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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8 of claim 1 (line 10 on Page 1 of Claims filed January 30th, 2024), “a organic polymer” should be edited to read, “an organic polymer”.
Each of claims 1, 3, and 6-7 denote ranges with tildes (~) (e.g., claim 1, “1~100”). These tildes should be replaced with an appropriate indicator of each respective range between the lower and upper values of the range (e.g., the word ‘to’ or a dash).
Following its preamble, claim 3 recites, “wherein: repeating the microplasma treatment to obtain a composite nanocatalysts”. This portion of the claim should be edited for grammatical consistency. If ‘wherein:’ is used, the phrase that follows should be an independent clause. Additionally, ‘a composite nanocatalysts’ should be edited so that the plurality or singularity of ‘nanocatalyst’ is clear.
In lines 4 of each of claims 6 and 7, “has concentration of” should include an article, e.g., “has a concentration of”.
Claims 6 and 7 each recite the limitation, “a metal in the metal salt comprises copper ions, iron ions, cobalt ions, gold ions, zinc ions, nickel ions, ruthenium ions, aluminum ions and any of two metal ions combination thereof” (emphasis added). The phrase in bold should be edited for grammatical correctness and clarity.
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 1-19 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 the limitation, “the precursor comprises a first component and a second component with concentration proportion of the second component to the first component in a range of 1~100” in lines 8-9. The claim does not specify the basis for measurement of concentration by which the concentrations of the first component and the second component are compared. For assessing the scope and meaning of the claim for prior art purposes, any measure of concentration will be interpreted to read on “concentration”, as individual claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111.
Claims 2-19 are indefinite due to their dependence on the indefinite claim 1 and because they do not cure the indefiniteness of “concentration” as recited therein.
The term “small amount” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite amount of alkali, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For assessing the scope and meaning of the claim for prior art purposes, any amount of alkali sufficient to neutralize the solution obtained after the microplasma treatment will be interpreted to read on “small amount”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (“Atmospheric pressure microplasma for antibacterial silver nanoparticle/chitosan nanocomposites with tailored properties”, 2020), as evidenced by Murugadoss (“A ‘green’ chitosan-silver nanoparticle composite as a heterogeneous as well as micro-heterogeneous catalyst”, 2008).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a nano-catalysts synthesis method (Sun, Scheme 1, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 4 - Col. 2, Paragraph 3) comprising the steps of:
treating a precursor solution with microplasma using a microplasma device (Sun, Scheme 1), wherein:
the microplasma is a plasma having at least one geometric dimension measuring less than one millimeter (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 6, the cathode is a stainless steel capillary with inner diameter of 250 μm; Scheme 1 shows the plasma extending from the inner diameter of the cathode, meaning that the plasma has a dimension of approximately 250 μm at the cathode);
the precursor solution comprises a precursor and a solvent (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 5, 2% (v/v) acetic acid aqueous solution), wherein: the precursor comprises a first component (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraphs 4-5, CS solution is chitosan) and a second component (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 5, AgNO3 solution) with concentration proportion of the second component to the first component of 9.3 (Sun, Page 2, Paragraph 5, 1 wt% CS is about 10 g/L CS; 4 mM AgNO3 is about 169.9 x 0.004 = 0.68 g/L; 10/0.68 = 9.3. Concentration by weight of each respective species is interpreted to read on “concentration”.);
the first component comprises an organic polymer (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraphs 4-5, CS solution is chitosan, an organic polymer) and the second component comprises a metal salt (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 5, AgNO3 is a metal salt); and
purifying the precursor solution after microplasma treatment to obtain the nano-catalyst (Sun, Page 2, Col. 2, Paragraph 3, samples were dried to constant weight; Paragraph [0016] of the instant Specification and instant claims 16-18 each indicate that drying is a purification step).
While Sun does not explicitly teach that the Ag nanoparticle/chitosan nanocomposite produced from the microplasma treatment is a nano-catalyst, Murugadoss indicates that such a material can act as a catalyst (Murugadoss, Title, Abstract). Therefore, despite Sun’s silence to the nanocomposite’s catalytic activity, it is nonetheless a nano-catalyst.
Regarding claim 4, Sun teaches the nano-catalysts synthesis method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein: each processing time of the microplasma treatment takes 10 minutes (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 16, Sun teaches the nano-catalysts synthesis method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein: the purification step comprises drying (Sun, Page 2, Col. 2, Paragraph 3, samples were dried to constant weight).
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 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (“Atmospheric pressure microplasma for antibacterial silver nanoparticle/chitosan nanocomposites with tailored properties”, 2020), as evidenced by Murugadoss (“A ‘green’ chitosan-silver nanoparticle composite as a heterogeneous as well as micro-heterogeneous catalyst”, 2008), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 2021-0043279 A) (the translation provided with the attached original document is referenced below).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Sun teaches the nano-catalysts synthesis method according to claims 1 and 4, as respectively discussed above, wherein: the microplasma treatment is performed by the microplasma device comprising:
a microplasma tank for containing the precursor solution (Sun, Scheme 1, cylinder containing AgNO3/CS solution);
an anode, which includes an electrode rod (Sun, Scheme 1; Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 6, carbon rod), which differs from the claimed electrode foil; and
a cathode, which is electrically connected to the anode and includes a microplasma outlet (Sun, Scheme 1; Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 6 - Col. 2, Paragraph 1, the capillary functions as an outlet), wherein:
an inert gas is introduced into the microplasma outlet to generate the microplasma in the precursor solution to produce the nano-catalysts (Sun, Scheme 1; Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 6 - Col. 2, Paragraph 1, helium gas).
While Sun’s electrode rod differs from the claimed electrode foil, Lee teaches that a Pt foil can function as the anode in a similar microplasma process for producing metal nanoparticles (Lee, Fig. 1 of original document; [0033] and [0041] of translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the carbon rod used in Sun’s microplasma device with the Pt foil used by Lee. Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II. In the instant case, Lee’s Pt foil was known for the same purpose as an anode in a microplasma device, so it would be obvious to use in place of Lee’s carbon rod anode.
Regarding claim 15, modified Sun renders the nano-catalysts synthesis method according to claim 10 obvious, as discussed above, wherein:
the electrode foil of the anode includes a platinum foil (Lee, Fig. 1 of original document; [0033] and [0041] of translation; see rejection of claim 10 above regarding obviousness of selecting Pt foil as the anode);
the inert gas includes Helium (Sun, Scheme 1; Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 6 - Col. 2, Paragraph 1, helium gas); and
the microplasma outlet includes a capillary tube (Sun, Scheme 1; Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 6 - Col. 2, Paragraph 1, the capillary tube functions as an outlet).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14, and 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Sun (“Atmospheric pressure microplasma for antibacterial silver nanoparticle/chitosan nanocomposites with tailored properties”, 2020), Murugadoss (“A ‘green’ chitosan-silver nanoparticle composite as a heterogeneous as well as micro-heterogeneous catalyst”, 2008), Lee (KR 2021-0043279 A) (see the translation provided with the attached original document), and Guo (“AuNP/Chitosan nanocomposites synthesized through plasma induced liquid chemistry and their applications in photothermal induced bacteria eradication”, 2022) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 2 and its dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 17-18, Sun teaches the nano-catalysts synthesis method according to claim 1, as discussed above, but none of the cited prior art references teach repeating the microplasma treatment. For example, Lee teaches that a microplasma treatment with a constant metal ion supply rate is important to control the particle size distribution of deposited nanoparticles (Lee, [0035]-[0036]). This would preclude repeating the microplasma treatment one or more times because stopping a single treatment would change the metal ion supply rate.
Regarding claim 6 and its dependent claim 8, Sun teaches the nano-catalysts synthesis method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein:
the organic polymer comprises chitin (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraphs 4-5, CS solution is chitosan, which constitutes chitin), which differs from the claimed chitin, amino acid, plastic polymer and derivatives thereof;
the solvent has a concentration of 0.3 M (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 5, 2% (v/v) acetic acid aqueous solution);
a metal in the metal salt comprises silver ions (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 5, AgNO3), which differs from the claim copper ions, iron ions, cobalt ions, gold ions, zinc ions, nickel ions, ruthenium ions, aluminum ions and any of two metal ions combination thereof; and
the nano-catalyst comprises silver nano-catalyst (Sun, Page 2, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, AgNP/CS), which differs from the claimed copper nano-catalyst, iron nano-catalyst, gold nano-catalyst, cobalt nano-catalyst, zinc nano-catalyst, nickel nano-catalyst, ruthenium nano-catalyst, aluminum nano-catalyst or a combination of any two of these metals.
While Sun does not teach that the nano-catalyst comprises one of the recited species, Guo teaches that gold nanoparticles can be synthesized on chitosan in a similar manner to produce an antibacterial gold nanoparticle/chitosan composite (Guo, Abstract, Page 3, Paragraphs 3-4). A gold nano-catalyst would therefore be obvious to apply to Sun’s method.
The claim requires that the organic polymer comprises chitin, amino acid, plastic polymer and derivatives thereof, whereas Sun only teaches that the organic polymer comprises chitin (Sun, Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraphs 4-5, CS solution is chitosan, which constitutes chitin). None of the cited prior art references teach or suggest a method for producing a nano-catalyst comprising each of the recited organic polymers.
Similarly, none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest a method for producing a nano-catalyst where a metal salt comprises each of the recited metal ions. Further, while Guo teaches a gold/chitosan nanocomposite as discussed above, the Guo’s gold source is HAuCl4 (Guo, Page 3, Paragraph 3), which is an acid and not a metal salt.
Regarding claim 19, Sun teaches the nano-catalysts synthesis method according to claim 16, as discussed above, but neither Sun nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest a neutralization or precipitation step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights