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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN110407302A, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a porous material with surface-modified nanoarrays (abstract), comprising:
a porous material substrate (refer page 3 disclosing foam copper as substrate); and
nanostructure arrays that are in-situ grown on the porous material substrate; wherein the nanostructure is elongated, the nanoarrays are arrays selected from the group consisting of nanospike arrays, nanowire arrays, and nanorod arrays (refer page 3 disclosing in situ generation of needle hydroxide nanometer line array structure),
an adhesion layer having a thickness of 20 nm is coated on the surface of the nanoarrays and does not change the morphology of the nanostructure (refer example 4 disclosing 20nm carbon layer thickness).
The limitation “the adhesion layer is configured to increase an adhesion force between the nanostructures and microbes so as to physically rupture the microbes when the microbes flow near the porous material, wherein in the rupture, the microbes are ruptured by a hydrodynamic force of the flow and the adhesion force between the nanostructures and the microbes” does not impart additional structure. The rupturing of microbes is inherent to the nanowire structure. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding adhesion layer having thickness of 5-15 nm, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Absent any showing of criticality of the range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed range through routine optimization to ensure silver nanoparticles are present between nanowire and carbon layer coating.
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Chen teaches that the nanostructure has axial height of 15-20 µm and radial dimension of 150-200 nm (refer page 3). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Absent any showing of criticality of the range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed range through routine optimization by controlling the etching process which generates nano array structure.
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Chen teaches that the coating layer comprises carbon (refer page 3).
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20190073691A, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Zhang et al. (Applied Catalysis A, General 583 (2019) 117145).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Lee teaches a porous material with nanoarrays (refer page 1 disclosing ZnO nanowires formed on polymer sponge structure), comprising:
a porous material substrate (refer page 1 disclosing polymer sponge as substrate); and
nanostructure arrays that are in-situ grown on the porous material substrate; wherein the nanostructure is elongated, the nanoarrays are arrays selected from the group consisting of nanospike arrays, nanowire arrays, and nanorod arrays (refer page 1 disclosing ZnO nanowires, and refer page 3 disclosing in-situ growth of ZnO nanowires).
Lee discloses that the nanowire structure causes lysis of cells (refer page 4 – paragraph starting with “The term “cell lysis…”).
Lee does not disclose an adhesion layer having a thickness of 5-15 nm coated on surface of the nanoarrays and does not change morphology of the nanostructure.
Zhang teaches coating of carbon layer on ZnO nanowires to provide photocatalytic property under UV light (refer abstract), wherein the carbon coating has a thickness of 3 to 8.5 nm (refer abstract). Zhang also teaches tha the thickness can be precisely tuned by controlling carbon source amount (Refer abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the nanowires of Lee to include carbon coating to provide photocatalytic property as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further teaches that the nanostructure has a length of 10 to 50 µm (refer page 3 – paragraph starting with “According to an exemplary embodiment, diameter of…”). Lee also teaches that “The term "nanostructure" or "nanostructure" refers to a feature or texture having a dimension or size of nanoscale (e.g., about 0.1 to 1000 nm, May refer to any nanoscale object, including, for example, a nanopile, a nanorod, a nanowire, a nanowire, a nanoweb, and the like. However, it can also be understood that it includes a feature having a dimension or size of several micrometers in a broad sense” (refer page 4). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/163/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
216
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because the function of physically rupturing microbes is a result of the nanowire structure of the porous material. The nanowire structure is taught by Chen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Juodkazis et al. (US 2020/0288707) teaches a biocidal surface comprising an array of nano-spikes which are lethal to cells due to piercing of cell membranes (refer abstract).
CN109423642 teaches water purifying material comprising nanomaterial.
WO2021124983 teaches a structure that can capture bacteria in water and sterilize the water.
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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777