DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-18 and 26 in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 13A-13C are missing axis labels; Figures 25A, 25B, 25D-25H are missing figure legends. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: p. 1, line 7: “related a high-efficient”; p. 1, lines 18-19: “it is a transversal challenge can reduce such atmospheric contamination”.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see Specification at lines 8 and 12 on page 25, and lines 31 and 35 on page 28). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8, 13-18 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claims 1-4, 8, 13-15 and 17-18 the term “such” should be replaced with “said”;
in claims 5 and 7, line 2, the range “15-3” should be rewritten in increasing order: “3-15”, it is suggested that “3-15” should be rewritten in parenthesis;
in claims 6-7, line 1, “wherein TiO2” should read “wherein the ratio TiO2”;
in claim 6, it is suggested to rewrite “0-<50” as “<50”;
in claims 8 and 13, line 2, “having” should read “have”;
in claim 14, line 2, “□Al2O3” should read “γ Al2O3”;
in claim 15, line 2, “anastase” should read “anatase”;
in claim 16, line 1, “wherein further comprises” should read “wherein the decontaminant and disinfectant additive further comprises”;
in claim 17, line 3, “plastificizers” should read “plasticizers”, line 5, “superplastificizrs” should read “superplasticizers”, line 6, “>12%)” should read “>12%”, line 8, “Polymers” should read “polymers” and “polyeters” should read “polyethers”;
in claim 26, line 2, it is suggested to replace “a power “ready-to-use”” with “ready-to-use powder”.
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 5-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claims 5-7, it is unclear whether the claimed ratios refer to a molar or mass ratio, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will treat the limitation ratio as referring to a mass ratio.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the ratio" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “can be selected” in lines 4 and 6. The phrase “can be selected” renders claim indefinite because it is not a positive limitation. Thus, claim 17 fails to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the protection desired.
Please note, claim 18 is rendered indefinite as a result of its dependency on claim 17.
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 7 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 7 is dependent on claim 1 and recites ranges 0-<50 and 0-<20, thus, indicating that the lower limit of the amount of metal oxide nanoparticles present in the claimed additive is zero. Claim 1, as set forth, requires the presence of all recited nanoparticles: TiO2, ZnO, A1203, and CuO. Therefore, claim 7 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 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, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Losic et al. (US 20180133688 A1), hereinafter referred to as LOSIC, with evidence from Halbus et al. (Colloid particle formulations for antimicrobial applications. Advances in Colloid and Interface science, 2017, 249, 134-148), hereinafter referred to as HALBUS, as to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, LOSIC teaches a decontaminant additive (see LOSIC at paragraph [0010]: composite material in accordance with the invention exhibits excellent properties for removing a range of species (e.g. ionic and organic species)) comprising metal oxide nanoparticles in a metallic or semi-metallic nanoparticle matrix or a graphene or graphene-derived matrix (see LOSIC at Abstract: composite material having a porous graphene-based foam matrix and comprising porous inorganic micro-particles and metal oxide nano-particles distributed throughout the foam matrix), wherein such metal oxide nanoparticles are TiO2, ZnO, A12O3, and CuO (see LOSIC at paragraph [0109]: the metal oxide nano-particles are selected from oxides of aluminium, titanium, zinc, copper and combinations thereof). While LOSIC is silent with respect to the composite being disinfectant, LOSIC teaches a composition comprising constituents as set forth in claim 1. According to MPEP §2112.01(I): “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”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the rat would have anticipated the composite of LOSIC to comprise the claimed properties. Furthermore, the antimicrobial properties of metal oxide nanoparticles such as TiO2, ZnO, A1203, and CuO is known in the art, as evidenced from the disclosure of HALBUS describing the microbial applications of metal oxide nanoparticles (including TiO2, ZnO, A1203, and CuO) and metal nanoparticles such as copper, silver and gold (see HALBUS at Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, LOSIC teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 1 wherein such metal oxide nanoparticles having a range of nanoparticle size from 10 nm to 150 nm (see LOSIC at paragraph [0116]: all dimensions of the metal oxide nano-particles are less than 100 nm). LOSIC teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 9-12, LOSIC teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 8 wherein the range of nanoparticle size of ZnO is from 10 nm to 100 nm (claim 9), Al203 is from 10 nm to 100 nm (claim 10), TiO2 is from 10 nm to 30 nm (claim 11), CuO is from 40 nm to 60 nm (claim 12) (see LOSIC at paragraph [0116]: all dimensions of the metal oxide nano-particles are less than 100 nm). LOSIC teaches ranges which overlap and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, LOSIC teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 1 wherein such Al2O3 nanoparticles are γAl2O3 nanoparticles (see LOSIC at paragraph [0113]: the aluminium oxide is selected from γAl2O3).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOSIC in view of Joost et al. (Photocatalytic antibacterial activity of nano-TiO2 (anatase)-based thin films: Effects on Escherichia coli cells and fatty acids. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 2015, 142, 178-185), hereinafter referred to as JOOST.
Regarding claim 15, LOSIC teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 1, but is silent with respect to TiO2 nanoparticles being TiO2 anatase phase nanoparticles.
However, JOOST discloses that titanium dioxide is a photocatalyst with well-known ability to oxidize a wide range of organic contaminants as well as to destroy microbial cells (see JOOST at Abstract). JOOST teaches that the mechanism of TiO2 photocatalytic oxidation and consequently, also antibacterial activity involves reactive oxygen species (ROS); TiO2 in anatase phase has been shown as the most potent form of TiO2 to produce ROS (see JOOST at 1. Introduction, right column, second paragraph, p. 178).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the composition of LOSIC by utilizing TiO2 anatase phase nanoparticles as disclosed by JOOST since JOOST explicitly teaches that TiO2 in anatase phase has been shown higher antibacterial activity (see JOOST at 1. Introduction, right column, second paragraph, p. 178).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of LOSIC by utilizing TiO2 anatase phase nanoparticles as disclosed by JOOST in order to increase the antibacterial activity.
Claims 1-7, 13, 16-17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond et al. (US 20160143294 A1), hereinafter referred to as BOND, in view of Kruk et al. (Synthesis and antibacterial activity of monodisperse copper nanoparticles. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 2015, 128, 17-22), hereinafter referred to as KRUK.
Regarding claim 1, BOND teaches a high-efficient and broad-spectrum decontaminant and disinfectant additive (see BOND at paragraph [0002]: compositions and methods for sanitization of a surface) comprising metal oxide nanoparticles, wherein such metal oxide nanoparticles are TiO2, ZnO, A1203, and CuO (see BOND at paragraphs [0023-24]: a self-cleaning composition includes two or more different metal oxides; a self-cleaning composition includes titanium dioxide and a different metal oxide; suitable optional metal oxides for use alone or in combination with a first metal oxide (e.g., titanium dioxide) include ZnO, A1203, CuO; in some embodiments, a first metal oxide (e.g. titanium dioxide) may have an average particle size of about 1 nm to about 100 nm).
While BOND discloses that the self-cleaning composition can include an antimicrobial agent, and that in some embodiments an antimicrobial agent for use with embodiments of a self-cleaning composition includes a metal ion (e.g. silver ion) (see BOND at paragraphs [0044] and [0050]), BOND fails to explicitly teach wherein the composition comprises a metallic or semi-metallic nanoparticle matrix.
However, KRUK discloses monodisperse copper nanoparticles with average diameter 50 nm, which showed high activity against bacteria, comparable to silver nanoparticles and some antibiotics (see KRUK at Abstract). KRUK also discloses that copper is one of the most widely used materials in the world, and copper nanoparticles can be used as ultimate antibacterial agent because of high cost of metals like silver and gold (see KRUK at 1. Introduction, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 18). KRUK teaches that the results of the performed antibacterial tests proved that copper nanoparticles antimicrobial agents can be used as a strategy for reducing bacterial or fungal adhesion at lower cost than use of silver (see KRUK at 4. Conclusion, p. 22).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of modifying the self-cleaning composition of BOND by replacing the antimicrobial agent such as silver ions with the copper nanoparticles disclosed by KRUK, since KRUK explicitly teaches that copper nanoparticles antimicrobial agents can be used as a strategy for reducing bacterial or fungal adhesion at lower cost than use of silver (see KRUK at 4. Conclusion, p. 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the self-cleaning composition of BOND by replacing the antimicrobial agent such as silver ions with the copper nanoparticles disclosed by KRUK in order to obtain the disinfectant composition at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 2, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 1 wherein such metallic or semi-metallic nanoparticle matrix are selected from metallic or semi- metallic nanocatalyst matrix (see rejection of claim 1 above spanning paragraphs on pages 10-11, and KRUK at 4. Conclusion, p. 22: copper nanoparticles antimicrobial agents).
Regarding claims 3-4, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 2 wherein such metallic or semi-metallic nanocatalyst matrix is selected from a nanocopper matrix (claim 4), nanogold matrix or a nanosilver matrix (see rejection of claim 1 above spanning paragraphs on pages 10-11, and KRUK at 4. Conclusion, p. 22: copper nanoparticles antimicrobial agents).
Regarding claim 5, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 1 wherein the ratio TiO2 : ZnO : A1203 : CuO is 35 : 30 : 15 : (15-3) (see rejection of claim 1 above spanning paragraphs on pages 10-11, and KRUK at paragraphs [0023]: a self-cleaning composition includes two or more different metal oxides, in a certain embodiments, a self-cleaning composition includes titanium dioxide and a different metal oxide; and [0029]: a self-cleaning composition includes from about 0.001% to about 99% by weight metal oxide (e.g. titanium dioxide) of the total weight of the self-cleaning composition). KRUK teaches range which overlaps with the claimed ranges. Additionally, MPEP states that "[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", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claims 6-7, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 1 wherein the ratio TiO2 : ZnO : A1203 : CuO : Cu is 0-<50 : 0-<50 : 0-<50 : 0-<20 : 0-<20 (claim 6) and 35 : 30 : 15 : (15-3) : 5 (claim 7) (see rejection of claim 1 above spanning paragraphs on pages 10-11, and KRUK at paragraphs [0023]: a self-cleaning composition includes two or more different metal oxides, in a certain embodiments, a self-cleaning composition includes titanium dioxide and a different metal oxide; and [0029]: a self-cleaning composition includes from about 0.001% to about 99%). As was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above spanning paragraphs on pages 10-11, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches copper nanoparticles as an antimicrobial agent, furthermore, BOND teaches a self-cleaning composition including from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight antimicrobial agent of the total weight of the self-cleaning composition (see KRUK at paragraph [0053]). Thus, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches a ratio which overlaps and renders the claimed ranges obvious.
Regarding claim 13, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 4 wherein such nanocopper matrix having a nanoparticle size < 100 nm (see rejection of claim 1 above spanning paragraphs on pages 10-11, and KRUK at Abstract: monodisperse copper nanoparticles with average diameter 50 nm). KRUK teaches a range which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 1 wherein the decontaminant and disinfectant additive further comprises superplasticizer (see BOND at paragraph [0060]: a self-cleaning composition includes a surfactant).
Regarding claim 17, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 16 wherein such superplasticizer is selected from an anionic surfactant having functional groups selected from hydroxyl, sulphonate or carboxyl (see BOND at paragraph [0060]: suitable surfactants for use in embodiments of the invention include, but are not limited to, … linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LABs)).
Regarding claim 26, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 1 wherein such additive is a powder "ready-to-use", a solution to be sprayed as a liquid or a formulation to be spread on a soft or hard surface (see BOND at paragraph [0075]: the self-cleaning composition can be applied by painting, rubbing, wiping, spraying, or any other means apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art; in certain embodiments a method of sanitizing and/or disinfecting a surface includes electrostatic spraying).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOND in view of KRUK as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Greener et al. (US 20090110750 A1), hereinafter referred to as GREENER.
Regarding claim 18, BOND as modified by KRUK teaches the decontaminant and disinfectant additive of claim 17. While BOND discloses that a self-cleaning composition includes a surfactant/superplasticizer; suitable surfactants for use in embodiments of the invention include, but are not limited to polyoxyethylene glycol octylphenol ethers, polyoxyethylene glycol alkylphenol ethers (see BOND at paragraph [0060]), BOND is silent with respect to superplasticizer being polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer.
However, GREENER discloses an antimicrobial material comprising a metal species and a polymer, wherein the polymer stabilizes the metal species (see GREENER at paragraph [0012]). GREENER teaches that the metal species may be silver, copper, zinc, manganese, gold, iron, nickel, cobalt, cadmium, palladium and/or platinum species, and that the metal species may be a metal oxide (see GREENER at paragraphs [0013-14]). GREENER also teaches that the polymer may be a polyanion, the polyanion may be organic, which may be an organic polyacid and/or a derivative thereof; and that the organic polyacid may be a polycarboxylate (see GREENER at paragraphs [0019] and [0022]). Additionally, similarly to BOND describing that suitable surfactants for use in embodiments of the invention include, but are not limited to polyoxyethylene glycol octylphenol ethers, polyoxyethylene glycol alkylphenol ethers (see BOND at paragraph [0060]), GREENER teaches that the polymer may be a saturated polyolefin, such as polyethylene or polypropylene (see GREENER at paragraph [0029]). Finally, GREENER teaches that the metal oxide-organic polyacid derivative materials exhibit enhanced stability compared with that of the corresponding metal oxide alone (see GREENER at paragraph [0035]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the self-cleaning composition of BOND by utilizing polycarboxylate polymer disclosed by GREENER, since GREENER explicitly teaches that the disclosed polymer stabilizes the metal species, thus, the metal oxide-organic polyacid derivative materials exhibit enhanced stability compared with that of the corresponding metal oxide alone (see GREENER at paragraphs [0012] and [0035]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated the polymers of GREENER to be suitable based on the teachings of BOND describing that the surfactants used in the self-cleaning composition are not limited to the disclosed surfactants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the self-cleaning composition of BOND by utilizing polycarboxylate polymer disclosed by GREENER in order to stabilize the metal species.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights