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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 2/3/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 30 and 32, the term “microbial resistance” can be read in two ways, i.e., there is no resistance to external microbes or there is no resistance to the antimicrobial properties. In order to clarify, it is suggest that “microbial resistance” be replaced with “antimicrobial resistance” or “antimicrobial silver nanoparticle resistance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 13, 14, 21, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bang (WO 2005/085339).
With respect to claims 1, 29, and 31, Bang discloses a preparation of silver nanoparticles-polymer composite comprising introducing a colloid solution of silver nanoparticles to a polymer (abstract). Bang teaches that the first step is preheating the polymer at 45-85°C (i.e., softening temperature and not melt temperature) and at a rotation speed to provide static electricity to aid adsorption of silver nanoparticles, subsequently adding the colloidal solution of silver nanoparticles, and finally removing water to provide silver nanoparticles adsorbed to the polymer (page 7, line 2 to page 8, line 14) to provide uniform dispersion (page 10, lines 20-23). In Example 1, 100 kg low-density polyethylene beads are preheated at a temperature of 55-65°C and subsequently mixed with 2 kg of silver nanoparticle colloid solution until sufficient water has been removed to adsorb the silver nanoparticles to the polymer beads and finally kneaded in a twin-screw extruder at even higher (i.e., melting) temperatures to form the uniform composite (page 11, line 20 to page 12, line 13).
With respect to claim 13 and 21, Bang teaches that the silver nanoparticles have particle size of 4-7 nm (page 5, lines 21-23).
With respect to claim 14, Bang teaches that the content of silver nanoparticles is 10-500 ppm per 1 kg (page 8, lines 5-8), i.e., 10-500 ppb.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 7, 22, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang (WO 2005/085339) in view of Karandikar (US 8,900,624).
The discussion with respect to Bang in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claims 2 and 22, Bang teaches that the silver nanoparticles have particle size of 4-7 nm (page 5, lines 21-23) but fails to disclose the shape of the particles.
Karandikar discloses antimicrobial silver compositions (abstract) and teaches that effective antimicrobial silver nanoparticles a spherical shape and a relatively narrow particle size distribution (col. 8, lines 31-35).
Given that both Bang and Karandikar are drawn to antimicrobial composites comprising silver nanoparticles and further given that Karandikar teaches that effective silver nanoparticles include those with a spherical shape and a narrow size distribution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a spherical-shaped silver nanoparticle having size and distribution like claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Bang fails to disclose using a volatile solvent other than water.
Karandikar teaches that silver nanoparticle dispersion can be prepared in water or alternatively with C2 alcohol (ethanol) or acetone (col. 14, lines 16-27).
Given that dispersions of silver nanoparticles are known to also include water-soluble solvents alcohols and acetone as taught by Karandikar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a volatile solvent that is ethanol or acetone like claimed.
With respect to claims 30 and 32, Karandikar teaches that a nanocomposite formed from the antimicrobial silver nanoparticles provides for sustain antimicrobial activity (col. 32, lines 3-7)
Claims 3-6, 12, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang (WO 2005/085339) in view of Niedermeyer (US 2016/0082513).
The discussion with respect to Bang in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claims 3-5, Bang fails to disclose adding gold nanoparticles.
Niedermeyer discloses nanoparticle compositions including spherical and coral-shaped metal nanoparticles (abstract) in a water or solvent carrier (paragraph 0086) and teaches that blends of silver and gold particles are particularly effective at having particle stability and antimicrobial activity (paragraph 0046).
Given that Niedermeyer teaches that a mixture of silver and gold nanoparticles provides for particularly effective particle stability and antimicrobial properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilizing a mixture of gold and silver nanoparticles in Bang’s method of making a composite.
With respect to claims 6 and 23, Niedermeyer teaches that gold is an absorber of solar radiation, i.e., UV absorber, and would therefore be expected to down shift incoming UV radiation by at least 50 nm.
With respect to claim 12, exemplified silver particles are spherical (paragraphs 0117-0119) and exemplified gold particles are coral (paragraph 0122). Niedermeyer teaches that the ratio of spherical to coral-shaped nanoparticles is 5:1-20:1 (abstract).
With respect to claim 24, Bang teaches that the content of silver nanoparticles is 10-500 ppm per 1 kg (page 8, lines 5-8), i.e., 10-500 ppb. Niedermeyer teaches that gold is an absorber of solar radiation, i.e., UV protection properties.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-6, 12, 13, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10-16 of copending Application No. 18/942,262 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US appl ‘262 claims a method of manufacturing a thermoplastic polymer product comprising the claimed steps with the difference being that US appl ‘262 only claims thermoplastic polymer granules rather than pellets or beads. Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize pellets or beads given that a granule like claimed by US appl ‘262 is a pellet or bead depending on its size.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights