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 .
Change of Examiner
The Group and/or Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. All correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Examiner Lori Mattison in Group Art Unit 1619.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of:
A) Nanocomposite- Graphene oxide and silver cations (Ag +) bound to the graphene oxide as Ag(1)-complexes; the nanocomposite further comprises silver nanoparticle, copper cations and zinc cations;
B) Microbial Infection-SARS-CoV-2;
C) Administration Route- intranasal route; and
D) Nanocomposite Form- in the reply filed on 12 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that silver nanoparticles are not bound directly to graphene sheets; certain monomers are used to make a polymer with the metallic a silver nanoparticles (reply, pg. 7). This is not found persuasive because claim 62 recites that silver is bound as an Ag(1) complex to the graphene oxide. It does not require that the Ag(1) be directly bound to the graphene oxide. Further, claim 62 recites the “nanocomposite comprising” graphene oxide and silver cations. Other reagents/structures are permitted in the nanocomposite.
Claims 75, 77, 79 & 80 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12 November 2025.
The species election for the microbial infection is withdrawn in part and the examination has been expanded to the extent of a bacterial infection that is E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus (see claims 71 & 74).
The elected species of SARS-CoV-2 virus in claim 73 has been found free of the art. The Examiner has selected the next species to search which is coronavirus.
Claim Status
Claims 62-81 are pending.
Claims 1-61 are cancelled
No claim are amended.
Claims 75, 77, 79 & 80 withdrawn.
Claims 62-74, 76, 78 & 81 are under consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 June 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 August 2023 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed and initialed copy of each IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
Objections/Rejections
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words in length. The abstract should be 50-150 words in length (See MPEP. 608.01(b) I.C). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The use of the term “carbomer”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 63, 65, 67 & 68 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 63 & 68 recite silver cations (Ag+), however “silver cations” has already been defined as “Ag+” in independent claim 62.
Applicant may wish to consider whether claim 63 & 68 amendments to recite “Ag+” would obviate the objection.
Claim 65 recites “silver cations”, however “silver cations” has already been defined as “Ag+” in independent claim 62.
Applicant may wish to consider whether a claim 65 amendment to recite “Ag+” would obviate the objection.
Claim 67 recites “silver cation”, however “silver cation” has already been defined as “Ag+” in independent claim 62.
Applicant may wish to consider whether a claim 67 amendment to recite “Ag+” would obviate the objection.
Claim 67 also recites “silver cation” and “silver nanoparticle ranges…” (i.e. in the singular). However, claims 62 and 66 from which claim 67 depends recites these objects in plural form (i.e. silver cations and silver nanoparticles).
Applicant may wish to consider whether a claim 67 amendment to recite “wherein the ratio of silver cations to silver nanoparticles range from…” would obviate the rejection and write the claim in parallel to the rest of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 62-66, 69, 71, 72, 74 & 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Nano Express 1 (2020) 010041; Published: 06/04/2020) in view of Kopel (CZ28443; Published: 07/07/2015).
*Note: All references refer to the English language translation.
**Please note that in the process of searching for the elected embodiment, the examiner found art which reads on the broader recitation of the claims (i.e. E. coli and S. aureus which are bacterial species which belong to the genera of microbes to which the elected species of SARS-CoV-2 virus belongs) and in an effort to expedite prosecution, this art has been applied.
With regard to claims 62 & 66, Wang teaches composition comprising silver nanoparticles/reduced graphene oxide (AgNPs/rGO; abstract). With regard to the claim 62, the AgNPs/rGO were made with silver nitrate (i.e. Ag(I); pg. 4). With regard to claims 62-63 & 66, Wang teaches “Some of the outermost electrons of the AgNPs might enter into the delocalized electrons domains of the rGO, forming coordination bonds that enabled the AgNPs to adhere tightly to the rGO sheets” (i.e. a coordinate covalent bond; pg. 9). With regard to claim 65, Wang teaches mass percent of AgNPs loading on rGO could be adjusted according to the requirement of applications from 1∼67% of the total weight of AgNPs/rGO (abstract). With regard to claims 62, 71, 72 & 74 , Wang teaches the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of AgNPs/rGO prepared at 100 °C against E. coli was less than 20 ppm (0.002%; pg. 7). With regard to claims 62, 71, 72 & 74, Wang teaches the MIC of AgNPs/rGO reduced at 100 °C against S. aureus was 70 ppm (0.007%; pg. 7). With regard to claim 81, Wang teaches AgNPs/rGO was dried in a vacuum oven at 40 °C for 10 h (i.e. a powder; pg. 2). Wang teaches the low effusion of silver from AgNPs/rGO in silicone rubber might ensure its antibacterial durability and safety as it applies to use of the composites in wound dressings (pg. 9).
Wang does not teach a method for treating a microbial infection in a subject comprising administering to the subject the antimicrobial nanocomposite or that the method further comprises copper cations or zinc cations.
In the same field of invention of invention of antibacterial preparations comprising of metals and/or semi-metals and a complexing agent which is graphene oxide or reduced graphene oxide (rGO), with regard to claim 69, Kopel teaches the metal nanoparticles are based on silver, copper, zinc and mixtures thereof (abstract; pg. 2). With regard to claims 62 & 69, Kopel assessed the inhibition zones of S. aureus and E.coli with rGO Zn and rGO Ag (pg. 3) With regard to claim 62, Kopel teaches a medical material which may be a spray or dressing for an infectious wound that comprises the antibacterial preparation (abstract). With regard to claim 62, Kopel teaches the product may be used in normal hospital practice or home treatment in the treatment of wounds (i.e. the composition is applied to a subject which is a human or an animal because these are the entities which go to the hospital or live in homes; pg. 3).
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
With regard to claim 62, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Wang’s method by adding the step of applying Wang’s AgNPs/rGO to a wound on an infected human or animal as taught by Kopel because Wang and Kopel are both directed to treating E. coli and S. aureus infections with nanocomposites of reduced graphene oxide complexed with metal nanoparticles which may be silver and it is obvious to modify similar methods in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to apply Wang’s AgNPs/rGO wound dressing to the correct recipient which is an infected animal or human in the hospital or receiving home treatment.
With regard to claim 69, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the method suggested by the combined teachings of Wang and Kopel by adding rGO Zn and rGO Cu (i.e. zinc and copper cations) to Wang’s composition as suggested by Kopel because Wang and Kopel are both directed to treating E. coli and S. aureus infections with nanocomposites of reduced graphene oxide complexed with metal nanoparticles which may be any one of silver, copper, or zinc nanoparticles or mixtures as taught by Kopel and it is obvious to modify compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to modify the bactericidal effect of the composition through use of a mixture of complexes having silver, copper and zinc cations.
With regard to the recited amount of silver cations bound to the GO, the combined teachings of Wang and Kopel suggest a nanocomposite having comprising silver cations in an amount which overlaps with the claimed range. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Kopel, as applied to claims 62-66, 69, 71, 72, 74 & 81 above, and further in view of Tang (WO 2018/054212; Published: 03/29/2018).
*Note: All references refer to the English language translation.
**Please note that in the process of searching for the elected embodiment, the examiner found art which reads on the broader recitation of the claims (i.e. E. coli and S. aureus which are bacterial species which belong to the genera of microbes to which the elected species of SARS-CoV-2 virus belongs) and in an effort to expedite prosecution, this art has been applied.
The teachings of Wang and Kopel are suggested above. In brief, Wang and Kopel suggest a method of treating a person or animal infected with S. aureus with a medical dressing or a spray comprising a AgNPs which are in complex with graphene oxide or reduced graphene oxide as a nanocomposite.
Neither Wang nor Kopel teach the size of the nanocomposite.
In the related field of invention of graphene composites, Tang teaches graphene oxide based composites (pg. 27). Tang teaches graphene based substances have a tendency to agglomerate and particle sizes of more preferably 5 to 25 µm avoids the occurrence of particle agglomeration (pg. 12).
Here, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the method suggested by the combined teachings of Wang and Kopel by adjusting the size of the AgNPs/rGO nanocomposite to be 5 to 25 µm as suggested by Tang because the AgNPs/rGO nanocomposites comprise graphene in the form of graphene oxide and Tang teaches graphene based substances have a tendency to agglomerate. It is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to inhibit agglomeration of the graphene-based AgNPs/rGO nanocomposite by adjusting the size of the nanocomposite to that which is taught as preferred by Tang.
With regard to the recited size of the nanocomposite, the combined teachings of Wang, Kopel and Tang suggest a nanocomposite having a particle diameter which overlaps with the claimed range. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Kopel, as applied to claims 62-66, 69, 71, 72, 74 & 81 above, and further in view of Ye (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 7, 21571-21579; Published: 2015).
*Note: All references refer to the English language translation.
**Please note that in the process of searching for the elected embodiment, the examiner found art which reads on the broader recitation of the claims (i.e. coronavirus which is a genus of virus which belongs to the genera of microbes to which the elected species of SARS-CoV-2 virus belongs) and in an effort to expedite prosecution, this art has been applied.
The teachings of Wang and Kopel are suggested above. In brief, Wang and Kopel suggest a method of treating a person or animal infected with S. aureus with a medical dressing or a spray comprising AgNPs which are in complex with graphene oxide or reduced graphene oxide as a nanocomposite. Kopel teaches the nanocomposites of their invention “prevents the attachment and multiplication of microorganisms responsible for the infection” (pg. 2). Kopel teaches rGO in nanocomposites which may comprise complexed metal nanoparticles including silver had inhibition zones when contacted with S. aureus (i.e. the S. aureus must come into contact with an effective amount of the rGO nanocomposites to elicit and effect).
Neither Wang nor Kopel teach the infection is a virus.
In the related field of invention graphene oxide, Ye teaches monolayers of graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide (rGO) and graphene oxide conjugated to PVP demonstrated antiviral activity against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (i.e. a coronavirus; abstract; Figure 5-pg. 21575). Ye hypothesizes that graphene oxide may inhibit virus infection by direct interaction with the virus, resulting in virus inactivation by GO’s sharp edged structure (pg. 21575 & 21577).
With regard to claim 73, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the method suggested by the combined teachings of Wang and Kopel by administering the AgNPs/rGO nanocomposite to a human or animal with coronavirus as suggested by Ye because the AgNPs/rGO nanocomposites suggested by the combined teachings of Wang and Kopel have a mechanism of action based upon contact to prevent the attachment and multiplication as taught by Kopel and reduced graphene oxide and graphene oxide inhibit coronavirus by direct interaction as taught by Ye. It is obvious to modify similar methods in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to inhibit coronavirus infection by direct interaction with the virus, resulting in virus inactivation as taught by Ye.
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Kopel, as applied to claims 62-66, 69, 71, 72, 74 & 81 above, and further in view of McDanel (Published: 07/2016).
*Note: All references refer to the English language translation.
**Please note that in the process of searching for the elected embodiment, the examiner found art which reads on the broader recitation of the claims (i.e. E. coli and S. aureus which are bacterial species which belong to the genera of microbes to which the elected species of SARS-CoV-2 virus belongs) and in an effort to expedite prosecution, this art has been applied.
The teachings of Wang and Kopel are suggested above. In brief, Wang and Kopel suggest a method of treating a person or animal infected with S. aureus with a medical dressing or a spray comprising a AgNPs/rGO nanocomposite. Kopel teaches rGO nanocomposites which may comprise complexed metal nanoparticles including silver which “prevents the attachment and multiplication of microorganisms responsible for the infection” (pg. 2). Kopel teaches the rGO nanocomposites which may comprise complexed metal nanoparticles including silver had inhibition zones when contacted with S. aureus (i.e. the S. aureus must come into contact with an effective amount of the rGO nano-composites to elicit and effect).
However, neither Wang nor Kopel teach the S. aureus infection is a respiratory tract infection.
In the same field of invention of S. aureus infections, with regard to claim 76, McDanel teaches S. aureus is a common cause of respiratory infections, including pneumonia, and can lead to necrotizing pneumonia and death (abstract; pg. 2).
With regard to claim 76, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the method suggested by the combined teachings of Wang and Kopel by applying the AgNPs/rGO nanocomposite in the treatment of respiratory infections because Wang and Kopel teach treating S. aureus infections with AgNPs/rGO nanocomposites and S. aureus is a common cause of respiratory infections as taught by McDanel. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to avoid pneumonia and death resulting from S. aureus infection using a AgNPs/rGO nanocomposite that is recognized as suitable for treating S. aureus with the AgNPs/rGO nanocomposites being administered by spraying as suggested by the combined teachings of Wang and Kopel.
Claim 78 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Kopel, and McDanel as applied to claims 62-66, 69, 71, 72, 74, 76 & 81 above, and further in view of Watson (US 2009/0263495; Published: 07/2016).
The teachings of Wang, Kopel, and McDanel are described above. With regard to claim 78, McDanel teaches respiratory cultures including bronchial specimen, bronchial, and tracheal aspirate were used to grow and detect S. aureus (i.e. S. aureus infects the bronchus and trachea/airway; pg. 2).
Neither Wang, Kopel, nor McDanel teach the administration route is intranasal.
In the same field of invention of treating Staphylococcus aureus, Watson teaches bacteriocidal compositions (Watson’s claim 7). Watson teaches intranasal administration (Watson’s claim 40). Watson teaches administration to the bronchial tree and nasal cavity [0281]. Watson contemplates nasal sprays, aerosols, and sprays [0277].
With regard to claim 78, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the method suggested by the combined teachings of Wang and Kopel by administering the AgNPs/rGO nanocomposite to the trachea and bronchus/bronchial tree as suggested by the combined teachings of McDanel and Watson because AgNPs/rGO nanocomposites have a mechanism of action based upon contact with S. aureus to prevent the attachment and multiplication of S. aureus as taught by Kopel and S. aureus infects/resides in the bronchus and trachea/airway as taught by McDanel and delivery to the bronchial tree/bronchus and nasal cavity may occur via inhalation and nasal administration of sprays as taught by Watson. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to prevent the attachment and multiplication of S. aureus in the infected human or animal.
Claim Objection
Claims 67 & 68 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI K MATTISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5866. The examiner can normally be reached 9-7 (M-F).
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, David J Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/LORI K MATTISON/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/NICOLE P BABSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights