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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II and the species where the polymer is a polyamide and the metal salt precursor is silver nitrate in the reply filed on March 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicant contends that there is a special technical feature between the product and method invention groups and this feature should include method steps because the method is specially adapted to make the product. This is not found persuasive because in considerations of such combinations of categories of claims, the emphasis is on the product, not the method (see MPEP 1850 (III)(A)). The product features were the focus of the finding of lack of unity. Even if the process were considered the common technical feature, the rejection under 35 USC 103 detailed below indicates that it also does not make a contribution over the prior art. The applicant also argues that unity of invention should be maintained because species are connected in design, operation, and effect and no serious burden was establish as detailed in MPEP 802.01 an 803(I). These sections of the MPEP discuss restriction practice for applications filed under 35 USC 111(a). The instant application was filed under 35 CFR 371 and is therefore subject to unity of invention considerations and not the factors governing applications filed under 35 USC 111(a). As the applicant appears to note, should elected species be found allowable, the search and examination will be incrementally expanded to non-elected species until a species is found in the prior art or a generic claim(s) is found to be free of the art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-5, 8, and 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 7isobjected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the acronyms “DMF”, “NMP”, DMAc” and “DMSO”. While the definition of this abbreviation is provided in the specification, the full name should appear in the claims before the first use of an acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “c) transferring the solutions prepared in steps a and b into a coiled-flow reactor by two syringes controlled by syringe pumps or by peristaltic pumps to obtain pre-defined reaction concentrations for scalable productions or by a single syringe if no reducing agent is used at room temperature in the solvents from steps a and b by closing one valve; d) pre-mixing the solutions prepared in steps a and b in a three-way connector for homogeneous mixture formation before reaching the coiled-flow reactor [emphasis added]”. It is unclear if the solutions of steps a) and b) must be pre-mixed prior to reaching the coiled flow reactor as in step d) or if they are separately transferred into the coiled flow reactor as in step c). These recitations appear contradictory. Further, step c) recites “if no reducing agent is used at room temperature”. However, no reducing agent is mentioned prior to this point as part of the method. In addition, if the condition concerning a reducing agent is met, step c) recites that “one valve” is closed and a single syringe transfers the solutions of steps a) and b) into the coiled flow reactor. This is also confusing, given that no valve placement was previously recited and it seems to eliminate one of the two steams that step d) states are pre-mixed. Further, it is unclear if the transferring of solutions prepared in steps a) and b) by two syringes implicitly requires a solvent that acts as a reducing agent at room temperature, given the conditional recitation concerning when no room temperature reducing agent is present in the solvents.
Claim 1 also recites “e) dispensing the solutions prepared in steps a and b to the coiled-flow reactor at known concentrations and flow rates under constant microwave power [emphasis added]”. It is not clear where the microwave power is to be applied. The recited step provides flow paths for the solutions and a coiled flow reactor, which are each locations where the microwave power could be applied, but the recitation is not specific about which locale is required.
Claims 6 and 9 are unclear as to the metal salt precursor being claimed due to the nomenclature that is employed. Claim 6 recites “inorganic/organic silver”. It is not clear if a combination of inorganic silver and organic silver components is required or if this recitation means that either inorganic silver or organic silver is to be selected. Similarly in claim 9, the recitation “AgNO3,CH3COOAg” has the same clarity issue, where it is unclear if the recited compounds are required in combination or are options from which a selection can be made.
For the sake of application of prior art the recitations of steps c), d), and e) will be considered met by a process that details transferring the solutions prepared in steps a) and b) into a coiled flow reactor via a syringe pump or peristaltic pump, where the coiled flow reactor is subjected to microwave constant heating. In addition, claims 6 and 9 will be viewed as reciting the inorganic and organic compounds as alternatives Clarification is still 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.
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, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manno et al. (Industrial Engineering and Chemistry Research 2019 58:12702-12711) in view of Shi et al. (Journal of Materials Chemistry 2011 21:10330-10335) and Deadman et al. (Chemical Engineering and Technology 2015 38(2):259-264).
Manno et al. teach preparing silver nanoparticles in a helical (coiled) microfluidic reactor by applying constant microwave heating to the reactor (see abstract, page 12704 second column last partial paragraph-12705 first column fist partial paragraph, and figure 1; instant claim 1). A solution of ethylene glycol and polyvinyl pyrrolidone, as a polymer stabilizer, is placed in one syringe and a solution of silver nitrate in water is placed in second syringe (see page 12703 second column last partial paragpah-12704 second column first partial paragraph and figure 1; instant claim 1). A syringe pump feeds the two solutions into a three way connector which then feeds into the helical (coiled) flow reactor (see page 12703 second column last partial paragraph-12704 second column first partial paragraph and figure 1; instant claim 1). A single concentration for each solution is employed and they are fed at the same flow rate that is varied to assess the impact on the final product (see page 12703 second column last partial paragpah-12704 second column first partial paragraph; instant claim 1). Manno et al. teach that the microwave heated reactor yielded a narrower size distribution of silver nanoparticles as compared to conventional heating and that the particle size decreased with increasing flowrate (see figure 5 and table 2). In addition, the highest tested flowrate produced a set of particles that included particles sized less than 5 nm (see figure 5). The concentration of polymeric stabilizer is 240 mg/ml and is combined at an equal flowrate with a 15.7 mg/ml silver nitrate solution (see figure 1). An example detailed in the instant specification employed a 4 mg/ml solution of polyamide polymeric stabilizer and a 0.001 M (0.17 mg/ml) solution of silver nitrate to prepare their nanocomposite composed of a polymer matrix in which nanoparticles are distributed (see page 14 lines 1-14). Since the concentration of polymer in the product of Manno et al. exceeds that employed in the instant example, the product has sufficient polymer to form a matrix in which the formed silver nanoparticles are homogeneously distributed and qualifies as an instant “nanocomposite”. Manno et al. do not teach a polyamide as a stabilizing polymer, an instantly claimed solvent, or controlled pressure via a pressure regulator and pressurized gas.
Shi et al. teach of the production of antimicrobial polymer nanocomposite that is converted into nanofibers for biomedical materials (see abstract and page 10330). They detail nylon-6 as a stabilizer that is provided in solution in formic acid with silver nitrate that is also dissolved in formic acid (see page 10331 first column first and third full paragraphs; instant claims 2-3, 7, and 9-10). The product is electrospun into nano fibers (polymer nanocomposite) and the nanoparticles are present uniformly in the nanofibers (see page 10331 first column fourth full paragraph, page 10332 second column last paragraph and figures 2-4).
Deadman et al. teach of the benefit of employing a pressurized collection vessel for chemical reactions in microfluidic reactors that produce a slurry, in order to reduce blockages in the reactor that commonly occur in tubular flow reactors (see page 259). They detail a collector where the outlet of the reactor feeds through a junction of a pressurized gas feed and pressure regulator, and then empties into the collection chamber (see figure 1; instant claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a silver nanoparticle-polymer nanocomposite as taught by Manno et al. employing formic acid and nylon-6 as the stabilizer solution and formic acid and silver nitrate as the metal precursor solution. The differing solvent and stabilizing polymer are obvious modifications in light of Shi et al., since they are each the result of the simple substitution of one known element for another in order to yield a predictable outcome. It also would have been obvious to employ the pressurized collection vessel configuration of Deadman et al. since the reaction produces a slurry in a microfluidic reactor as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. The particle size is a result effective variable based upon solution flow rate, therefore it would have been obvious to optimize as a matter of routine experimentation. Therefore claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-10 are obvious over Manno et al. in view of Shi et al. and Deadman et al.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARALYNNE E HELM whose telephone number is (571)270-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Robert Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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.
/CARALYNNE E HELM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights