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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 are currently under examination and the subject of the present Office Action. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from consideration without traverse. Claims 9-10 are cancelled.
As such, the restriction is made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/21/2023 has been considered here.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 20070292459 A1 (Cooper, 2007) in view of CN 110790698 (Wang, 2020; machine translation provided by PE2E via FIT), and Biddeci (2022).
Cooper teaches a wound-healing bandage or dressing (i.e., a hemostatic material) (see Cooper, paragraph 0061) comprising halloysite microtubules (see Cooper, paragraph 0039) and nanotubes (see Cooper, paragraphs 0044 and 0046). It is taught that halloysite tubules filled with an active agent such as an antibacterial is known in the art (see Cooper, paragraphs 0156, 0161, 0170).
Cooper is silent on the use of aggregation-induced emission (AIE) nanoparticles and the hydroxylation of the halloysite.
Wang teaches an antibacterial composition comprising TTPy of the same structure as instantly claimed (see Wang, machine translation page 3; page 2, paragraphs 3-5; page 13, final paragraph; original document page 6, formula (III)).
Biddeci teaches a composition comprising halloysite nanotubes that have hydroxyl groups on the surface used for biomedical applications (see Biddeci, introduction; 2. Halloysite nanotubes).
In regards to claims 1-2, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Cooper with Wang and Biddeci as Cooper teaches that the halloysite tubules filled with an active agent, such as an antibacterial (see Cooper, paragraphs 0156, 0161, and 0170) like the TTPy of Wang, are known in the art. Further, Biddeci teaches that halloysite nanotubes can be modified with the intercalation of small organic molecules to increase the surface between the layers increased loading or adsorption (see Biddeci, page 3, first paragraph). It is also taught that the halloysite nanotubes are able to be functionalized and used as delivery vehicles of drugs (see Biddeci, page 9, first paragraph). Further, as the language of the claims recites that the “structure formula of the AIE nanoparticles is TTPy” as shown in claim 1, the compound of Wang meets the requirements of the AIE nanoparticles. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine antibacterial of Wang and the hydroxylated halloysite nanotubes with the dressing of Cooper according to known methods of formulating a halloysite dressing with an antibacterial (see Cooper, paragraphs 0156, 0161, and 0170) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to claims 3-5, a product-by-process claim drawn to a composition directed towards the halloysite-based composite hemostatic material, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. The combination of Cooper, Wang, and Biddeci teach the instantly claimed composition. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by- process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. The teachings of Cooper, Wang, and Biddeci teach the composition as instantly claimed, thus the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence showing that the process of making the composition as instantly claimed produces a materially different product than the composition of Cooper, Wang, and Biddeci.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYAAN A ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/Isis A Ghali/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1611