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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/13/2025 has been entered.
Applicants’ arguments, filed 10/13/2025, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 § 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.
Claims 19 and 20 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.
The term “archaic” in claims 19 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “archaic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Archaic,” which appears to be modifying the antimicrobial agents Sulfanilimide and Sulfonami dochrysoidine, is not defined such that a skill artisan would appreciate the metes and bounds of what is encompassed by it. It is unclear what limitation archaic is meant to impose on the claims.
Claims 19 and 20 also recite pairs of antimicrobial agents indicated by a “/”, for example “Imipenem/Cilastatin” in line 4, claim 19. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “/” is meant to represent “and” or “or.” Amending the claims to read, for example, “Imipenem and Cilastatin” would obviate this rejection.
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.
1) Claims 1, 3, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2008/0318044 A1, publication date 12/25/2008) in view of Gulati et al. (Nanoscale Research Letters, 2011, 6, 571).
Tian discloses a “synthetic nanostructure [that] has a top region substantially comprising titanate nanowires, a middle region substantially comprising titanate nanoparticles and titanate nanowires, and a bottom region substantially comprising titanium” (i.e., titanium dioxide nanowire structure; abstract). In one example of the of the nanowire synthesis, P-25 (i.e., Degussa P-25 titanium dioxide nanopowder according to paragraph 144; instant claim 3) is used and the collected product (i.e., nanowire structure) is washed to a pH value of 7 (paragraph 118), which is close enough to the claimed pH of 7.2 to expect the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05).
Tian also discloses the bioscaffolds (i.e., nanowire structure) can include therapeutic molecules, such as penicillin (i.e., antimicrobial according to instant claims 19 and 20; paragraph 63). The therapeutic molecules may be covalently attached or non-covalently attached by generally known methods (i.e., TiO2 nanowires – antimicrobial agent complex; paragraphs 53-54) such as dip coating (i.e., mixing the nanowires with the antimicrobial agent; paragraph 54). According to Tian “[t]he concentration of therapeutic agent loaded on the bioscaffold [titanium nanowire array] may readily be varied to optimize the amount of drug administered to a subject” by adjusting the surface area of the nanowire array (paragraph 0057). Finally, Tian discloses the nanowire array may be implemented as a means of drug delivery (paragraph 53).
Tian does not disclose the weight ratio of antimicrobial agent to titanium dioxide nanowires.
Gulati discloses titanium wires with titania nanotubes arrays (TNT) loaded with antibiotic (gentamicin) for use as a drug eluting device (abstract). Gulati discloses a thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) of a nanotube array loaded with gentamicin in Table 3 (see below). The weight percent change, represented by the green line, is the amount of gentamicin removed by the TGA process.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Gulati discloses the TNT (titania nanotube array) comprising about 5 wt.% gentamicin (i.e., 5:95 or 1:19 weight ratio of antimicrobial to titania nanotube array) (p. 4, Fig. 4).
First, a “prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the present case, the 7.0 pH of the prior and the instantly claimed 7.2 pH are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Additionally, "where 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" (see MPEP 2144.05 IIA quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (105 USPQ 233)).
One would have been motivated to optimize the antimicrobial agent to titanium nanowire weight ratio of the complex disclosed by Tien, using a ratio of 1:19 as a starting point, as a means of optimizing the amount of drug administered to a subject. One would have had an expectation of success because Tian discloses drug loading may be optimized through changes in the surface area of the nanowire array.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have developed both a method of enhancing antimicrobial effect and an antimicrobial agent loaded metal oxide nanostructure, wherein the nanostructure comprises titanium dioxide nanowires having a pH value without material difference and an antimicrobial mixed with the structure at a weight ratio of 1:10 (antimicrobial:nanowires). Wherein the nanowires are made from titanium dioxide nano powder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the examiner relied on hindsight bias because the prior art does not teach the claimed 7.2 pH, only a pH of 7.0.
This argument is not persuasive. The claimed range was rejected as obvious over the prior art because it was so close that one would have expected it to have the same properties (see page 5, second to last sentence of the first paragraph of the office action mailed 07/15/2025). The examiner is simply indicating that a nanowire structure with a pH of 7.0 is not materially different from the same nanowire structure with a pH of 7.2. In other words the 0.2 pH difference of the nanowire structures amounts to a distinction without a difference. This does not involve hindsight bias because it is an inherent property that the nanowire structure with a pH of 7.0 is not materially different from the same nanowire structure with a pH of 7.2.
Applicant argues that Gulati does not teach or suggest a w/w ratio of gentamicin to the titanium nanotubes, and thus Gulati does not teach or suggest that the titanium nanotubes are loaded with 4 wt. % gentamicin.
This argument is not persuasive. Gulati discloses the weight percent of gentamicin removed from a nanowire array by thermal gravimetric analysis (page 4, Figure 3). Weight percents are weight ratios normalized to 100. Therefore, Gulati discloses a gentamicin to titanium nanotube w/w ratio od 5:95 by disclosing a titanium nanotube array comprising 5 wt. % gentamicin, as discussed above.
Applicant argues Gulati fails to teach or suggest a w/w ratio of the antimicrobial agent to the TiO2 nanowires that is 1:10.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, as discussed above, the claimed weight ratio would have been obvious through routine optimization because Tien teaches and suggests optimizing the amount of active agent in the titanium nanowires.
Applicant asserts the Office Action (mailed 07/15/2025) contains no rejection for claims 22 and 24.
This argument is not persuasive. The PTOL-326 cover sheet of the office action mailed 07/15/2025 indicates claims 22 and 24 were rejected. Furthermore, on page 6 and 7 of the office action the Examiner writes:
“Additionally, one would have been motivated to optimize the antimicrobial agent to titanium nanowire weight ratio of the complex disclosed by Tien, using a ratio of 1:25 as a starting point, to optimize the amount of drug administered to a subject. One would have had an expectation of success because Tian discloses drug loading may be optimized through changes in the surface area of the nanowire array.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have developed both a method of enhancing antimicrobial effect and an antimicrobial agent loaded metal oxide nanostructure, wherein the nanostructure comprises titanium dioxide nanowires having a pH value of 7.2 (made from titanium dioxide nanopowder) and an antimicrobial mixed with the structure at a weight ratio of 1:10 (antimicrobial:nanowires)” (emphasis added).
The claimed ratio of 1:10 (antimicrobial:nanowire), and therefore claims 22 and 24, were rejected because the ratio would have been obvious through routine optimization in view of Tien and Gulati.
2) Claims 4, 5, 13, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2008/0318044 A1, publication date 12/25/2008) in view of Gulati et al. (Nanoscale Research Letters, 2011, 6, 571) as applied to claims 1, 3, 11, 19 and 20 above, and in further view of Viriya-empikul et al. (Materials Chemistry and Physics 118 (2009) 254–258).
Tian and Gulati, which are taught above, differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not teach sonicating the mixing solution.
Tian discloses the titanate (i.e., titanium dioxide) nanowires are synthesized by “hydrothermally heating the titanium substrate and the hydroxide solution” (paragraph 10) where the hydroxide solution is potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide (i.e., limitation of instant claim 5 and 15; paragraph 42). Most typically the reaction temperature is in the range of 210°C to about 250°C (paragraph 43). “The reaction time may suitably range from about several minutes to several days or weeks” (paragraph 46). In one example the collected product is neutralized with dilute acid (i.e., limitation of instant claim 4 and 13; paragraph 144).
Viriya-empikul disclosed hydrothermal synthesis of titanate nanowires from titanium dioxide nanopowder where the hydroxide solution with titanium dioxide nanopowder is sonicated to form a suspension before thermal treatment (page 255, paragraph 1). Viriya-empikul discloses that the sonication pre-treatment can be used to change the surface area of the titanate products, thereby tuning the photocatalytic performance (i.e. antimicrobial activity; page 257, paragraph 2 and Figure 7).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the present case, the ranges for reaction temperature and time of claims 4, 13 and 21 (200°C-300°C, 200°C-300°C and 240°C; 48-96 hours, 48-96 hours and 72 hours, respectively) overlap with the ranges of the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness exists for each.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling to apply the sonication pre-treatment disclosed in Viriya-empikul to the hydrothermal synthesis disclosed in Tian. Sonicating solutions to enhance mixing is a generally known practice, and it was specifically known for, and applied to, the hydrothermal synthesis of titanium dioxide nanowires. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce the sonication step not only to mix the nanopowder and hydroxide solution, but to tune the surface area of the product as well. One would have had an expectation of success because Viriya-empikul discloses that sonication mixes the hydroxide nanopowder solution well (i.e., forms a suspension) and affects the product surface area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have provided the nanomaterial by sonicating the nanopowder and hydroxide mixing solution, thermally treated the mixing solution as instantly claimed and then neutralizing the acidity of the mixing solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts Viriya-empikul et al. fails to cure the noted deficiencies of Tien and Gulati set forth above.
These arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
3) Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2008/0318044 A1, publication date 12/25/2008) and Gulati et al. (Nanoscale Research Letters, 2011, 6, 571) as applied to claims 1, 3, 11, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Desai et al. (WO 2016/100136 A1, publication date 6/23/2016).
Tian and Gulati, which are taught above, differs from instant claims 2 and 12 insofar as it does not teach chloramphenicol as the antimicrobial agent loaded into the nanowire structure.
Desai discloses a “microdevice containing a plurality of nanowires on a biocompatible surface” (abstract) where "[i]n certain embodiments, the microdevice includes an active agent disposed on the plurality of nanowires. The active agent may be disposed on the plurality of nanowires using any convenient method” (paragraph 96). Desai discloses the active agents that can be disposed (i.e., loaded) onto the plurality of nanowires includes penicillin and chloramphenicol (paragraph 104).
It is obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). Both Desai and Tian disclose penicillin as a suitable antimicrobial agent for same purpose; loading into a nanowire structure. However, Desai further discloses chloramphenicol is also a suitable antibacterial agent for loading into a nanowire structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to simply substitute the penicillin loaded into the titanium dioxide nanowires disclosed in Tian for the chloramphenicol disclosed in Desai because they were both disclosed as equivalents (i.e., antibacterial agents) known for the same purpose (i.e., loading into a nanowire structure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts Desai et al. fails to cure the noted deficiencies of Tien and Gulati set forth above.
These arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
4) Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2008/0318044 A1, publication date 12/25/2008) in view of Gulati et al. (Nanoscale Research Letters, 2011, 6, 571) as applied to claims 1, 3, 11, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Gulati, Sinn Aw and Losic (International Journal of Nanomedicine, 2012, 7, p. 2069–2076; Hereinafter “Sinn Aw”).
Tian and Gulati, which are taught above, differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not teach rotating the mixture of nanomaterial comprising titanium nanowires and antimicrobial agent for 48 hours at a temperature of 4-50°C. Tian does discloses “methods generally known in the art may be employed for conjugating the therapeutic molecule to the bioscaffold” (paragraph 53). Later, Tian discloses an example of loading the nanofibers (i.e., nanowires) with a simulated drug by soaking the nanowires in a solution of the simulated drug at room temperature (paragraph 121).
Sinn Aw discloses nanoengineered drug releasing titanium wires (i.e., titanium nanowires; title). To load the drug onto the nanoengineered titanium wires were fully immersed and “[t]he wires were rotated every 2–4 hours during deposition. After 1–3 days of loading, the wires were taken out” (p. 2071, right col., first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have to have mixed the nanowires, taught by Tian and Gulati, with the antimicrobial agent, rotating the mixture for 48 hours at a temperature between 4°C and 50°C (room temperature) because Tian and Sinn Aw disclose that is a suitable method for loading the nanowires. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts Gulati, Sinn Aw and Losic (“Sinn Aw”) fails to cure the noted deficiencies of Tien and Gulati set forth above.
These arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 11-13, 15, 19-21 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 8318297 B2 in view of the specification of ‘297, Gulati et al. (Nanoscale Research Letters, 2011, 6, 571), Desai et al. (WO 2016/100136 A1, publication date 6/23/2016), Viriya-empikul et al. (Materials Chemistry and Physics 118 (2009) 254–258), Sinn Aw and Losic (International Journal of Nanomedicine, 2012, 7, p. 2069–2076; Hereinafter Sinn Aw).
Regarding instant claim 1, 3, 11, 19, and 20, the claims of ‘297 disclose a titanate nanostructure comprising titanate nanowires (claim 1) that may further comprise a therapeutic molecule (claim 8). The claims do not disclose the specific therapeutic molecule.
The specification of ‘297 discloses the therapeutic molecule may include penicillin, cephalosporins and bacitracin which may be applied through any method commonly known such as dip coating (col. 10, lines 54-55 and col. 9, line 14). In one example of the of the nanowire synthesis, P-25 (Degussa P-25 titanium dioxide nanopowder according to col. 27, line 46) is used and the collected product (i.e., nanowire array) is neutralized to a pH value of 7 (col. 21, line 58), in some examples dilute acid is used in this step (col. 27, line 50).
Gulati discloses titanium wires with titania nanotubes arrays (TNT) loaded with antibiotic (gentamicin) for use as a drug eluting device (abstract). By thermal gravimetric analysis Gulati discloses the TNT (titania nanotube array) are loaded with about 5 wt.% gentamicin (i.e., 1:19 weight ration of antimicrobial to titania nanotube array) (p. 4, Fig. 4).
A “prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the present case, the 7.0 pH of the prior and the instantly claimed 7.2 pH are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Additionally, one would have been motivated to optimize the antimicrobial agent to titanium nanowire weight ratio of the complex disclosed by Tien, using a ratio of 1:19 as a starting point, to optimize the amount of drug administered to a subject. One would have had an expectation of success because Tian discloses drug loading may be optimized through changes in the surface area of the nanowire array. "[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" (see MPEP 2144.05 IIA quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (105 USPQ 233)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have reached a method of enhancing antimicrobial effect and an antimicrobial agent loaded metal oxide nanostructure wherein the nanostructure comprises titanium dioxide nanowires (made from titanium dioxide nanopowder) and an antimicrobial mixed with the structure at a weight ratio of 1:10 (antimicrobial:nanowires). Wherein the pH of the structure is materially the same as the instantly claimed structure.
Regarding instant claims 4, 5, 13, 15 and 21, the claims of ‘297 disclose the titanate nanowires are formed at a reaction temperature of not less than 180°C (i.e., heat thermal treating; claim 1). The claims of ‘297 do not disclose the use titanium dioxide nanopowder, sodium or potassium hydroxide or neutralizing the hydroxide solution.
The specification of ‘297 discloses the titanate (i.e., titanium dioxide) nanowires are synthesized by “hydrothermally heating the titanium substrate and the hydroxide solution” (col. 2, lines 30-31) where the hydroxide solution is potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide (col. 6, lines 44-46). Most typically the reaction temperature ranges from 210°C to 250°C (col. 7, lines 11-13). “The reaction time may suitably range from about several minutes to several days or weeks” (col. 7, lines 44-46).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the present case, the ranges for reaction temperature and time of claims 4, 13 and 21 (200°C-300°C, 200°C-300°C and 240°C; 48-96 hours, 48-96 hours and 72 hours, respectively) overlap with the ranges of the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness exists for each.
Viriya-empikul disclosed hydrothermal synthesis of titanate nanowires from titanium dioxide nanopowder where the hydroxide solution with titanium dioxide nanopowder is sonicated to form a suspension before thermal treatment (page 255, paragraph 1). Viriya-empikul discloses that the sonication pre-treatment can be used to change the surface area of the titanate products, thereby tuning the photocatalytic performance (i.e. antimicrobial activity; page 257, paragraph 2 and Figure 7).
Regarding instant claims 2 and 12, the claims of ‘297 differ from instant claims 2 and 12 insofar as it does not teach chloramphenicol as the antimicrobial agent loaded into the nanowire structure.
Desai discloses a “microdevice containing a plurality of nanowires on a biocompatible surface” (abstract) where "[i]n certain embodiments, the microdevice includes an active agent disposed on the plurality of nanowires. The active agent may be disposed on the plurality of nanowires using any convenient method” (paragraph 96). Desai discloses the active agents that can be disposed (i.e., loaded) on the plurality of nanowires includes penicillin and chloramphenicol (paragraph 104).
It is obvious to substitute known equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). Both Desai and the specification of ‘297 disclose penicillin as a suitable antimicrobial agent for loading into a nanowire structure. However, Desai further discloses the chloramphenicol is also a suitable antibacterial agent for loading into a nanowire structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to simply substitute the penicillin loaded into the titanium dioxide nanowires disclosed in the specification of ‘297 for the chloramphenicol disclosed in Desai because they were both equivalents (i.e., antibacterial agents) known for the same purpose (i.e., loading into a nanowire structure).
Regarding instant claim 23, Gulati discloses nanoengineered drug releasing titanium wires (i.e., titanium nanowires; title). To load the drug onto the nanoengineered titanium wires were fully immersed and “[t]he wires were rotated every 2–4 hours during deposition. After 1–3 days of loading, the wires were taken out” (p. 2071, right col., first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have to have mixed the nanowires, taught by Tian and Peng, with the antimicrobial agent, rotating the mixture for 48 hours at a temperature between 4°C and 50°C (room temperature) because Tian and Galuti disclose that is a suitable method for loading the nanowires. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
The instant claims continue to read on the claims of ‘297 for the reasons set forth above and of record. Also, see pages 14-15 of the Office Action mailed 07/15/2025 for the rejection of claims 22 and 24 and page 18 of this Office Action for the rejection of the corresponding ratio, which Applicant asserts was not present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLMAN WELLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Frederick Krass can be reached at 571-272-0580. 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.
/C.T.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/WALTER E WEBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612