DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of a single species in the reply filed on 6/04/2026 is also acknowledged.
The elected species read upon claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17 and 19-20. Claims 4, 13 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5-11, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Banerjee et al (Chem Commun 49:3227-3229 (plus Electronic Supplementary Information), 2013).
Claim 1 is drawn to an antimicrobial material comprising:
a tetraalkylphosphonium ionic liquid (more specifically, wherein the tetraalkylphosphonium ionic liquid comprises a halide ion (claim 5), even more specifically wherein the halide ion is a chloride ion (claim 6)); and
metal nanoparticles (more specifically, an antimicrobial metal (claim 2), even more specifically copper nanoparticles (claim 3)).
Banerjee et al teach “ultra-stable NPs... synthesized in tetraalkylphosphonium ionic liquids” (Page 3227, Column 2), specifically disclosing copper nanoparticles generated in trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride (see Electronic Supplementary Information, Table 1, Figure S3(d) and Figure S4(d)).
Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 5-6 are anticipated.
Claims 7-11 are drawn to the antimicrobial material of claim 1 wherein the tetraalkylphosphonium ionic liquid comprises a tetraalkylphosphonium cation having a formula [PR1R2R3R4]+ wherein R2, R3 and R4 are each independently a hexyl group, and R1 has more carbons than R2.
The trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium cation has the formula [P14,6,6,6]+.
Accordingly, claims 7-11 are also anticipated.
Claim 14 (drafted independently) and claims 15-16 (dependent thereon), as well as claim 19 (drafted independently) and claim 20 (dependent thereon), are drawn to a composite material that is otherwise identical in scope to the antimicrobial material of claims 1, 5-6, 1 and 3, respectively.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, claims 14-16 and 19-20 are also anticipated.
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.
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 1-3, 5-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cieniecka-Rsolonkiewicz et al (Green Chem 7:855-862, 2005) in view of Ramyadevi et al (Materials Letters 71:114-116, 2012).
Claim 1 is drawn to an antimicrobial material comprising:
a tetraalkylphosphonium ionic liquid, more specifically, comprising:
a halide ion (claim 5), even more specifically wherein the halide ion is a chloride ion (claim 6), and
a tetraalkylphosphonium cation having a formula [PR1R2R3R4]+ wherein R1 is an octyl group and R2, R3 and R4 are each independently a hexyl group (claims 7-12); and
metal nanoparticles (more specifically, an antimicrobial metal (claim 2), even more specifically copper nanoparticles (claim 3)).
Cieniecka-Rsolonkiewicz et al teach “[a] range of phosphonium ionic liquids having the generic formula [PR3R’]X [wherein] R and R’ are alkyl groups [and] X is halide” which were “tested for anti-microbial activity” (Abstract). In particular, Cieniecka-Rsolonkiewicz et al teach Applicant’s instantly elected tetraalkylphosphonium ionic liquid (Page 856, Table 1, 2c) as exhibiting the “most effective... anti-bacterial activity” and possessing an “action against cocci is comparable to that of generally applied benzalkonium chloride” (Page 860, Column 2), in particular against cocci including M. luteus and S. aureus (Page 859, Table 2).
And as taught by Ramyadevi et al, “copper nanoparticles displayed antibacterial activity toward... pathogenic strains of M. luteus [and] S. aureus”, among others (Page 115, Column 2; see also Page 116, Figure 3).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to formulate an antimicrobial material comprising the tetraalkylphosphonium ionic liquid “Sc” as taught by Cieniecka-Rsolonkiewicz et al and copper nanoparticles as taught by Ramyadevi et al. As stated in MPEP 2144.06, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose… [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846 (CCPA 1980).
As such, claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 14-17 and 19-20 are drawn to a composition material that is identical in scope to the antimicrobial material of claims 1-3 and 5-12.
As such, claims 14-17 and 19-20 are also rejected as prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG D RICCI whose telephone number is (571) 270-5864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, and every other Friday, 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET. 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, Bethany Barham can be reached on (571) 272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CRAIG D RICCI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights