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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, “the twinned 2D” lacks antecedent basis, but should be the substrate-free twinned”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown “Synthesis and Characterization of PVP-coated tellurium nanorods and their antibacterial and anticancer properties” and in view of Li et al. “Non-orthogonal tight-binding model for tellurium and selenium” and in view of Koczkur, Kallum et al. “Polyvinylpyrrolidone in nanoparticle synthesis”.
Brown describes a method of making tellurium nanoparticles using polyvinylpyrrolidone, PVP (abstract). In the process of making the composition, Brown teaches treating under hydrothermal conditions, a tellurium precursor with PVP in water to produce the product (see “materials and methods, tellurium nanorod synthesis and purification”, para. 1 on page 254).
Brown does not describe the configuration of the tellurium compound as crystalline 2D with a first wing and a second wing having opposite chirality with a first and second wing joined together at an angle to form a V shape.
As to the product being 2D with co-existing opposite chirality, where each crystal structure is made up a plurality of spiral chains of bonded tellurium atoms, as to the substrate-free twinned tellurium crystal with co-existing opposite chirality, where the wings are made up of a plurality of spiral chains of bonded tellurium atoms, Li describes the trigonal crystal structure of tellurium (abstract). The reference explains that at ambient pressure, tellurium has a trigonal structure that consists of helical chains arranged in hexagonal arrays which spiral around axes parallel to the crystalline c axis with three atoms in a unit cell (Figure 1). The tellurium is chiral (introduction, line 9-10). As to the co-existing opposite chirality part, although Li does not state this, since the tellurium consists of a helical chain and is chiral, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the atoms that twist into the helical chain would have chirality in all the directions it twists.
Figure 1 shows that the tellurium chain consists of a plurality of tellurium atoms bonded in a spiral chain (Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the tellurium of Brown is in the configuration described by Li, which shows a chiral helical chain because at ambient formation Li explains that tellurium atoms are bonded in this way.
As to the twinned shape, Koczkur describes the role of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) in nanoparticle synthesis (title). The reference explains that in the synthesis of nanoparticles, PVP can serve as surface stabilizers, growth modifiers, dispersants and reducing agents (abstract). Their role can affect nanoparticle growth and morphology (abstract). Moreover, PVP is often chosen as a shape-control agent the promote the growth of a specific crystal face, while hindering others (pg. 17884, right col, lines 12-14). The specific conditions that enable shape control using PVP are discussed in the reference as a function of the material used (pg. 17884, right col, lines 17-20).
Use of PVP in a wide variety of materials (see section 2). Generally, Koczkur explains that many nanostructures are accessible using PVP including: cubes, cuboctahedra, octahedra, nanostars, wires, flower and twinned plates (see pg. 17895, left col., lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the PVP amount to from twinned plates or wires, as taught by Koczkur for use in the process of Brown because Koczkur explains that PVP amounts are known to affect nanoparticle growth, morphology and is a known shape-control agent that promotes the growth of specific crystal faces, while hindering others.
Therefore, although Brown and Koczkur do not specifically state that their material comprises a first wing and a second wing and that the first and second wings and joined together at an angle to form a V-shaped crystal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that adjusting the PVP concentration would alter the size and shape of the tellurium product.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Li and Kallum as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al. “Morphology Control, Crystal Growth and Growth Mechanism of Hierarchical Tellurium Microstructures”.
As to Claims 3 and 4, Koczkur teaches that the prior art has shown that the morphology of a nanocube can be altered by changing the surface coverage through PVP concentration and molecular weight varying (page 17886, left col, second to last para). In tests, the molecular weight of PVP is varied (page 17886, left col, second to last para). The varying of the molecular weight results in differences in shape (page 17887, left col, lines 14-20).
Koczkur explains that after various studies of PVP on various different metals, to include a tellurium-containing shaped nanoparticle (see page 17900, “see metal telluride”), it shows that PVP serves many roles in the chemical synthesis of nanomaterials (see Summary and Outlook, para. 1 on page 17901). In analysis, Koczkur explains that the molecular weight of PVP are critical in tuning the morphology for many types of nanoparticles (see Summary and Outlook, lines 7-11).
As to the specific amount, Wu describes making a tellurium material (title). Wu explains that various version of tellurium are known to be used to make nanowires, nanotubes, nanorodes and other structures (Introduction, right col, para. 1).
In the process of Wu, Wu explains employing PVP with a molecular weight of 30,000g (see section 2.2), which translates to 30kg. This is combined with a tellurium precursor (section 2.2, para. 1). This amount is known to be effective in making a various number of tellurium-based configurations (see page 137, left col, para. 1 and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as PVP molecular weight through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ PVP in an amount of 30,000g, as taught by Wu for use with the process of Brown, Li and Kallum because Koczkur explains that the molecular weight of the PVP alters the difference in the nanoparticle and is critical in tuning its morphology, while Wu describes making different tellurium-products by altering the tellurium concentration to make different shaped products and explains that shape can be further altering by adjusting the tellurium concentration, but offers this PVP molecular weight as one effective for making a tellurium-based product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights