear which parameters of Reddy are different from the claimed crystal forming and claimed clustering step parameters. Additionally, the magnetic particles of the instant invention (see Fig. 3-4) looks substantially identical to the nanospheres of Reddy (Fig. 3-4).
Regarding the expectation of success:
Applicant argues there is no reasonable expectation of success by introducing the surface treatment agent during the mixing of the raw materials, as evidenced by Tables 3-4 as reproduced in the remarks (see pg. 9). This argument is not found persuasive.
Cao does not introduce the surface treatment agent during the mixing of the raw materials, and treats the magnetic particles after they are already formed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Banaei (previously cited, “Synthesis and characterization of new modified silica coated magnetite nanoparticles with bisaldehyde as selective adsorbents of Ag(i) from aqueous samples”): teaches wherein the surface of magnetite particles may be modified with silica supported ligands in order to then functionalize the nanoparticle for removal of metal ions (Pg. 3, lines 18-23). Banaei teaches this involves mixing the synthesized magnetite particles with a surface treatment agent, and heating at 90C for 2 hours (Section 2.4.2).
Santra (previously cited “Drug/Dye-Loaded, Multifunctional Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Combined Targeted Cancer Therapy and Dual Optical/Magnetic Resonance Imaging”): teaches wherein ligand functionalization occurs after particle nucleation, in order to allow for the formation of stable, disperse and high crystalline superparamagnetic oxide nanocrystals with coatings (Pg. 1862, Results and Discussion, Para. 1).
Wu (“Solvothermal synthesis of cobalt ferrite nanoparticles loaded on multiwalled carbon nanotubes for magnetic resonance imaging and drug delivery”): teaches forming cobalt iron nanoparticles by a combination solvothermal co-precipitation method, wherein ferric chloride hexahydrate is mixed with DEG at 90C and stirred for 30 minutes, mixed with NaOH and stirred for 40 further minutes (co-precipitation), and then subjected to solvothermal reaction at 180-240C for 8 hours (Sect. 2.2, Preparation of MWCNT/CoFe2O4 hybrids).
Baker (US 20150306246 A): teaches wherein co-precipitation occurs from 0-100C, with crystal formation occurring instantaneously or occurring for up to 3 hours, and wherein a heating rate for such a reaction is 1-30C/hour (0.02-0.5 C/min) (para. [0039]). Baker further teaches a high SAR of 600 W/g in the frequency range of 100Hz-200KHz for applied field strengths of 10-1500Oe (para. [0010]; para. [0045]), and wherein a high SAR allows for drug release by hyperthermia reaction/thermal trigger (para. [0019]).
Kim (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 31, 2023, US 20180254130 A1): teaches a similar process using an amount of 0.1M magnetic precursor (3.996mmol of ferric chloride in 40ml of PEG solvent, see para. [0045]), and teaches wherein the amount of iron precursor and the solvent are mixed in a molar ratio of preferably 1:40 to 1:200 ([0014]). Kim teaches wherein these parameters produce a higher yield of magnetic nanoparticles comprising a uniform size and particle size distribution with high aqueous solution dispersability (para. [0006]; para. [0029]).
Kim further teaches clustering 0-10nm nanocrystals to form a magnetic nanocomposite comprising a diameter with a 100-450nm diameter (para. [0026]-[0028]).
Hatton (US 20050215687 A1): teaches 25-200nm nanoclusters comprising 8nm magnetite cores, and wherein multi-polymer coated magnetic nanoclusters have a size range of 20-1000nm (para. [0012]; para. [0049]; para. [0070])
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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights