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 .
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1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in disclosure indicating the thickness of the magnetic substance layer is from 1 nm to
200 nm.
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, 3-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kun Chan Wu et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2009/0017518, here after Wu), further in view of Andreas Ernst et al (U.S. Patent: 6525156, here after Ernst), T. Kaneko et al (Japanese Patent: 2005255967, here after Kaneko), Abdelhamid Elaissari et al (U. S. Patent: 6133047, here after Elaissari), and Ichiro Ozaki et al (Japanese Patent: 3738847, here after Ozaki).
Claims 1, 7-9 are rejected. Wu teaches a manufacturing method of a magnetic
particle with multi-protrusive surface [fig. 6], comprising:
Polymerizing (copolymer derived from monomers, e. g. styrene and
divinylbenzene) at least two the monomers into a copolymer to form polymer
having plurality of protrusions [0024, fig. 6, fig. 5]. Wu teaches forming a layer with at least one functional group (carboxylic acid or amine) [0026]. Wu does not teach the plurality of protrusions on surface of the core. Ernst teachers a copolymer particle that has a popcorn shape (having plurality of protrusions) [Abstract] that is useful as carrier materials [column, lines 5-8], wherein the copolymer comprises styrene and a difunctional crosslinking component [Abstract] such as divinyI benzene [column 3, lines 13-14]. Kaneko teaches a styrene polymeric particle with multiple projections on its surface in order to enlarge the specific surface arca of the particles [Abstract, page 4 last paragraph]. Kancko further teaches the polymeric particles are used as capture carriers and diagnostic agent carriers [page 2 lines 1-6] and that by including multiple projections on the surface of the particle and increasing the specific surface area of the particle, higher-performance particles are obtained with higher material sorption capacity [page 2 paragraph 4-5. Wu, Ernst, and Kaneko all relate to styrene based polymeric particles as carrier particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the method of Wu and have a popcorn shaped particle, i.e. a particle with multiple projections. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the particle of
Wu be a particle with multiple projections as taught by Kaneko in order to increase the specific surface area of the particle to produce higher-performance particles with higher material sorption capacity. Furthermore, the exact average height of the plurality of protrusions is deemed to be a result effective variable with regard to the composition of the polymerization solvent as taught by Kaneko [page 10 paragraph 2]. It would require routine experimentation to determine the optimum value of a result effective variable, such as 100 nm to 5000 nm, in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed average height. MPEP 2144.05 II B. Wu does not teach forming a polymer layer to cover the plurality of protrusions on the surface of the copolymer core. Elaissari teaches forming magnetic particles with core comprising porous(knobby) copolymer core (first polymer e.g., styrene and divinyl benzene) [column 1 second paragraph] where a polymer identical to the first polymer(core) is form on it and have magnetic particles form on it [column 2 lines 51-55]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Wu when a polymer layer is form on core layer identical to it, because it is suitable to cover the core layer and have magnetic particles on the second polymer layer. The functional group (carboxylic acid or amine) [0026] are now form on the polymer layer (same material as core). Wu teaches absorption(attraction) of positive charge ions by functional group of the core [0026], therefore the functional group must be negatively charged (hydroxyl group is also negatively charged). Wu teaches adsorbing a magnetic substance (comprising iron) precursor (FeCI2) by the plurality of protrusions of copolymer core (covered with the polymer layer based on Elaissari) [0032] to form a magnetic substance layer (12), entirely covering the polymer layer. Wu teaches the thickness of the magnetic substance layer is 15-30nm [0026]; and forming a silicon-based layer to cover the magnetic substance layer [0033], wherein the thickness of the silicon-based layer is 20-30 nm [0026]. Wu teaches the two monomers comprise monofunctional monomer (styrene which is lipid soluble) and bifunctional monomer (divinylbenzene which is lipid soluble) [based on specification definition]. Wu teaches initiator is emulsion initiator [0026 first sentence], and does not teach the initiator is lipid soluble initiator. Ozaki teaches lipid(oil) soluble initiator as well as emulsion initiator is suitable for copolymerization of styrene and vinylbenzene polymer [0007, 0020, 0023]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Wu, Ernst, Kaneko and Elaissari where the initiator is a lipid soluble initiator, because it is suitable initiator for making copolymer of styrene and vinylbenzene as well as emulsion initiator.
Claims 3-5 are rejected. Wu does not teach volume percentage of the
bifunctional monomer(divinylbenzene) relative to the monofunctional monomer(styrene)
is 0.6%-1.5%. Ernst teaches formation of polymer particles comprising 70-97% styrene
and 1-25% divinylbenzene. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Wu and
Elaissari when the weight percent of styrene and divinyloenzene is based on Ernst,
because Ernst teaches suitable divinyloenzene and styrene amount for forming
copolymer particles. With considering 97% styrene and 1% divinylbenzene the claim
has been met (density of styrene and divinylbenzene are close together therefore the
limitation for volume percent also is met). The applicant also Wu teaches the solvent is
water and initiator is water soluble, however Wu also teaches the solvent contains
ethanol [0033] which is lipid solvent.
Claim 10 is rejected as Wu teaches the silicon-based layer comprises siloxane,
silica glass, silicon oxide, silicate salt [0024 last sentence].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Elaissari does not teach polymer to cover the plurality of protrusion on surface of the copolymer core. The examiner disagrees as Elaissari teaches the polymer to cover the core polymer and Wu, Ernst, and Kanoko teach the core copolymer has protrusion on surface of the copolymer core therefore the claim limitation has been met. The applicant argument regrading silicon layer thickness and magnetic layer thickness is not valid as Wu teaches these limitations (see claim rejection above). Furthermore Wu, Ernst, and Kanoko teach the height of protrusions is result effective and should be optimized (see claim rejection above).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718