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 .
Detailed Action
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/26 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 01/20/26 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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, 4-5, 10 and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0091611) in view of Zinn (US PG Pub. 2016/0201183A1) and further in view of Westfall et al (USP6,183,785 B1), Tokin et al. (KR 20140030144 A) and Disalvo et al. (WO 2005/042070 A1) and Greenwood et al. (GB 2555658 A).
Ren et al. discloses the use of nanoparticles of metals and/or metal compounds in the prevention of viral infection, see [0001]. Ren et al. discloses that the nanoparticles are in the form of dry powders, but may also be in the form of liquids, sol-gels or polymers, as well as nanotubes. The particles may be agglomerated or in free association, [0019]. Ren et al. teaches a composition comprising nanoparticles as described above for use as an antiviral agent wherein the nanoparticles may suitably be formulated in an appropriate carrier, coating or solvent such as water, methanol, ethanol, acetone, water soluble polymer adhesives, such as polyvinyl acetate (PVA), epoxy resin, polyesters etc. as well as coupling agents, antistatic agents and the solutions of biological materials may also be used such as phosphate buffered saline (PBS) or simulated biological fluid (SBF), see [0052-0058]. Spray coating is taught in [0062]. (Thus water, methanol, ethanol, acetone as discussed above act as a medium).The size of the nanoparticle taught is up to 100nm, see [0054] and the metal can be copper, see [0054] and claim 1. The nanoparticles may also be prepared as layered (core/shell) particles comprising an inner core and an outer shell, [0027]. The nanoparticles can comprise copper, silver, CuO or Cu2O, zinc, nickel or titanium, see [0025-0029]. Various aerosol processing techniques can be used to produce nanoparticles, see [0038]. The reference discloses water soluble polymer adhesives, see [0052]. The reference discloses that nanoparticles have an average particle size in a range of from about 1 nm to about 90 nm and are agglomerated (see paragraph [0019]; and claim 3). The size of the nanoparticle taught ranges from up to 100nm or from about 1 nm to about 90 nm which overlaps with the claimed size of about 50nm to about 250nm in size of nanoparticles and thus creates a case of obviousness because in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A.
While Ren et al. teaches low boiling point solvent including methanol and ethanol, Ren et al. does not teach use of high boiling point organic solvent.
Ren et al. as discussed above do not teach the use of an amine surfactant.
Ren et al. does not teach the size of the aggregates.
Ren et al. do not teach the claimed adhesives and propellant claimed.
Zinn teaches copper nanoparticles can be used for treating infections, see abstract. Zinn teaches that copper agglomerates can be formed by surfactant coating which tailor the ability of metal nanoparticles to fuse with one another and limit agglomeration with one another and promote the formation of a population of nanoparticles having a narrow size distribution, see [0042]. Amine surfactants can be used as taught in [0044]. The reference teaches that depending on whether the copper nanoparticles are fused or unfused, the copper islands can vary over a wide range of sizes. When the copper nanoparticles are dispersed as individuals in the surface coating, the copper islands can mirror the size of the copper nanoparticles themselves. Illustrative size ranges for the copper nanoparticles are discussed herein below. When the copper nanoparticles are agglomerated into larger copper islands or have undergone coalescence into bulk copper, the copper islands can range between about 25 nm and about 10 μm in size, or between about 50 nm and about 5 μm in size. In more particular embodiments, the copper islands can range between about 100 nm and about 1 μm in size, or between about 1 μm and about 5 μm in size, or between about 25 nm and about 250 nm in size, or between about 50 nm and about 250 nm in size, see [0029].
Zinn et al. teaches that in some embodiments, the organic matrix can contain one or more alcohols. In various embodiments, the alcohols can include monohydric alcohols, diols, triols, glycol ethers (e.g., diethylene glycol and triethylene glycol, which has a high boiling point and is a solvent)), alkanolamines (e.g., ethanolamine, triethanolamine, di(hydrogenated tallow)amine and the like), or any combination thereof. Zinn teaches use of 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol (reads on a high boiling point alcohol solvent or C7-C11 alcohol as claimed). In some embodiments, one or more hydrocarbons can be present in combination with one or more alcohols. As discussed above, it is believed that alcohol and hydrocarbon solvents can passively promote the solubilization of surfactants as they are removed from the metal nanoparticles by Brownian motion and limit their re-association with the metal nanoparticles, see [0059]-[0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known alcohols solvents of both low and high boiling points (including C1 to C4 alcohol as monohydric alcohols and C7 to C11 alcohols as organic solvents) in preparing the copper nanoparticles of Ren et al. One o ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Ren teaches use of alcohol solvents and organic solvents of and Zinn also teaches use of low boiling and high boiling point alcohol and amine solvents in making copper nanoparticles and further teaches that alcohol and hydrocarbon solvents can passively promote the solubilization of surfactants as they are removed from the metal nanoparticles by Brownian motion and limit their re-association with the metal nanoparticles, see [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the amine surfactants in preparing the copper nanoparticles of Ren et al. and yet avoid the fusion of one particle with another motivated by the teachings of Zinn et al. Since the reference teaches the amount of the aggregates can range from about 1 micron and 5 microns, it creates a case of obviousness because in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A. Since the art makes obvious the claimed nanoparticle agglomerates comprising copper in a medium, it would appear reasonable to conclude that the viscosity claimed would necessarily be present with the composition as property cannot be separated from the chemical constituents or chemistry of the composition. As per the amount of the adhesive, since the art teaches use of the adhesive, it would be within skill of artisan to have manipulated the amount of the adhesive in order to make it sprayable for maximum benefit of prevention of viral infection.
Ren et al. as discussed above does not teach use of a can for aerosol application with a propellant.
Westfall et al. discloses use of an aerosol spray or pump for application of a composition for treating infections, see column 3, lines 19-21 and 20-25. Westfall et al. discloses that the aerosol comprises carriers such as alcohol, water and an aerosol propellant such as dimethyl ether, see column 4, lines 15-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the sprayable composition of Ren et al. into the aerosolizable can as taught by Westfall et al. and incorporate the spray nanoparticles of Ren et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Ren teaches a spray formulation of nanoparticles wherein carriers can be water or methanol (dispersion medium) or in powdered form and teaches various aerosol processing techniques can be used to produce nanoparticles, see [0038] and further teaches the use of nanoparticles of metals and/or metal compounds in the prevention of viral infection, wherein the nanoparticles are in the form of dry powders, but may also be in the form of liquids, sol-gels or polymers, as well as nanotubes. The particles may be agglomerated or in free association, [0019].
Thus Ren et al. teaches a composition comprising nanoparticles as described above for use as an antiviral agent wherein the nanoparticles may suitably be formulated in an appropriate carrier, coating or solvent such as water, methanol, ethanol, acetone, water soluble polymer adhesives, such as polyvinyl acetate (PVA), epoxy resin, polyesters etc. as well as coupling agents, antistatic agents and the solutions of biological materials may also be used such as phosphate buffered saline (PBS) or simulated biological fluid (SBF), see [0052-0058] and Westfall teaches use of a propellant along with carriers such as methanol, water and propellant for the delivery of aerosol spray in a container, see column 4, lines 35-40 for the pressurized container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have utilized the sprayable composition of Ren and utilize the pressurized can of Westfall which teaches use of a propellant along with carriers such as methanol, water (which is also suggested as carriers by Ren et al. ) for the delivery of aerosol spray from a container, see column 4, lines 35-40 for the pressurized container. Utilization of known aerosol container for spraying of a known composition would have provided predictable result.
The references discussed above do not teach use of the claimed aerosol propellant, and adhesives.
Tokin et al. teaches aerosol spraying device, see title. The reference teaches use of nitrous oxide, dimethyl ether and fluorocarbon to be used as compressed gas in a propellant, see translation attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized nitrous oxide gas as a compressed gas for spraying as a propellant in place of dimethyl ether of Ren et al. as modified by Westfall et al. because Tokin et al. teaches that compressed gases such as nitrous oxide and dimethyl ether can be used for spraying in aerosol.
Disalvo et al. teaches absorbent articles comprising metal-loaded nanoparticles, see title. The adhesives taught are acrylate and polylactic acid polymers, see page 23, lines 15-30, page 25 and page 29, lines 15-20. Borderline hydrophilic materials are also often synthetic polymers, co-polymers, blends, or combinations thereof. Examples include, but are not limited to, polyamides and polyesters which exhibit borderline hydrophilicity. Polyesters with borderline hydrophilicity include the class of polyesters which have recently been termed hydrophilic polyesters. One example is PET/branched polyethylene glycol (branched PEG) co-polymers such as the T870, T289, and T801 grades available from Wellman, Inc., Charlotte, N.C., USA. Another example is polyesters with aliphatic repeat units instead of some or all of the aromatic repeat units of PET. Polylactide (or polylactic acid or PLA) polymers available from Cargill Dow Polymers, LLC, Blair Nebr. contain aliphatic repeat units. The ability of the surface to which the coating composition is applied to receive the coating composition can be enhanced in a non-limiting number of different ways. As discussed herein, one way of enhancing the ability of the surface of the material to receive the coating composition is through the use of surfactants. Surfactants reduce the surface tension of water-based nanoparticle dispersions, thereby improving wettability of the soft surface. Wetting the surface is important because it allows the dispersion to carry the nanoparticles across a greater surface area thereby increasing coverage, see page 29, last 3 paragraphs.
Greenwood et al. teach use of biodegradable polymers polylactic acid and polyglycolic acid for making microbeads, see page 20, last paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known adhesives in the spray formulation of Ren et al. because Ren et al as modified by Zinn et al. teach use of adhesives such as water soluble polymer adhesives, such as polyvinyl acetate (PVA), epoxy resin, polyesters etc. and Disalvo et al. while teaching absorbent articles comprising nanoparticles teach use of adhesives and surfactants for dispersion of nanoparticles as discussed above and Greenwood et al. teach use of biodegradable polymers polylactic acid and polyglycolic acid for making microbeads.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new rejections made above necessitated by claim amendments.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612