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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/27/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract refers to purported merits of the invention where the abstract recites the merits of preventing nanoparticles from aggregating and improvements to superoxide dismutase (SOD)-like catalase (CAT)-like activities. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 2nd ¶
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites a ratio of “(50-500) mg: 1.45 g,” and because of the parenthesis, it is unclear if the parenthetical range is required or just exemplary. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “50-500 mg: 1.45 g.”
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2018, 510, pp. 207-220, hereinafter “He”).
He discloses magnesium dioxide nanosheets on montmorillonite synthesized by a hydrothermal method (abs). In embodiments, 100 mg of montmorillonite was added into 30 mL potassium permanganate solution (0.05 mol), and then subjected to heating at 160 deg C for 24 hours (2.2.1). The collected precipitate was washed and dried (2.2.1).
Where the method disclosed by He is a method of mixing montmorillonite and potassium permanganate solution, subjecting the solution to a hydrothermal reaction, and washing and drying the product obtained from the hydrothermal reaction, the limitations are met.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2018, 510, pp. 207-220, hereinafter “He”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al (CN 114289133 A, hereinafter “Yang”) and Kurama et al (Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process, 2023, 59(5), 165991, pp. 1-14, hereinafter “Kurama”).
He is discussed above but does not specifically disclose that the montmorillonite is refined by ball milling, nor wet ball milling with absolute ethanol at a rotational speed of 350 r/min for 60 h.
Yang teaches wet ball milling of montmorillonite was known and teaches absolute ethanol as a milling medium (abs, pp 2, 3, example 3). The wet ball milling process was a three stage ball milling, wherein the first stage had a rotational speed of 300-500 r/min with a mill time of 2-24 h; the second stage had a rotational speed of 300-500 r/min with a milling time of 2-24 h; the third stage had a rotational speed of 200-400 r/min with a milling time of 2-24 h (pg 3).
Kurama is cited for additional motivation and teaches the pretreatment of clay minerals plays an important stage for successful synthesis of composite materials with desired properties, and includes subjecting the clay material to ball milling (3.3). Montmorillonite was subjected to ball milling with different milling times, milling speeds, etc., which resulted in exfoliation of the montmorillonite, thereby leading to enhanced absorption capacity of the montmorillonite (pg 11 1st ¶). Milling speeds of 200, 400, 500 rpm, etc. were known, with milling times of 20 hours (pg 11 1st ¶). Increased milling time increases absorption capacity (pg 11 1st ¶). Wet milling was known to produce a higher quality product than dry milling (pg 11 last ¶).
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to modify the montmorillonite of He, by subjecting the montmorillonite to wet ball milling, as taught by Yang and Karuma, where ball milling was known to exfoliate montmorillonite and increase its absorption capacity, as taught by Karuma.
Regarding claim 3, where wet ball milling is made obvious above, it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to include absolute ethanol to the wet ball milling process, where absolute ethanol was known to be suitable for wet ball milling of montmorillonite, as taught by Yang.
Regarding the rotational speed and milling time, it would have been obvious to use known rotational speeds and milling times suitable for wet ball milling of clay mineral materials, including montmorillonite, such as speeds of 200-500 r/min, for a total milling time ranging from 6-72 hours, as taught by Yang. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Further, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2018, 510, pp. 207-220, hereinafter “He”), Yang et al (CN 114289133 A, hereinafter “Yang”), and Kurama et al (Physicochem Probl Miner Process, 2023, 59(5), 165991, pp. 1-14, hereinafter “Kurama”), as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Liu (WO 2017185469 A1).
He and Karuma are discussed above but do not specifically teach vacuum lyophilization.
Yang is discussed above and further teaches the supernatant was then dried in a vacuum to obtain the nano layered clay mineral material (abs).
Yang does not specifically teach vacuum lyophilization.
Liu teaches vacuum freeze drying (i.e., vacuum lyophilization) was a known drying technique used following ball milling to obtain a dry powder (¶ 11).
Where wet ball milling is made obvious above, it would have been obvious to dry the resulting supernatant to produce the clay mineral material, as taught by the process of Yang.
Regarding vacuum lyophilization, where drying is made obvious above, it would have been obvious to use any known drying technique suitable for drying products obtained from ball milling, including vacuum freeze drying (i.e., vacuum lyophilization), as taught by Liu.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2018, 510, pp. 207-220, hereinafter “He”).
He is discussed above and further teaches manganese dioxide acts as an adsorbent and degradant of different kinds of organic pollutants and dyes with a high redox potential (pg 208 1st col 3rd ¶). In other embodiments 0.21 g MMt and 1.85 g of KMnO4 were used (2.2.2).
He does not specifically disclose an embodiment with the ratio of claim 5.
Where He teaches manganese dioxide acts as an adsorbent and degradant of pollutants and dyes with a high redox potential, the skill artisan would reasonably recognize manganese dioxide as a results effective variable, and thus, would reasonably increase the amount of potassium permanaganate in order to increase the resulting amount of manganese dioxide, such as to increase the adsorption, degradation, and redox potential of the resulting materials for desired uses. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Additionally, He teaches materials comprising 100 mg of montmorillonite and 30 mL potassium permanganate solution (0.05 mol), and the resulting ratio appears to be 100 mg montmorillonite to 0.237 g potassium permanganate. The skilled artisan could reasonably scale that ratio up to 500 mg montmorillonite to 1.185 g potassium permanganate (5x each component), depending on the desired amount of material to be made. Additionally, where other working embodiments of He comprise 0.21 g (210 mg) montmorillonite and 1.85 g potassium permanganate, it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to adjust the ratio in order to achieve desired properties, such as oxidation, degradation of pollutants, etc. Where 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2018, 510, pp. 207-220, hereinafter “He”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Danh et al (Adsorption Sci and Tech., 2023, vol 2023, pp. 1-16, hereinafter “Danh”).
He is discussed above but do not appear to teach wherein the hydrothermal reaction is conducted at 160 deg for 48 h.
Danh teaches it was known to formulate manganese dioxide via hydrothermal reaction of potassium permanganate at 80, 120, and 160 deg C, at times of 16, 24, and 48 h (2.2). It was known that longer hydrothermal reaction times favored more manganese content and thus, enhanced absorption (3.1.3 first ¶).
Where He discloses a process of subjecting potassium permanganate to hydrothermal reaction at 160 deg C for 24 h in order to formulate manganese dioxide, it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to adjust the reaction time to other known reaction times suitable for manganese dioxide production, such as 48 hours. Further, the skilled artisan would recognize the hydrothermal reaction time as a results effective variable, where longer reaction times result in increased manganese content and enhanced absorption. Accordingly, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the hydrothermal reaction time, in order to achieve desired manganese content, absorption properties, etc., depending on the desired use of the clay mineral biomaterial. Where 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2018, 510, pp. 207-220, hereinafter “He”), in view of Bekaroglu et al (ACS Omega, 2022, 7, 38825-38831, hereinafter “Bekaroglu”).
He is discussed above and further teaches the compositions can be used for oxidative degradation and absorption of methylene blue from wastewater, in order to prevent negative effects on human and animals, such as increased heart rate, nausea, and vomiting (pg 208 1st col 1st and 2nd ¶¶).
He does not appear to specifically teach the montmorillonite is “medical grade” montmorillonite.
Bekaroglu teaches purified montmorillonite was known, and decreases the toxicity of impurities and increases the adsorption capacity of the montmorillonite, compared to raw montmorillonite (abs). The purified montmorillonite are taught to be suitable for pharmaceutical and cosmetic applications (abs).
It would have been obvious to modify He by using any known montmorillonite, such as a purified montmorillonite, where purified montmorillonite was known to have lower toxicity and improved absorption, compared to raw montmorillonite, as taught by Bekaroglu.
Further, where He teaches the materials can be used for absorption of toxins from wastewater in order to prevent negative effects on humans, etc., it would have been obvious to select from a montmorillonite that was known to have lower toxicity and improved absorption, which the skilled artisan would recognize as beneficial to the materials of He.
Regarding “medical grade,” where the purified montmorillonite made obvious above is taught to be suitable for pharmaceutical and cosmetic applications, it appears the limitation is met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights