DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 3, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-27 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application, filed on March 1st, 2023, claims priority benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/316,883 filed on March 4, 2022.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (i.e., claims 1-7) in the reply filed by Applicant’s representative Jeffrey Bergman on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 8-27 are withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) due to the restriction requirement. Claims 1-7 are under examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Groppo et al., The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, (2014), v.118, p.8406-8415, evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich Poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene) microsphere_468312_downloaded 01272026.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a degradable adsorbent, comprising: a porous degradable polymeric substrate; and nanoparticles bound to the porous degradable polymeric substrate.
Groppo et al. discloses a poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene)-supported Pd nanoparticles (NPs) having micropores (102 nm) and mesopores (2-50 nm), and a method of preparing the polymer-supported Pd-NPs particulate by impregnation, see “2. EXPERIMENTAL SECTION” at p.8407-8408. Groppo et al. anticipates claims 1, and 4-5 wherein the porous degradable polymeric substrate is poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene), and the nanoparticles are Pd-NPs.
In terms of claim 7, wherein the porous polymeric substrate has a porosity in a range from 5% to 99%, Groppo et al. discloses the poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene) is a product of Aldrich and the poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene)-supported Pd nanoparticles (NPs) having micropores (102 nm) and mesopores (2-50 nm). According to Sigma-Aldrich product catalog, the porous polymeric substrate having various mean pore size and various concentrations of divinylbenzene from 5 to 75mol% based on styrene monomer. It seems very reasonable to believe that the porous polymeric substrate of the poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene) has a porosity in a range from 5% to 99%. Therefore, claim 7 is anticipated.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groppo et al. in view of Poupart et al., Progress in Polymer Science, (2019), v.96, p.21-42.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Groppo et al. discloses a poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene)-supported Pd nanoparticles (NPs) having micropores (102 nm) and mesopores (2-50 nm), and a method of preparing the polymer-supported Pd-NPs by impregnation, see “2. EXPERIMENTAL SECTION” at p.8407-8408.
Poupart et al. discloses application of metallic nanoparticles immobilized on porous polymers as supported catalysts, see “3. application of metallic nanoparticles immobilized on porous polymers as supported catalysts” at pages 30-37.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between Applicant’s claim 2 and Groppo et al. is that the prior art does not teach the porous degradable polymeric substrate comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol, polyester, polyurethane, and combinations thereof. Instead, Groppo et al. teaches the porous degradable polymeric substrate is poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene).
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, claim 2 would have been obvious over Groppo et al. because the difference is further taught and/or suggested by Poupart et al. Poupart et al. teaches application of metallic nanoparticles immobilized on porous polymers as supported catalysts, see pages 30-37. Specifically, Poupart et al. teaches nanoparticles supported on a deblock copolymer PS-b-PLA made of PS (polystyrene) and PLA (poly(D,L-lactide), see “3.3. Nanoparticles supported by nanopolymers” at p.34. In addition, Poupart et al. teaches the polymeric substrate of poly(D,L-Latic-co-glycolic acid)-based frameworks (see Fig. 1 (C) at p.24); and PLA widely used to prepare nanoporous polymers (see Fig. 3 left column at p.25). In addition, Groppo et al. cites reference [148, Fang et al. J Mater Chem, 2011; 21:4493–501] teaches facile immobilization of gold nanoparticles into electrospun polyethyleneimine/polyvinyl alcohol nanofibers for catalytic applications. Therefore, Groppo et al. in view of Poupart et al. would have rendered claims 2-3 obvious.
In terms of claim 6 wherein the nanoparticles have a diameter in a range from 5 to 1000 nm, Poupart et al. teaches nanoparticles supported by microporous polymers, wherein commercially available copper nanoparticles (with mean diameter in the range 40-60 nm) were percolated into the monolithic structure, (see 3.2. Nanoparticles supported by microporous polymers, right column at p.31).
In terms of claim 7 wherein the porous polymeric substrate has a porosity in a range from 5% to 99%, Poupart et al. teaches a porosity ratio of 82% was found by mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) method (see 3.4. Nanoparticles supported by biporous polymers, right column at p.36).
Conclusions
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Claims 8-27 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731