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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/19/2024, 01/09/2025, 01/16/2025, and 09/25/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 15 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the nanoparticles are raw” is indefinite because the term “raw” does not specify whether “raw” means unmodified, unpurified, uncalcined, uncoated, as- synthesized, or some other condition.
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, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoag et al., (US 2010/0200501 A1, hereinafter as “Hoag”).
Regarding the limitation “a nanoparticles prepared from a polyphenol-containing natural material and a metal-salt,” pursuant to MPEP, it is acknowledged that the nanoparticles recited in claims 1 and 40 is product-by-process claims which are not limited to the manipulations of the recited preparation steps, but instead are limited to the structure and properties (i.e., physical and chemical properties) of the resulting product. During the examination of the claimed invention, the nanoparticles recited in claim 1 is treated as being limited by the structural and compositional characteristics imparted by being prepared from a polyphenol-containing natural material and a metal salt, and is not separately patentable merely because of the intermediate process by which the nanoparticle is prepared. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 1, Hoag teaches metal nanoparticles formed with solutions
of plant extracts and use of these metal nanoparticles in removing contaminants (including halogenated organic compounds (¶ [0108]), e.g., PFAS) from soil and groundwater and other contaminated sites (Abstract).
Hoag discloses a method of removing an environmental contaminant from media comprising the environmental contaminant, the method comprising: contacting the media comprising the environmental contaminant with a nanoparticle prepared from a polyphenol-containing natural material and a metal salt (¶ [0006, 0012]).
In regard to claim 2, Hoag discloses that the polyphenol-containing natural material may be a plant material/extract containing polyphenolic constituents (¶¶ [0005-0006]), wherein the polyphenol-containing plant material is a polyphenol-containing fruit, bark, leaf, vegetable, grain or combinations thereof (¶ [0069]); wherein the metal salt is a metal nitrate, sulfate, chloride or combination thereof (¶ [0008]); and wherein the metal of the metal salt is iron, silver, gold or combinations thereof (¶ [0008, 0072]).
In regard to claim 6, Hoag discloses the preparation of the nanoparticle comprises combining the polyphenol-containing natural material in the form of a polyphenol-containing extract from the natural material with the metal salt (¶ [0006]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 4, 5, 15, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Hoag, as applied to claim 1 or claim 2 above, and further in view of Jaikrajang et al., (A simple flow injection spectrophotometric procedure for iron (III) determination using Phyllanthus emblica Linn. as a natural reagent, Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 2018, 204, pp. 726-734 hereinafter as “Jaikrajang”).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Hoag discloses iron salts including FeSO4 for plant/polyphenol-mediated nanoparticle syntheses but did not disclose that the polyphenol-containing fruit is Phyllanthus emblica or that the polyphenol-containing natural material comprises Phyllanthus emblica fruit powder ([0006-0008]).
However, Jaikrajang teaches the development of a spectrophotometric method for determination of iron (III) in groundwater, employing green reagents obtained from the extraction of P. emblica (Abstract) and discloses that Phyllanthus emblica is a polyphenol-containing fruit (p. 727, left column, last paragraph, lines 1-7), in powdered form (p. 727, 2.3. Preparation of Natural Reagent section, right column, first paragraph, lines 1-6), contains polyphenols with composition having ability to complex with iron (III) (p. 727, left column, last paragraph, lines 1 thru right column, first paragraph, line 2).
Hoag and Jaikrajang are analogous arts because both references concern aqueous iron-ion chemistry using polyphenol-rich plant materials where Hoag uses plant-polyphenols to reduce and stabilize iron salt into iron-based nanoparticles, and Jaikrajang teaches Phyllantus emblica Linn. (i.e., a plant material) as an iron-reactive natural reagent for iron (III) complexation detection, making Jaikrajang technically pertinent to selecting Phyallanthus emblica as the polyphenol containing plant source for Hoag’s iron-salt nanoparticle synthesis.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Phyllanus emblica fruit material/powder taught by Jaikrajang, as the polyphenol-containing plant material and FeSO4 as the iron salt in the nanoparticle process taught by Hoag because plant polyphenols were known reducing/stabilizing agents for preparing iron nanoparticles useful in water treatment ¶¶ [0007-0008, [0066]) and demonstrated selectivity for iron (III) (Jaikrajang: p. 728, 3.1.2. Selectivity of the iron (III)–P. emblica complex section, right column, lines 1-15).
In regard to claim 15, as applied to claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles are raw. Hoag discloses nanoparticles as prepared from plant/polyphenol-containing extract and metal salt/metal ion solution (¶ [0006, 0010]). To the extent “raw” is interpreted as nanoparticles as synthesized and not further derivatized, Hoag renders the limitation obvious.
In regard to claims 20 and 21, Hoag discloses treating environmental contaminated media including water, groundwater, soil, and related liquid/solid media (¶ [0006]). Thus, Hoag renders obvious that the media comprises a liquid, solid, slurry, or a combination thereof (claim 20), and wherein the media comprises water (claim 21).
Claims 10, 11, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Hoag, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Song et al., (Enhanced photocatalytic degradation of perfluorooctanoic acid by Ti3C2 MXene-derived heterojunction photocatalyst: Application of intercalation strategy in DESs, Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 746, pp. 1-10, hereinafter as “Song”).
Regarding claim 10, Hoag discloses metal and halogenated organic compounds (e.g., PFAS) contaminant-removal nanoparticles for environmental treatment (¶¶ [0005-0006]) but does not disclose composite material comprising a substrate.
However, Song teaches a heterojunction photocatalyst on 2D Ti3C2 substrate to enhance the photocatalytic degradation of organic pollutants (Abstract) and discloses application of Ti3C2 MXene-derived materials removal of PFOA/PFAS from water (Abstract; Song: p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-19).
Hoag and Song are analogous arts because both references are directed to address water remediation of persistent halogenated organic compounds using metal-containing nanomaterial, where Hoag teaches plant-polyphenol-derived metal nanoparticles for reductive/remedial treatment of halogenated organic compounds, and Song teaches Ti3C2 MXene-derived metal-oxide heterojunction nanomaterials for adsorptive/photocatalytic removal and degradation of PFOA, a fluorinated halogenated organic contaminant/compound belonging to the PFAS group of compounds, from water.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Hoag’s nanoparticle in a composite with a substrate (i.e., MXenne) taught by Song because supported composites comprising the nanoparticle and a substrate using MXene improve contaminant degradation or treatment efficiency (Song: Abstract).
In regard to claim 11, Song discloses the substrate comprises MXene, a new family of two-dimensional (2D) transition metal carbide or nitride (Abstract; p.2, Introduction, left column, paragraph 3, lines 1-2).
In regard to claim 26, Hoag discloses a method of removing an environmental contaminant from media comprising the environmental contaminant, comprising contacting the contaminant media with metal nanoparticles prepared from a plant/polyphenol-containing extract and a metal salt/metal ion solution, wherein the plant functions as a reducing/stabilizing agent for preparing the nanoparticles, and the nanoparticles are used for environmental remediation of contaminants in water, groundwater, soil, and other media (¶¶ [0005-0008]). Song discloses treating PFAS/PFOA-containing water to degrade/remove PFAS using Ti3C2 MXene-derived photocatalytic material (Abstract; Song: p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious after contacting the media with Hoag’s nanoparticle treatment material to further treat the contacted media to degrade or destroy remaining contaminant and/or by products (i.e., complete destruction implying remaining environmental or any contaminant by-produces) because a post-treatment polishing step predictably improves removal of persistent residual contaminants (Hoag: ¶ (0079)].
In regard to claim 29, Song discloses oxidative/photocatalytic PFAS degradation using Ti3C2 MXene-derived photocatalytic material (Abstract; p.2, Introduction, left column, paragraph 3, lines 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to oxidize the environmental contaminant before contacting with the nanoparticle treatment because oxidation/photocatalytic pretreatment was known to transform persistent organic contaminants in oxidized form and improve subsequent contaminant removal with the nanoparticle for remediation and water treatment (Hoag: ¶ [0076]).
Claims 12, 16-17, 22-24, 40, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Hoag in view of Song, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Nickelsen et al., (US 10,287,185 B2, hereinafter as “Nickelsen”)
Regarding claim 12, Hoag discloses contaminant-removal nanoparticles for environmental treatment (¶¶ [0005-0006]) and Song teaches a heterojunction photocatalyst on 2D Ti3C2 substrate to enhance the photocatalytic degradation of organic pollutants (Abstract) and discloses application of Ti3C2 MXene-derived materials removal of PFAS/PFOA from water (Abstract; Song: p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-19).
But Hoag, in view of Song, do not explicitly disclose that the substrate comprises a PFAS-specific resin or membrane, a polystyrenic resin comprising quarternary ammonium functional group, or a polyacrylic resin comprising a quaternary ammonium functional group.
However, Nickelsen teaches a system for removing PFAS from water which includes an anion exchange vessel having a selected anion exchange resin therein configured to remove PFAS from the water (Abstract).
Nickelsen discloses removal from water using anion-exchange resin systems and regeneration of PFAS-loaded resin, including resin systems having positively charged ion-exchange functionality suitable for PFAs capture (col. 5, lines 39-50).
Hoag, Song and Nickelsen are analogous arts because all three references teach solid-phase treatment of persistent halogenated organic /PFAS contaminants in water using complementary removal mechanisms – Hoag’s metal nanoparticles, Song’s MXene-derived adsorptive/photocatalytic nanomaterials, and Nickelsen’s regenerable anion-exchange resin.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to use PFAS-specific ion-exchange resin or membrane, including a quaternary-ammonium-functional resin substrate, in the composite because such substrates were effective at removing PFAS from water by ion-exchange/electrostatic adsorption (col. 5, lines 45-50).
In regard to claim 16 and 17, Hoag discloses contaminant-removal nanoparticles for environmental treatment (¶¶ [0005-0006]) and Song discloses a heterojunction photocatalyst on 2D Ti3C2 substrate to enhance the photocatalytic degradation of organic pollutants (Abstract) and discloses application of Ti3C2 MXene-derived materials for removal of PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid, i.e., chemical belonging to PFAS) from water (Abstract; Song: p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-19). Nickelsen discloses removal from water using anion-exchange resin systems and regeneration of PFAS-loaded resin (col. 5, lines 39-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply Hoag’s environmental nanoparticle remediation method to PFAS-containing media because PFAS were known environmental contaminants requiring removal from water (Nickelsen: col. 1, lines 21-61).
In regard to claim 22, Hoag discloses nanoparticle-based environmental remediation (¶¶ [0005-0006]). Nickelsen discloses regeneration of PFAS-loaded anion-exchange resin after PFAS removal from water (col. 5, lines 39-50). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to separate the nanoparticle or nanoparticle composite from the treated media after contacting because separation permits recovery of the treatment material (or resin), prevents release of treatment solids, and enable reuse or disposal of the contaminant-loaded material (Nickelsen: col. 4 lines, 9-24), hence, promote cost-effectiveness of treating contaminated water as evidenced by Puthukkara et al., (Plant mediated synthesis of zero valent iron nanoparticles and its application in water treatment, Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2021, 9, pp. 1-19; p. 8, right column, 3. Plant mediated stabilization of zero valent iron particles, second paragraph, lines 1-3).
In regard to claim 23, Hoag in view of Song does not explicitly disclose regenerating the composite material after separation. Nickelsen discloses regeneration of PFAS-loaded anion-exchange resin after PFAS removal from water (col. 5, lines 39-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to regenerate the PFAS-loaded composite material because regeneration restores treatment capacity, permit reuse, and concentrates captured PFAS for further treatment as evidenced by Puthukkara et al., (Plant mediated synthesis of zero valent iron nanoparticles and its application in water treatment, Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2021, 9, pp. 1-19; p. 8, right column, 3. Plant mediated stabilization of zero valent iron particles, second paragraph, lines 1-3).
In regard to claim 24, Nickelsen discloses regenerated PFAS-loaded resin using a regenerating solution comprising water with salt, base, organic solvent, or combination thereof, producing a regeneration concentrate containing PFAS (col. 4, lines 25-40). Song discloses PFAS/PFOA degradation using Ti3C2 MXene-derived photocatalytic material (Abstract; Song: p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to treat the regenerate concentrate to degrade and/or destroy PFAS and/or by-products because regeneration concentrates the contaminant stream and subsequent degradation reduces persistent PFAS contamination (Nickelsen: col. 2 lines 32-60).
Claims 40 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Hoag in view of Song as applied to claim 1 or claim 2 above, and further in view of Nickelsen.
Regarding claim 40, Hoag teaches a method of preparing nanoparticle material, the method comprising: metal nanoparticles formed with solutions of plant extracts and use of these metal nanoparticles in removing contaminants (i.e., metals and halogenated organic compounds (e.g., PFAS) from soil and groundwater and other contaminated sites (Abstract). Hoag discloses preparing nanoparticles from a polyphenol-containing plant/natural material and a metal salt/metal ion solution (¶¶ [0006-008]) but does not disclose combining nanoparticle with a substrate.
Song and Nickelsen discloses PFAS-treatment substrates including MXene-derived treatment materials and ion-exchange resin system (Song: Abstract; Song: p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-19; Nickelsen: col. 5, lines 39-50).
Hoag, Song and Nickelsen are analogous arts because all three references teach solid-phase treatment of persistent halogenated organic /PFAS contaminants in water using complementary removal mechanisms – Hoag’s metal nanoparticles, Song’s MXene-derived adsorptive/photocatalytic nanomaterials, and Nickelsen’s regenerable anion-exchange resin.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a composite material by combining Hoag’s nanoparticle material with a substrate taught by Song/Nickelsen because supported composite improved contaminant-removal (i.e., PFAS) performance in water treatment applications (Nickelsen: col. 7, lines 20-21).
In regard to claim 53, the composite material prepared by the method as applied to claim 40 would have been obvious because the combined teachings of Hoag, Song and Nickelsen address the method of preparing nanoparticle material.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Song, in view of Ching et al., (β‑Cyclodextrin Polymers with Different Cross-Linkers and Ion-Exchange Resins Exhibit Variable Adsorption of Anionic, Zwitterionic, and Nonionic PFASs, ES&T, 2020, 54, 12693-12702, hereinafter as “Ching”).
Regarding claim 30, Song teaches a heterojunction photocatalyst on 2D Ti3C2 substrate to enhance the photocatalytic degradation of organic pollutants (Abstract) and discloses application of Ti3C2 MXene-derived materials removal of PFAS/PFOA from water (Abstract; Song: p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-19).
Song discloses Ti3C2 MXene-derived materials for PFAS/PFOA removal/degradation from water (Abstract; Song: p. 9, Conclusion section, left column, lines 1-19).
But Song does not disclose zwitterionic PFAS or teaches treatment/removal of zwitterionic PFAS from water using adsorbent material.
However, Ching teaches media comprising zwitterionic PFAS and different remediation technologies to assess the removal of different types of PFAS (Abstract) and discloses treatment/removal of zwitterionic PFAS from water using adsorbent material using anion and cation exchange resins (Abstract; Fig. 3, Average removal of PFAS (including zwitterionic PFAS, p. 1268, left column, first paragraph, lines 3-7).
Song and Ching are analogous arts because both references address aqueous PFAS remediation using solid-phase sorptive treatment materials, where Ching teaches adsorption on anionic, zwitterionic, and non-ionic PFASs by ion-exchange/adsorbent media, and Song teaches Ti3C2 MXene-derived sorptive/photocatalytic solid media for removing and degradation PFOA/PFAS from water.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to contact the media comprising zwitterionic PFAS of Ching with MXene or MXene-containing material as taught by Song because zwitterionic PFAS as PFAS contaminant requiring removal from water, can be captured using MXene-based materials at a high recovery rate (i.e., >90%) as evidenced by Dixit et al., (Removal of Zwitterionic PFAS by MXenes: Comparisons with Anionic, Nonionic, and PFAS-Specific Resins, ES&T, 2022, 56, 6212-6222; Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any 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 Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights