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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 9-20 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Quintero-Quiroz does not teach the liquid component comprises a precursor polymer component. The Applicant argues that the nanoparticles are added to the elastomer catalyzer which is not a precursor polymer component. However, the Examiner maintains that this feature is obvious. Quintero-Quiroz teaches mixing a silicone polymer precursor with the silver nanoparticles. While Quintero-Quiroz fails to specifically teach that the nanoparticles are added to the precursor (it appears the precursor is added to the nanoparticles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Quintero-Quiroz’s process by adding the nanoparticles to the polymer precursor rather than the other way around. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the order in which the components are added to each other would not materially change the resultant mixture.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 23 that the prior art fails to teach or suggest removing the volatile solvent. However, the Examiner contends that the process of removing volatile solvent is conventional in the art. Additionally, 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. Therefore, the rejections of claim 23 is maintained as presented below.
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 Ceballos et al. (“Effect of greenly synthetized silver nanoparticles on the properties of active starch films obtained by extrusion and compression molding”) in view of Niedermeyer (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0082513).
I. Regarding claims 1, 3, 9 and 20, Ceballos 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) in an amount of 150 ppm to cassava starch (which is a polymer that forms a thermoplastic) polymer granules in a container (Section 2.3); heating in an extruder which will remove the water solvent and leave the nanoparticles on the granules followed by melting to disperse the nanoparticles through the polymer melt and then forming the molten polymer into the polymer product incorporating the silver nanoparticles (Section 2.3). Ceballos 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. Ceballos further fails to explicitly teach the nanoparticles present in an amount of 50 ppb to 100 ppm.
First, 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 Ceballos’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).
Second, Ceballos makes clear that the concentration of nanoparticles is a result-effective variable as altering the concentration alters the flexibility, strength and stiffness of the resulting composite (see Conclusions section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
II. Regarding claims 10-18, Ceballos 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 Ceballos in view of Niedermeyer’s process by substituting Niedermeyer’s mixture of laser ablated nanoparticles for the general silver nanoparticles of Ceballos. 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, Ceballos in view of Niedermeyer make obvious an identical process which yields an antibacterial polymer product (see above). Therefore, the product of Ceballos 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 Ceballos 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, Ceballos 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 Ceballos 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 Ceballos 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 Ceballos 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, Ceballos 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 Ceballos 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: mixing 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 monomer is mixed with an aqueous mixture of silver nanoparticles); 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. Quintero-Quiroz further fails to teach the nanoparticles are added to the liquid component including the precursor polymer component.
First, 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).
Second, Quintero-Quiroz teaches adding the precursor polymer component in a liquid component to the nanoparticles, but fails to specifically teach adding the metal nanoparticles to the liquid component comprising a polymer precursor. However, the order of mixing whether adding the nanoparticles to the precursor polymer component or adding the precursor polymer component to the nanoparticles will yield an identical mixture. Furthermore, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See also In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
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 21 (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.
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/
September 3, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights