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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 08/26/2024
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buskens et al. (US 10,144,848 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Buskens et al. discloses a method (Example in columns 14-15) of deodorizing, antibacterial and decontamination (col.10, lines 57-62) using a plasmonic photocatalyst (col.3, lines 11-17 and col.6, line 29), comprising:
providing a plasmonic photocatalyst (col.3, lines 11-17 and col.6, line 29);
making the plasmonic photocatalyst and an object to be treated be in contact (col.10, lines 57-64); and
making the plasmonic photocatalyst absorb an electromagnetic wave (col.3, lines 40-67) to
perform a deodorizing, antibacterial (col.10, lines 57-62) and decontamination reaction on the object to be treated, and the deodorizing, antibacterial and decontamination reaction is to perform an
oxidative decomposition or removal reaction on a contaminant in the object to be treated;
wherein a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is in a range of 300 nm
to 11000 nm (col.3, lines 49-54).
Regarding claim 2, Buskens et al. discloses that the plasmonic photocatalyst (col.5, lines 63-67 through col.6, lines 1-9) is a metal boride nanoparticle (col.6, lines 4-6), a metal nitride nanoparticle (col.5, line 66) or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Buskens et al. discloses that the metal boride nanoparticle is a lanthanum
hexaboride nanoparticle (col.5, lines 63-67 through col.6, lines 1-9), and a particle diameter of the lanthanum hexaboride nanoparticle is within 5 nm to 300 nm (col.4, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 4, Buskens et al. discloses that the plasmonic photocatalyst reacts with a water molecule to form a hydroxyl radical under irradiation (Example in columns 14-15) of the electromagnetic wave, and the hydroxyl radical performs the oxidative decomposition or removal reaction on the contaminant in the object to be treated (col.10, lines 57-64).
Regarding claim 5, Buskens et al. discloses that the plasmonic photocatalyst keeps absorbing
the electromagnetic wave (Example in columns 14-15) until a pre-set reaction time, and the pre-set reaction time ranges from 1 minute to 5 years.
Regarding claim 6, Buskens et al. discloses that the plasmonic photocatalyst is a photocatalyst-containing aqueous solution, and the photocatalyst-containing aqueous solution comprises a lanthanum hexaboride nanoparticle (col.5, lines 63-67 through col.6, lines 1-9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buskens et al. (US 10,144,848 B2) in view of Guler et al. (US 2020/0054752 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Buskens et al. discloses administering a pharmaceutical composition (col.10, lines 57-64) comprising a plasmonic photocatalyst to a subject (col.3, lines 11-17 and col.6, line 29), wherein after administering the pharmaceutical composition, the plasmonic photocatalyst absorbs an electromagnetic wave, and a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is in a range of 300 nm to 11000 nm (col.8, lines 7-23).
Buskens et al. appears silent to disclose treatment of cancer.
Guler et al. discloses a method [0016] for using plasmonic nanoparticles and biological sensing applications [0002] that includes borides or nitrides [0015] for destroying defective cells [0016-0017] including cancer cells in order to destroy only the defective cells without affecting a surrounding tissue [0016]. 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 to add Guler et al. method for destroying defective cells to the Buskens et a. method in order to destroy only the defective cells without affecting a surrounding tissue.
Regarding claim 8, Buskens et al. discloses that the plasmonic photocatalyst is a metal boride nanoparticle (col.6, lines 4-6), a metal nitride (col.5, line 66) nanoparticle or a combination thereof, and the metal boride nanoparticle or the metal nitride nanoparticle absorbs the electromagnetic wave (col.8, lines 7-23 and col.3, lines 40-67) and generates at least one of a reactive oxygen species and a heat.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buskens et al. (US 10,144,848 B2) in view of Guler et al. (US 2020/0054752 A1) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Bobrow et al. (US 2019/0376956 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, the combined Buskens et al. method appears silent to disclose the use of an epidermal growth factor receptor antibody, and also appears silent to disclose the use of folic acid.
Bobrow et al. discloses methods for detection of analytes using catalyzed reporter deposition [0002] that includes the use of plasmonic materials [0253] and the uses of an epidermal growth factor receptor antibody [0239] and folic acid [0235] in order to test a sample for the presence of one or more targets [0144]. 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 add Bobrow et al. detection method to the combined Buskens et al. method in order to test a sample for the presence of one or more targets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights