DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 2/15/2026 wherein claims 1-7 and 12-15 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 and 12-15 are presented for examination on the merits. Claim 8-11 remain withdrawn.
The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
The amendments filed 2/15/2026 render moot the rejection of claim 4 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 112(b). This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/15/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 12 and 13 made by the examiner under 35 USC 103 over Lozano et al. (US 2018/0297121), evidenced by Toxicological Profile of Perchlorates (2008) is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 10/7/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/15/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 4 and 14 made by the examiner under 35 USC 103 over Lozano et al. (US 2018/0297121), evidenced by Toxicological Profile of Perchlorates (2008), further in view of Zain et al. (Carbohydrate Polymers, 112, 2014, 195-202) is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 10/7/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/15/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 5, 7 and 15 made by the examiner under 35 USC 103 over Lozano et al. (US 2018/0297121), evidenced by Toxicological Profile of Perchlorates (2008), further in view of Mistry et al. (J Chem Eng Process Tech, 7, 3, 2016, 1-9) is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 10/7/2025.
In regards to the 103 rejections, Applicant asserts the rejection is improper for the following reasons:
Lozano teaches that the antioxidant agent be added at the end of the process whereas the claimed process, the antioxidant is added prior to mixing and before the addition of the reducing agent. The order by which the ingredients of the process are added changes the physiochemical characteristics of the resulting nanoparticle resulting in nonpredictable modifications; and
Although Lozano teaches chitosan as a stabilizer, Lozano only does so in passing and provides no specific guidance or motivation to select the polysaccharide as claimed. Selecting chitosan from within the list of Lozano would not be considered obvious; and
Mistry is not analogous to Lozano because it concerns lipid-based nanocarriers, not the chemical synthesis of metallic nanoparticles.
In response to A, Lozano describes a process having different process steps than that claimed. Steps (a)(i)-(a)(iii) and (f) of instant claim 1 require combining a solution of metallic copper precursor, a biopolymer (e.g. chitosan) and an oxidizing agent together into a reactor and then upon completion of the reaction adding a reducing agent. Lozano describes a process where a metallic precursor solution is combined with an oxidizing agent and a stabilizer in a reaction chamber, allowed to react and then treated with a reducing agent (see claim 1). Applicant’s argument that the general process steps are different from those claimed is not persuasive because the process of Lozano generally describes that claimed process, providing a suitable framework for routine modifications such as how the reducing agent is combined with the reaction solution (e.g. flow or batch addition). Other than the argument to the general process being non-obvious, Applicant has not pointed to anything specifically which differentiates the present method from the prior art. For example, does the continuous addition of reducing agent yield an outcome that would be unexpected when compared to a batch addition? As far as the Examiner can tell, the response does not point to anything specifically and so the process by which the reducing agent is combined with the reaction solution is still considered obvious.
In response to B, the argument that Lozano passingly mentions chitosan is not persuasive. Throughout Lozano chitosan is referenced for its use as a stabilizer, [0004] and [0005] describe prior art compositions that include chitosan as a stabilizing agent. Claim 3 of Lozano includes chitosan as a stabilizing polymer. Example 4 sets forth a composition which includes chitosan. The recitation of chitosan by Lozano isn’t a throwaway species within a list of 1,000’s, instead it is described as having a desirable property (stabilizer), used in an example and claimed within a narrow group of about 15. In the present case, looking to a list and selecting therefrom is neither burdensome or inventive. See MPEP 2143(I)(E) and MPEP 2144.07.
In response to C, Mistry, like that claimed, is directed to the synthesis of metal nanoparticles. Although Mistry includes lipids in their nanoparticle, the Examiner does not consider this disqualifying as the present claims are comprising claims and open-ended. Mistry teaches that surfactants, such as polyoxyethylene 80 sorbitan monolaurate and polyoxyethylene 80 sorbitan monooleate can be included to provide stabilization and homogenization benefit to the resulting nanoparticles/composition (see page 2). It would be expected that their inclusion in the nanoparticle synthesis process of Lozano would benefit from their inclusion given that surfactants are commonly added to provide stability and homogenization to resulting compositions/particles.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lozano et al. (US 2018/0297121; of record), evidenced by Toxicological Profile of Perchlorates (2008, page 149).
Lozano describes methods for producing copper nanoparticles.
The method requires dissolving at least one copper salt and stabilizer in water, mixing and then adding a reducing agent (see abstract and claim 1). Exemplified copper salts include copper chloride (CuCl2) and copper perchlorate (Cu(ClO4)2) among several others and are included in the composition at a concentration of 0.5-20 M (see [0023]) (see instant claims 1(a)(i) and 2). It is noted that the range of Lozano overlaps with that of instant claim 1(a)(i). Regarding the presence of an ‘oxidizing agent’, the inclusion of copper perchlorate would meet said requirement as perchlorate is an oxidizing agent (see evidence to Toxocological Profile of Perchlorates). Thus, the obvious mixture of copper chloride and copper perchlorate would meet both limitations of instant claim 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(iii). The concentration of the oxidizing agent being 0.1 mM to 20 M is obvious as the concentration of the copper salt suggested by Lozano would dictate the concentration presence in solution which is described above (e.g. 0.5-20 M).
The stabilizer may be that of chitosan (a biopolymer) (see [0024]) (see instant claims 1(a)(ii) and 3) and included in the solution in a concentration of 0.5-20M (see [0024]). Although Lozano does not describe a range as claimed, e.g. 0.1-25% (m/m), the range claimed would have still been obvious as the general conditions of that claimed are described. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Where the general conditions of a claim are described in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Such a rationale is appropriate in the present circumstance.
The mixture of the copper salt, stabilizer and oxidizing agent (copper perchlorate) is to be heated to a temperature of between 25-120oC and stirred in the range of 5-10,000 rpm (see [0028] and Example 1) (see instant claim 1(c) and 1(e)).
After the heating/mixing step, the reducing agent is added and allowed to mix for up to 24 hours (see claim 1) (see instant claim 1(f)). Although Lozano describes adding a reducing agent to the stabilized mixture, Lozano fails to teach adding the reducing agent at a constant flow rate of about 0.1 mL/hour to 10.0 L/hour. This manipulation of Lozano as a simple modification of making a batch addition (of reducing agent) continuous. See MPEP 2144(V)(E).
The end result is a suspension/solution of the nanoparticles (see instant claims 6, 12). The color of the particles/solution containing the particles would be expected to overlap with that claimed (reddish-brown) given the steps involved are overlapping.
Regarding instant claim 1(b), the volume of the solution/water in the reactor volume being half is not considered inventive as the volume of the reaction solution would be seen as an obvious parameter to manipulate. Moreover, the water is the medium by which the reaction occurs and is not seen as impacting the process itself so long as it presence is sufficient to carry forward the reaction.
The only difference between Lozano and the instant claims is that Lozano does not teach the specific combination of process steps as claimed in a single method, or with sufficient specificity to be anticipatory. The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the teaching of Lozano, but ‘such ‘picking and choosing’ within several variable does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. Where, as here, the reference does not provide any explicit motivation to select this specific combination of variables, anticipation cannot be found. However, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” See MPEP 2141(I).
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lozano et al. (US 2018/0297121; of record), evidenced by Toxicological Profile of Perchlorates (2008, page 149) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Zain et al. (carbohydrate Polymers, 112, 2014, 195-202).
Zain fails to teach the process as including from about 0.1-2.5% chitosan dissolved in acetic acid solution in water at a concentration of 0.1-5.0 M.
Zain is directed to the synthesis of copper nanoparticles using ascorbic acid and chitosan. Chitosan, like taught by Lozano, is used in the process to stabilize the nanoparticles (see page 196). The process of making the nanoparticles requires preparing chitosan solutions (1%, 2% and 3%) by dissolving chitosan in 1% acetic acid solution (see page 196). Preparing chitosan in this manner enables the chitosan to completely dissolve. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lozano’s process such that the chitosan was dissolved in acetic acid prior to carrying out the process of synthesizing the nanoparticles. Regarding the concentrations, these are obvious as Lozano teach chitosan be used from 0.1-20 M and Zain teaches 1, 2 and 3% chitosan in acetic acid mixtures.
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 5, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lozano et al. (US 2018/0297121; of record), evidenced by Toxicological Profile of Perchlorates (2008, page 149) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Mistry et al. (J Chem Eng Process Tech, 7, 3, 2016, 1-9).
Lozano fails to teach the process as including ethoxylated sorbitan monolaurate 80 in water in a mass ratio between about 0.05-20%.
Mistry is directed to the synthesis of copper nanoparticles and the use of surfactants, such as polyoxyethylene 80 sorbitan monooleate (Tween 80) and polyoxyethylene 80 sorbitan monolaurate (Tween 20), stabilization/homogenization of particle size (see page 2). The surfactant is employed in aqueous solutions at a concentration of between 2-10% (see page 2). Mistry’s copper nanoparticles are separated from solution by drying via desiccation for 48 hours (see instant claim 7). As no temperature is provided, it is presumed that the desiccation occurs at room temperature. Modifying Lozano’s method so as to include polyoxyethylene 80 sorbitan monolaurate with a reasonable expectation for providing stabilization to the homogenized copper nanoparticles. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights