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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-25 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 9-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2005/085339) in view of Niedermeyer (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0082513).
I. Regarding claims 1, 3, 9 and 20, Choi teaches a process for forming an antibacterial polymer composite product (abstract) comprising: applying a nonionic ground state silver nanoparticle solution in water (a volatile solvent) to polypropylene (which is a thermoplastic) polymer granules in a container (Example 2, pages 13-14); removing the water solvent by heating (top of page 7) leaving the nanoparticles on the granules (Example 2, page 14); heating the granules to melt the polymer to disperse the nanoparticles through the polymer melt and then forming the molten polymer into the polymer product incorporating the silver nanoparticles (Example 2, page 14 and Example 7, page 16). Choi fails to teach the silver nanoparticles formed by laser ablation are spherical shaped, and having no external edges or bond angles that cause release of metal ions and provide antimicrobial activity without the release of silver ions.
However, Niedermeyer teaches forming, by laser ablation (0049), nonionic ground state silver nanoparticles (0023) comprising spherical shaped nanoparticles (abstract). Niedermeyer teaches the nanoparticles provide antimicrobial activity (abstract) while not releasing silver ions (0115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi’s process by utilizing spherical silver nanoparticles prepared by laser ablation that provide antimicrobial activity without releasing silver ions as disclosed by Niedermeyer. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the use of Niedermeyer’s silver nanoparticles would allow for the elimination of toxic silver ions (see Niedermeyer at 0115).
II. Regarding claims 10-18, Choi in view Niedermeyer make obvious all the limitations of claim 1 (see above).
Additionally, Niedermeyer teaches forming, by laser ablation (0049), a mixture of nonionic metal nanoparticles (0023) comprising spherical shaped nanoparticles and coral shaped nanoparticles in a ratio of spherical shaped particles to coral shaped being 5:1 to 20:1 (abstract). Niedermeyer teaches the mixture comprising a mixture of silver and gold nanoparticles (claim 13) in a ratio of 5:1 to 20:1 (claim 13, note that the silver particles are spherical and the gold are coral shaped). Niedermeyer additionally teaches the spherical shaped nanoparticles having a diameter in a range of 40 nm or less (see 0067, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), 99% of the spherical nanoparticles have a diameter within ±3 nm of the mean diameter (claim 6), and the nanoparticles have a ξ-potential of at least 10 mV (claim 7). Niedermeyer also teaches the nanoparticles used for their antibacterial properties (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Niedermeyer’s process by substituting Niedermeyer’s mixture of laser ablated nanoparticles for the general silver nanoparticles of Choi. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Niedermeyer teaches that the use of a combination of different shaped nanoparticles can augment, potentiate or ameliorate desired or undesired effects of spherical shaped metal nanoparticles (see Niedermeyer at 0019).
III. Regarding claim 19, Choi in view of Niedermeyer make obvious an identical process which yields an antibacterial polymer product (see above). Therefore, the product of Choi in view of Niedermeyer makes obvious the product as claimed in claim 19.
2. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Niedermeyer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2009/0155592).
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Niedermeyer teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach spraying the nanoparticles onto the polymer granules. However, Lee teaches a similar process of forming a polymer composite (abstract) of silver nanoparticles (0050). Lee teaches that the silver nanoparticles can be applied to polymer granules by spraying from a nanoparticle solution (0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Niedermeyer’s process by applying the silver nanoparticle solution by spraying as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted spraying for the generic method of applying in Choi in view of Niedermeyer’s process with a reasonable expectation of success (as any method of providing the solution to the polymer granules would result in the same mixture), and the predictable result of providing the polymer granules having silver nanoparticles on the surface.
3. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Niedermeyer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markelonis et al. (“Nanoparticle film deposition using a simple and fast centrifuge sedimentation method”).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Niedermeyer teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach applying the nanoparticle solution to the polymer granules using a centrifuge. However, Markelonis teaches a similar process of forming a polymer composite (abstract) of metal nanoparticles (Preparation of Au and PbS nanoparticles, page 458). Markelonis teaches that the metal nanoparticles can be applied to polymer substrates by using a centrifuge (Centrifuge deposition method, page 459). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Niedermeyer’s process by applying the silver nanoparticle solution to the polymer granules using a centrifuge as disclosed by Markelonis. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Markelonis teaches that a centrifuge application method provides uniform coating on uneven substrates and the nanoparticles show good stability and affinity for the substrate (Conclusion section, page 467).
4. Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintero-Quiroz et al. (“Synthesis and characterization of a silver nanoparticle-containing polymer composite with antimicrobial abilities for application in prosthetic and orthotic devices”) in view of Niedermeyer.
I. Regarding claims 21, 22 and 24, Quintero-Quiroz teaches a process for forming a polymer product comprising: adding silver nanoparticles in water (a volatile solvent) into a liquid component of a multi-component thermosetting polymer composition comprising a precursor polymer monomer component (see Figure 1 where the silver nanoparticles are added to a liquid catalyst component); mixing multiple components of a thermosetting polymer composition to disperse the nanoparticles in the thermosetting polymer composition (see Figure 1 and Composite formulation section); followed by forming the composition into a desired film shape and then curing to solidify into the desired shape wherein the metal nanoparticles are dispersed in the thermoset polymer product (Figure 1 and Composite formulation section). Quintero-Quiroz fails to teach the nanoparticles formed by laser ablation without external edges that cause release of metal ions, wherein the silver nanoparticles provide antimicrobial activity without the release of silver ions.
However, Niedermeyer teaches forming, by laser ablation (0049), nonionic ground state silver nanoparticles (0023) comprising spherical shaped nanoparticles having no external edges (abstract). Niedermeyer teaches the nanoparticles provide antimicrobial activity (abstract) while not releasing silver ions (0115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Quintero-Quiroz’s process by utilizing spherical silver nanoparticles prepared by laser ablation that provide antimicrobial activity without releasing silver ions as disclosed by Niedermeyer. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the use of Niedermeyer’s silver nanoparticles would allow for the elimination of toxic silver ions (see Niedermeyer at 0115).
II. Regarding claim 23, Quintero-Quiroz in view of Niedermeyer make obvious claim 21, including the nanoparticle solution in a volatile solvent, but fail to teach a step of evaporating the solvent before forming the composition into the desired shape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Quintero-Quiroz in view of Niedermeyer’s process by including an evaporation step. One would have been motivated to make this modification as removing the solvent earlier will allow for a shorter curing time after forming the composition into the desired shape.
III. Regarding claim 25, Quintero-Quiroz in view of Niedermeyer make obvious claim 24 (see above), including providing the nanoparticles in a composition including a solvent (see above), but fail to teach the composition comprising PEG or 1,4-butanediol. However, Niedermeyer teaches that the silver nanoparticles can be dispersed in water and polyethylene glycol (0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Quintero-Quiroz in view of Niedermeyer’s process by substituting polyethylene glycol for water. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted PEG for water with a reasonable expectation of success (note that Niedermeyer makes clear that both water and PEG can be included with the metal nanoparticles), and the predictable result of providing a thermosetting nanoparticle containing composition.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-25 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-25 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
May 13, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights