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
The amendment filed July 24, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 4, 9, 22, 23 and 26 are canceled, claims 14-18 are withdrawn and claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 19-21, 24-25, and 27-28 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on June 12, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 12, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 19-21, 24-25 and 27-28 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn due to the amendment removing the indicated new matter of July 24, 2026.
The rejection of claims 25 and 28 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment of July 24, 2026, clarifying the claim language.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 requires that the water-insoluble particulate carrier material is made of particles having an average particle size (d50) ranging from 20 to 100 microns. However, parent claim 1 has been amended to provide this feature in step a). Therefore, claim 21 is not further limiting of parent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, 19-21, 24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglikov et al (US 3956184) in view of Yoshimoto et al (US 5336651), Li, et al “Bimetallic Ag-Ru/γ-Al2O3 nanoparticles for selective hydrogenation of cinnamaldehyde to hydrocinnamaldehyde” (hereinafter Li article), Oricchio (US 3855347), Yoshimura (US 2006/0223697), WO 2020/137932 (hereinafter ‘932) and Baker et al (US 2005/0032638), EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski et al (US 2013/0331257).
*** Please Note: Li article is used as provided with the IDS of April 21, 2023.***
*** Please Note: EP 3903592 is used as a translation of ‘932 (as a national stage of ‘932), and therefore cited paragraphs are to ‘592. ***
Claims 1, 3, 21: Kruglikov teaches a method for producing a particulate carrier material provided with elemental silver, for example, for making a catalyst (note column 1, line 60 to column 2, line 25, note column 15, lines 25-35, with granules/particles of carrier). The process includes the following successive steps, a step a) of providing a water insoluble particulate carrier material (which can be considered a powder) (note oxide such as corundum – aluminum oxide) (note column 15, lines 25-35, column 4, lines 45-60) and an aqueous solution (considered at least solution A) with dissolved silver precursors (note column 15, lines 25-35, column 3, line 45 to column 4,line 50). Thereafter, in a step b) the water insoluble particulate carrier material/powder is mixed with solution A to form an intermediate where the intermediate would be in the form of impregnated particulate material in the form of powder/granules/particles and impregnated with solution A which would directly form the intermediate powder comprising the carrier material/powder and the aqueous solution A with no removal of water described during the formation of the intermediate powder (note column 4,lines 45-55, column 15, lines 25-40, column 16, lines 45-60, since the solution A impregnates the powder, it would mix with the material to do so). Thereafter as the next step (with no other intermediate steps provided, so understood to meet the requirements of claim 1) a step c) is provided of mixing the intermediate powder with an aqueous solution comprising reducing agent that can be hydrazine, where the pH can be 14 (in the range of greater than 7 to 14) to form a mass comprising elemental silver (and the particulate carrier material) (note column 4, lines 45-65, column 15, lines 25-40, column 16, lines 45-60, column 19, lines 25-30, claim 1, the processing/treating to reduce would provide mixing the intermediate powder with the aqueous solution so that the reducing agent reaches the impregnated salt solution). Thereafter a step d) of washing the mass from step c) is provided (note column 16, lines 55-60), and then a step e) of removing water and any other volatile material by heating (the drying) (note column 16, lines 55-65, column 15, lines 20-40, column 4, line 65 to column 5, line 5). The silver precursor can be a silver acetate (note, at the least, [Ag(Y)2]- ions can be provided in the solution, where Y can be acetate, giving [Ag(acetate)2]- ions, a complex silver acetate, note column 2, lines 1-12, column 4, lines 25-35, where additionally this can be provided using silver acetate in the solution (note claim 4), which would also suggest that at least some initial silver acetate can be present and which would also reduce with the hydrazine reducing agent, as the same reducing agent for such reduction by applicant).
(A) As to further providing additional precursors of ruthenium in the solution A (giving a solution C), so that ruthenium is also reduced with the hydrazine to provide a carrier material with both elemental silver and elemental ruthenium,
Yoshimoto further describes forming catalysts (note column 1, lines 10-15), where a catalyst support can be provided of various materials (note oxides, including alumina or silica at column 3, lines 1-5, zeolite at column 5, lines 60-68), where it is described that various metals, and combinations of metals can be supported on the catalyst support, where the metals can be Ru, Rh and Ag, so including ruthenium and silver for example, where the deposition can include immersing the catalyst support in an aqueous solution containing the salts of the metal to be deposited (so metal precursors), where such immersion would therefore, mix the solution with the catalyst support and form an intermediate, where, the solutions can contain one metal precursor or combinations of precursors in order to deposit two or more metals, and then reducing the salt to metal with hydrazine that would mix with the intermediate (note column 5, line 60 to column 6, line 5, note column 7, lines 25-45, using one precursor and reducing with hydrazine, and column 7, line 65 to column 8, line 2, using ruthenium, and column 8, lines 20-26, using silver, and column 8, lines 25-40 indicating how two different precursors can be used in the solution to provide deposition of two metals).
Li article describes how a catalyst material to be used can be desired to have a carrier material of alumina with applied Ruthenium and Silver that are deposited by contacting/mixing the alumina with aqueous solution of ruthenium precursors and silver precursors and thereafter reducing the metal precursors the Ru and Ag metal on the alumina (note the abstract, and section 2.Experimental), where the support would be understood to be particulates noting particle size provided (note page 244, figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov to additionally provide ruthenium precursors in the solution A with silver precursor (giving a solution C as claimed) that will mix with the carrier material powder so as to impregnate both silver and ruthenium precursors into the carrier material powder and then reduce with the mixing with the hydrazine solution to provide a desirable catalyst as suggested by Yoshimoto and Li article, since Kruglikov indicates how catalysts can be made with aluminum oxide particulate carrier material supports in powder form and silver applied using impregnation of solution containing silver precursor, and then reducing with hydrazine in aqueous solution, and Yoshimoto indicates how catalysts can also be provided with combinations of materials by providing aqueous solutions containing different metal precursors mixed with catalyst supports and then reducing with hydrazine, where using materials such of Ru and Ag possible, and Li article indicates how it can be specifically desired to provide the combination of Ru and Ag deposited on alumina particle support, where the carrier support of alumina (aluminum oxide) is contacted with a combined solution of Ru and Ag precursors and then reduced. This provides use of a solution C desired by both claims 1 and 3.
(B) Additionally, as to formed intermediate/impregnated carrier material powder being a free flowing intermediate powder, and the ruthenium precursors, Kruglikov provides precursor containing solution is contacted with the particulate carrier, and then the resulting product is reduced with hydrazine as discussed above. There is no limit as to the free flowing state of the impregnated particulate carrier. Kruglikov wants a desired range amount of metal provided (note column 2, lines 10-20).
Oricchio describes providing catalyst material that is impregnated with a salt solution (note the abstract). The initial powder that is provided can be a water insoluble particulate carrier material (note silica-alumina) in the form of a free flowing powder (note column 2, lines 1-10), where the free flowing powder of the carrier material would be mixed with an aqueous solution containing halide salt of a metal, to impregnate the powder with the salt solution (note column 2, lines 1-30, column 3, lines 35-45). It is also desired that the resulting impregnated catalyst be free flowing (note column 1, lines 40-50).
Yoshimura further describes how particulate carrier can be provided for making catalysts (note 0028), and how this particulate carrier can be impregnated using an aqueous solution with metal (ruthenium) precursor, and then aqueous hydrazine is added to reduce the metal, leaving metal supported on the carrier (note 0033), where it is described that the impregnation can occur by adding the solution dropwise to the carrier (note 0033), and where there is a desirable amount of ruthenium provided (note 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto and Li article to provide the water-insoluble particulate carrier material to be impregnated in the form of a free flowing powder as suggested by Oricchio with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable powder for use, since Kruglikov indicates providing initial water-insoluble particulate carrier material to be impregnated in the form of powder that can be ceramic including alumina, where the material is to be impregnated with an aqueous solution containing a metal precursor as part of forming a catalyst, and Oricchio indicates that it would be conventional when providing initial water-insoluble particulate carrier material to be impregnated in the form of powder that can be a ceramic with alumina, where the material is to be impregnated with an aqueous solution containing a metal salt (metal precursor), that the powder is free flowing. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article and Oricchio to optimize the amount of impregnation and metal added by controlling the contact of the precursor containing solution with the carrier particles by adding the solution to the particles dropwise until the desired amount applied as suggested by Yoshimura in order to provide a desirable controlled amount, since Kruglikov notes providing a desired amount of metal to the carrier, and Yoshimura notes that is desired also to provide a desired amount of metal to the carrier and to controllably apply the solution of precursor dropwise, which would allow controlling the specific amount applied based on the amount of metal in the precursor solution and the amount of precursor applied. As a result of optimizing the amount, the resulting particles would also predictably and acceptably be free flowing as the amount impregnated can leave just impregnated liquid and not particles in suspension or solution, and the initial powders to be impregnated would be free flowing as suggested by Orichhio, so the particles that just have impregnated liquid would remain free flowing as the outer form remains the same, and additionally free flowing powder/particles would have the benefit to make sure the solution C can contact all individual particles (during the mixing) and the hydrazine solution can contact all the individual powders of the intermediate powder to efficiently reduce metal precursor in all particles, and as well, Orichhio notes the desire to have free flowing final particles, and this would help maintain free flowability for the final particles. Additionally, as to the specific ruthenium compound, Yoshimura describes ruthenium acetate or ruthenium nitrosyl nitrate as materials reduced by hydrazine (note 0033), understood to be compounds that meet the claimed requirements, thus suggesting materials that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use with an expectation of predictably acceptable results in the process of Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio and Yoshimura that meet the claimed requirements, when providing a ruthenium precursor as suggested as discussed above.
(C) As to the avalanche angle of the free flowing intermediate powder, as discussed above, it would be understood that free flowing intermediate powder would be provided. Such free flowing would be predictably provided when using the free flowing initial powder as discussed using Oricchio above, and be desired so that the aqueous solution can contact the individual particles.
‘932 indicates that it is well known that providing a powder with an avalanche angle of 40-60 degrees, in the claimed range, gives superior flowability (note 0108-0111), where it is described that avalanche angle would be measured using an analysis using a revolution powder analyzer (note 0130-0131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio and Yoshimura to control the flowability of the impregnated intermediate powder to have an avalanche angle as determined by a revolution powder analyzer to be in a range of 40-60 degrees as suggested by ‘932 to provide desirable flowability to the powder giving a free flowing powder, since flowable powder would be suggested, and ‘932 would indicate a desirable avalanche angle of 40-60 degrees for powder measured with a revolution powder analyzer for superior flowability. As to the specific conditions for analysis for 100 ml of material, ‘932 indicates using 100 ml of material and using a cylinder/drum (note 0131). As to the specific rotation speeds, cylinder dimensions, and temperature, it would have been obvious to have slight variations based on the specific device from the specific company used, with the specific device claimed understood to be known as a commercial device, so conventional for use, and optimizing conditions to those claimed would have been obvious with an expectation of similar predictably acceptable results, with the desire to provide optimum flowability.
(D) as to the particle size of the water insoluble particulate carrier material in step a) (as in claim 1 and 21), Kruglikov is making catalyst (column 1, lines 1-10) and gives examples of using corundum (aluminum oxide) particles for the carrier material of 1.6 to 2.5 mm, larger than the claimed range (note column 15, lines 25-35).
Baker teaches a method for producing a particulate carrier material provided with at least elemental ruthenium, for example, for making a catalyst (note 00015-0017, 0026), where additional metals outside of Group VIII can also be provided to the catalyst particles (note 0026, 0028). The process includes the following successive steps, a step a) providing a water insoluble particulate carrier material (note oxides such as alumina, silica, etc. 0019, 0016) and an aqueous solution C of at least one metal precursor (note 0016, 0027—0029, where the solutions can include multiple different metal precursors, note 0046, 0052, where the precursors would be dissolved in the water, note 0046, 0052). Thereafter, in a step b) the carrier material particles are brought into contact with solution C to form an intermediate, which can be in the form of a free flowing impregnated particulate material in the form of grains (particles) that has been impregnated with the aqueous solution C as desired by claim 1, note 0016-0017, 0027, 0030-0032, understood to be free-flowing as claimed as the particulate material is not liquid but has been dried, while the particles are agitated so understood to leave dry particles that are free flowing, where the particles have been further dried they were at least impregnated with the solution C before drying, and it would be understood that the impregnated particulate material can be in the form of grains (including spheres, etc.) impregnated with the aqueous solution C, since Baker indicates the particles can be spheroidal (note 0018) and would be impregnated with the solution C and dried, note 0031-0032). Thereafter, a step c) is provided for bringing the intermediate into contact with an aqueous solution comprising hydrazine to form a mass comprising the elemental metals from the precursor (note 0008, 0033-0034, 0036, 0048). Thereafter, in a step d), the mass obtained can be washed (note 0038, 0049). Thereafter, in a step e), water and other volatile components would be removed as there would be a drying step (note 0050). As to the water insoluble particulate carrier material, for example, Baker teaches using alumina (aluminum oxide) (note 0018, and also notes silica at 0018). As to the size of the particulate carrier material, Baker notes particle sizes can be 300 microns or less (where 0% can be greater than 300 microns) and all particle sizes can also be 106 microns or less (where 0% can be greater than 106 microns), for example (note 0018-0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura and ‘932 to also use a particulate carrier material with all particle sizes 106 microns or less, for example as suggested by Baker with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Kruglikov indicates making a catalyst that can be applied to a particulate carrier material of aluminum oxide with impregnation with metal solution and reducing, and Baker teaches that in a similar making of a catalyst that can be applied to a particulate carrier material of aluminum oxide with impregnation with metal solution and reducing, a particle size of 106 microns or less can be used. It would have been obvious to optime from this size range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and "[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).
(E) As to the method being for producing an additive for an antimicrobial finishing in the form of the particulate carrier material provided with silver and ruthenium, where the additive is an antimicrobial finishing of metal surfaces, plastics, etc., (E1) Using simply Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, as provided in the claim 1, the additive is provided by forming the particulate carrier material as claimed (so is an intended use), where there is no actual requirement of using the additive as a antimicrobial finishing. Therefore, it is understood that the particulate carrier produced by the process of claim 1 results in a product that is usable as the additive claimed, since all structural features of such an additive would be provided, even though the product formed would be described as a catalyst by Kruglikov. Note Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), and in MPEP 2112.01(II), “"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”
(E2) Optionally, further using Barcikowski, Kruglikov describes forming catalyst particulate carrier material (note column 1,lines 60 to column 2, line 25, column 15, lines 25-35), and where Yoshimoto also notes forming catalysts (note column 1, lines 10-15), as well as Li article, Yoshimua, for example, as discussed above, and Baker (note 0005).
However, as to using the formed particulate carrier material with silver and ruthenium for antimicrobial finishing as well, Barcikowski describes how a particulate material can be formed of microparticles of ceramic, for example, such as aluminum oxide, silicon oxide (note oo33, 0019) that are combined with nanoparticles of metal, including ruthenium and silver (0047, 0020, 00o9-0012, 0043-0044, 0049), where it is described that these combined particles (combined active system) can be used as catalysts or also for antimicrobial purposes (note 0045-0047, 0050, where it is specifically indicated that combinations of silver and ruthenium can be used for antimicrobial purposes). If used for antimicrobial purposes, it can be used as an additive for polymers (plastics) for the production of medial devices, polymer parts for giving antimicrobial property (note 0046, 0047, 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker to also use the formed particulate carrier material as an additive for an antimicrobial finishing, such as for plastics, for example as suggested by Barchikowski with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Kruglikov, Yoshimoto, etc. describe forming the particulate carrier material as a catalyst, and Barchikowski would indicate the known formation and of particulate carrier material including ruthenium and silver combined with carrier material as catalyst material or also as antimicrobial material that that can be used as an additive for plastics, so giving antimicrobial finishing (antimicrobial property) to the plastic article formed.
Claim 2: As to providing the combination of aqueous solutions A and B in step b), so using the aqueous solution A with the dissolved silver precursors and the aqueous solution B with the dissolved ruthenium precursors rather than a single aqueous solution C with both materials as discussed for claims 1, 3 above, as discussed in In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (note MPEP 2144(IV)(C)), selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious, such that with a desired combination of silver and ruthenium precursors in aqueous solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a first aqueous solution A with the dissolved silver precursors and a second aqueous solution B with the dissolved ruthenium precursors can be initially provided and then either mixed together before contacting the carrier particles or the carrier particles provided and solutions A and B added over the parts to provide the desired mixture with an expectation of predictably acceptable results because all these options would provide the desired contacting of the carrier particles with dissolved silver precursors in aqueous solution and the dissolved ruthenium precursors in aqueous solution. Note how Li article shows providing a solution A of dissolved silver and a solution B of Ru precursor, which are then combined to use for depositing, so solution A and B would both be present at some point (note page 243).
Claim 7: As to the water insoluble particulate carrier material being an oxide, Kruglikov teaches using corundum (an aluminum oxide) (note column 4, lines 45-55).
Claim 10: As to the silver:ruthenium weight ratio of in the combination of aqueous solutions A and B, Li article provides for variable amounts of resulting Ag:Ru (note Table 1, Ru –0.1, 0.08, 0.04, 0.02, for example) that would give weight ranges within the claimed 1-2000:1, and this would apply when using solutions A and B as well as a single solution (noting that the materials would eventually be combined as discussed for claim 2 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski to optimize the amount of Au and Ru in solutions A and B to provide the desired amount of Ag and Ru in the resulting particles, giving valves in the claimed range. As well, Note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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)”.
Claim 11: as to the weight fraction of total of silver and ruthenium in the aqueous solution C, Kruglikov notes catalyst can have 5-10 wt% silver (note column 2, lines 10-20). Yoshimoto notes using 0.1-10 wt% metal in the catalyst (which can be combined metal) (note column 5, lines 60-68). It would have been obvious to optimize the amount of total metals used based on the specific catalyst formed, which would give a concentration in the claimed range. Note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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)”.
Claim 12: as to the amount of hydrazine in the aqueous hydrazine solution, Kruglikov indicates using an amount to provide complete reduction of the metal (silver)(note claim 1). Yoshimoto exemplifies using an amount of 1.2 x that of theoretical (note column 7, lines 35-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of hydrazine for the specific amount of reduction needed, giving a value in the claimed range. Note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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)”.
Claim 13: It further would have been obvious to provide the hydrazine solution is mixed with the intermediate with an amount sufficient for complete reduction of the precursors, since the desired is to provide elemental metal, not precursors, and Kruglikov indicates using an amount to provide complete reduction of the metal (silver)(note claim 1) and Yoshimoto exemplifies using an amount of 1.2 x that of theoretical (note column 7, lines 35-45), giving the suggestion to use a sufficient amount for reduction.
Claim 19: As to the water insoluble particulate carrier material being an aluminum oxide, for example, Kruglikov teaches using corundum (aluminum oxide) (note column 4, lines 45-55, and also notes silica). Li article as discussed for claim 1 above also indicates using alumina.
Claim 20: As to the silver:ruthenium weight ratio of in the aqueous solution C, Li article provides for variable amounts of resulting Ag:Ru (note Table 1, Ru –0.1, 0.08, 0.04, 0.02, for example) that would give weight ranges within the claimed 1-2000:1, and this would apply when using a single solution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski to optimize the amount of Au and Ru in solutions A and B to provide the desired amount of Ag and Ru in the resulting particles, giving valves in the claimed range. As well, Note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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)”.
Claim 24: as to providing silver precursors of silver nitrate and ruthenium precursors of ruthenimum nitrosylnitrate, as discussed above for claims 1, 3, Yoshimura cited as to the suggestion of ruthenium precursors to use, indicates that ruthenium nitrosyl nitrate can be used (note 0033), giving a suggested ruthenium precursor to use. Furthermore, as to a silver precursor of silver nitrate, as discussed above for claims 1, 3, Kruglikov indicates that complex silver acetate can be used. Kruglikov also indicates that this silver acetate can be made by combining silver nitrate with glacial acetic acid in water, which formed solution can be used (note column 9, lines 25-40), such that it would be expected that at least some unreacted silver nitrate would predictably and acceptably be present in the solution for use in the impregnation, etc. Additionally, Yoshimoto further indicates that to make silver catalyst, silver nitrate can be used as a starting material which can be reduced by hydrazine (note column 5, line 65 to column 6, line 5), further suggesting that silver nitrate would predictably and acceptably be present and used to form the silver part of the catalyst.
Claim 27: As to the elemental silver and elemental ruthenium particles, present in pores and cavities of the particulate carrier material and does not comprise any alloys having silver and ruthenium, since the same process as described for providing such results is provided by the combination of references with the silver and ruthenium precursor materials being impregnated in pores/cavities (note Kruglikov noting impregnation of material with pores, column 4, lines 45-55, note Oricchio noting filling of pores, column 2, lines 25-30, for example) of the particulate carrier material and reduced with aqueous hydrazine solution, and thus formation of particles of the metals in pores are expected, and since the same reducing provided, the lack of alloys also expected. Note Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 28: As to combining solutions A and B, or C, with the water insoluble particulate carrier material via metered addition while mixing, and the metered addition performed at a metering rate sufficient to maintain the free flowing property of the intermediate powder during the entirety of step b), as discussed for claim 1, part B) above, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of impregnation and metal added by controlling the contact of the precursor containing solution with the carrier particles by adding the solution to the particles dropwise until the desired amount applied. Adding drop wise would give a metered addition (of a drop at a time) while mixing, and the metered addition would be suggested to be applied at a controlled rate to provide the desired impregnation and amount of material to be added without applying to much, and this optimization would also maintain the free flowing property, as it would be suggested to provide the initial material as free flowing, and the intermediate material as free flowing, as discussed for claim 1 above, and providing the metered addition at a rate to maintain this condition would maintain the desired flow condition and prevent there from being too much added.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski, as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, 19-21, 24 and 27-28 above, and further in view of Cornelius et al (US 2003/0203019).
Claim 5: further as to the period between two avalanches, Cornelius describes how a useful measure of powder flowability is avalanche time (the time between avalanches) where the shorter the time between avalanches, the more free flowing the powder (note 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski, to further optimize the period of time between two avalanches as suggested by Cornelius, because free flowing intermediate powder would be suggested as discussed above, ‘932 indicates analyzing the flowability with a revolution powder analyzer, and Cornelius further indicates how a useful measure of powder flowability is avalanche time (the time between avalanches) where the shorter the time between avalanches, the more free flowing the powder, thus indicating this a result effective parameter, and by optimizing this parameter , the avalanche time would be in the claimed range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, 19-21, 24 and 27-28, and further in view of DD 209119 (hereinafter ‘119).
Claim 8: As to the water insoluble particulate carrier material being a cellulose powder, Kruglikov describes using such as corundum (aluminum oxide) (note column 4, lines 45-50, column 15, lines 25-30), and is making catalysts (note column 1,lines 5-10).
However, ‘119 describes that when providing catalysts, it can be desired to use particulate macroporous cellulose material to which catalytically active material such as Ru is applied (abstract, translation page 1), where it was previously known to use oxides such as alumina (aluminum oxide), before as the carrier (page 1 translation), where the material of the catalyst can be applied using impregnating with a metal salt solution, and then the metal reduced with reducing agent such as hydrazine (note page 2 translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski to use macroporous cellulose particles as the carrier material as suggested by ‘119 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Kruglikov indicates making catalyst with impregnation of carrier such as aluminum oxide particle with metal precursor solution with reducing to metal with hydrazine solution, and ‘119 indicates that a similar process for making catalyst can be provided using macroporous cellulose particles as the carrier material instead. It is understood that the cellulose material would be water insoluble so that it does not dissolve during the impregnation and reducing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932, Baker and ‘119, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski, as applied to claims 8 above, and further in view of CZ 2012408 (hereinafter ‘408).
Claim 6: when using macroporous cellulose particles as the carrier as suggested for claim 8 above, ‘408 describes that such material can be conventionally provided to be water swellable and allows absorbing liquids and also small particles (note pages 1, 3 translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932, Baker and ‘119, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski to provide that the macroporous cellulose particles as the carrier are water swellable as suggested by ‘408 which would help with absorption of the materials since Kruglikov and ‘119 want to impregnate material into the carrier and ‘408 indicates how macroporous cellulose particles can be provided as water swellable, helping to allow absorbing liquids and also small particles.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski, as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, 19-21, 24 and 27-28 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2011/0111948).
Claim 25: as to using cellulose powder in the form of linear cellulose fibers as the carrier as claimed, Kim further describes how cellulose can be used as a carrier material for metal catalyst (note 0003), where the cellulose can be in the form of fibers, where the fibers can be provided as fibers of 10-hundreds of microns (understood to be the diameter as the length is further described) and formed into short fibers of 1-2 mm (1000-2000 microns, overlapping the claimed range) for use (note 0034, and understood to be liner or at least inclusive of linear with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, as described as short lengths). The catalyst can be applied to the fibers by immersion of the fibers into a metal salt solution (note 0010, 0036-0038, 0040). The use of the cellulose was described as better than using alumina support/carrier (note 0074-0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura, ‘932 and Baker, EITHER alone OR further in view of Barcikowski to use cellulose powder in the form of linear cellulose fibers as the carrier material as suggested by Kim with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Kruglikov indicates making catalyst with impregnation of carrier such as aluminum oxide particle with metal precursor solution with reducing to metal with hydrazine solution, and Kim indicates that a similar process for making catalyst with impregnations with metal precursor can be provided using linear cellulose fibers as the carrier material instead of aluminum oxide. As to the length of the fibers, Kim describes 1000-2000 microns, overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. "[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)”.
Bent (US 2016/0369405) describes forming metal coated particles (note abstract), where base particles such as ceramic are provided (note 0042-0044) and the metal can include silver and ruthenium (note 0046-0047), where the coated particles can be used as catalysts or also in biocidal applications including antimicrobial applications (note 0189) .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustment to the rejections provided due to the amendments to the claims, with the new 35 USC 11(d) rejection and the new optional use of Barcikowski as a reference in the 35 USC 103 rejections.
As to the 35 USC rejection of claims 1, etc. using Kruglikov in view of Yoshimoto, Li article, Oricchio, Yoshimura and ‘932, it is argued that none of the references provide the new step a) particle size claimed. The Examiner notes this argument, but the reference to Baker (previously used for claim 21) has been added to the rejection of claim 1, with the amendment of claim 1, as to the suggestion to use the particle size claimed. Applicant has provided no arguments as why the use of Baker would be improper, where as to the previous rejection of claim 21, at page 14 of the Remarks, it is merely argued that claim 21 is allowable as depending from allowable claim 1, and provided no arguments as to why Baker would not suggest the particle size. Therefore, the rejection above is maintained.
It is further argued that the cited references do not suggest the method producing the additive for antimicrobial finishing. The Examiner notes this argument, however, as discussed in the rejections above, as provided in claim 1, the additive is provided by forming the particulate carrier material as claimed (so is an intended use), where there is no actual requirement of using the additive as a antimicrobial finishing. Therefore, it is understood that the particulate carrier produced by the process of claim 1 results in a product that is usable as the additive claimed, since all structural features of such an additive would be provided, even though the product formed would be described as a catalyst by Kruglikov. Note Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), and in MPEP 2112.01(II), “"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” The Examiner also optionally provided the use of the new reference to Barcikowski which would indicate the conventional use of powder material combined with silver and ruthenium can be used for catalyst material or antimicrobial material to be used in plastic parts (giving an antimicrobial finishing), giving a suggested for use of the formed particulate material.
Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
