Patent: 10,010,508

Summary for Patent: 10,010,508

Title:	MTAB-TA-Coated gold nanorods and method of fabrication
Abstract:	11-mercaptoundecyl trimethylammonium bromide gold nanorod (MTAB-GNR) coated with tannic acid (TA), useful for biological cellular imaging. A method of synthesizing tannic acid-coated 11-mercaptoundecyl trimethylammonium bromide gold nanorods (MTAB-TA GNRs) comprising presenting 11-mercaptoundecyl trimethylammonium bromide gold nanorods (MTAB-GNRs) in solution; functionalizing the MTAB-GNRs with tannic acid (TA) added to the MTAB-GNRs, the tannic acid configured to form a coating around the MTAB-GNRs forming MTAB-TA GNRs. The functionalizing step may further comprise adding a sodium chloride solution to the MTAB-TA GNR solution, and/or adding a MOPS buffer to the solution of tannic acid with MTAB-GNRs, and the tannic acid MTAB-GNR solution may be vortexed after each step. The MTAB-TA GNR solution may be centrifuged to separate the MTAB-TA GNRs from residual tannic acid and supernatant, and sterile water may be added to the MTAB-TA GNR solution and centrifuging performed to remove residual tannic acid from the MTAB-TA GNRs.
Inventor(s):	Polito; Anthony B (Springboro, OH), Hussain; Saber M (Beavercreek, OH)
Assignee:	The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force (Washington, DC)
Application Number:	15/379,581
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Comprehensive patent-landscape analysis for US Patent 10,010,508: tannic-acid coated 11-mercaptoundecyl trimethylammonium bromide gold nanorods (MTAB-GNRs)

US 10,010,508 is directed to tannic acid coated gold nanorods having a specific surface chemistry (MTAB-capped GNRs) and to manufacturing steps that functionalize MTAB-GNRs with tannic acid under defined processing conditions (salt, buffer, vortexing, centrifugation and wash steps). From a claim-scope standpoint, the core protection is narrow and composition-specific (TA-coated MTAB-GNRs) paired with process-specific dependent method limitations. For freedom-to-operate (FTO), the highest-risk elements are (i) TA as the coating layer on MTAB-GNRs and (ii) the defined “salt + buffer + agitation + purification” process sequence that yields TA-coated MTAB-GNRs. For generic-equivalent positioning in nanomaterials, competitors can often design around by substituting a different polyphenol/binder, changing the prior capping chemistry away from MTAB, or using functionalization and purification that avoids the claimed combinations of salts/buffer/agitation.

---

What does US 10,010,508 claim protect for MTAB-GNRs coated with tannic acid?

Featured snippet answer: US 10,010,508 claims (1) TA-coated 11-mercaptoundecyl trimethylammonium bromide gold nanorods (MTAB-TA GNRs) and (2) methods to synthesize those TA-coated MTAB-GNRs using functionalization in solution plus purification, with dependent claims adding defined process parameters (NaCl, MOPS buffer, vortexing, centrifugation, sterile water washes).

Independent claim 1: product-by-formulation of a specific nanorod surface

Claim 1 requires:

• a gold nanorod (GNR) whose prior coating/ligand is 11-mercaptoundecyl trimethylammonium bromide (MTAB), and
• a second surface layer of tannic acid (TA) configured as a coating around the MTAB-GNR.

Practical claim construction impact

• The claim is not “tannic-acid coated gold nanorods generally.” It is anchored to MTAB as the nanorod ligand platform.
• The “configured to form a coating” language is functional, but it is still bounded to coating formation on MTAB-GNRs with TA.

Independent claim 2: method of synthesizing TA-coated MTAB-GNRs

Claim 2 covers a solution-phase functionalization:

• provide one or more MTAB-GNRs in solution
• add tannic acid to form a coating around the MTAB-GNRs, resulting in MTAB-TA GNRs

This is broad relative to dependent claims but remains tied to:

• the starting material identity (MTAB-GNRs)
• the functionalizing reagent (tannic acid)
• coating formation as the outcome

Dependent claims 3-12: narrow process parameter combinations

Dependent limitations narrow the process to particular lab steps and conditions.

Claim 3 / 5 / 7 / 11: vortexing

• Vortexing after functionalizing additions (vortexing TA MTAB-GNR solution; “after each addition” in claim 11)

Claim 4 / 10: NaCl addition

• Adding a solution of sodium chloride to the tannic acid with MTAB-GNRs

Claim 6 / 10: MOPS buffer addition

• Adding MOPS buffer (3-(4-morpholino)propanesulfonic acid) to the tannic acid + MTAB-GNR solution

Claim 8-9 / 12: centrifugation and sterile water wash

• Centrifuge to separate MTAB-TA GNRs from residual TA (claim 8)
• Add sterile water and centrifuge to remove residual TA (claims 9, 12)

Claim 10: combined salt + buffer + centrifugation

• This is a “stacked” dependent claim that combines NaCl + MOPS + purification steps.

---

How broad is “tannic acid-coated MTAB gold nanorods” in US 10,010,508 product claim 1?

Key breadth levers and likely construal

1. Surface chemistry anchor (MTAB)

   • If a competitor uses a different cationic ligand/capping agent for gold nanorods (e.g., CTAB, cysteamine derivatives, PEG-thiols, oligo-thiols), it can avoid claim 1’s “MTAB-GNR” requirement even if the final coating is TA.

2. Coating reagent specificity (TA)

   • Substituting tannic acid with related polyphenols (e.g., gallic acid oligomers, polydopamine, other hydrolysable tannins) may avoid the literal “tannic acid” limitation. Even “tannins” as a class may not read onto “tannic acid” depending on claim interpretation.

3. Coating functional language

   • “configured to form a coating” may be argued as a structural/functional characterization of the TA layer. That typically increases enforceability over “mixtures” if the competitor’s product includes TA-adducts not arranged as a coating. The enforceability hinges on evidence of surface coating in the accused product.

What claim 1 does not clearly cover

• It does not claim therapeutic methods, uses, or dosing regimens.
• It does not explicitly claim size ranges, aspect ratio, TA loading, or stability metrics.
• It does not claim downstream conjugation (antibodies, drugs) unless such features are implicit in the “coating” composition.

---

What does the method coverage in US 10,010,508 look like under the doctrine of combinations?

Method claim 2: baseline solution-phase functionalization

Claim 2 is the “platform” method. It covers:

• adding TA to MTAB-GNRs in solution
• where TA forms a coating

FTO posture: If an alternative synthesis method uses MTAB-GNRs and TA but avoids some dependent steps, it may still read on claim 2. Dependent claims tighten the risk further.

Dependent claims: how design-arounds work

To reduce infringement risk on dependent claims, a competitor typically must avoid at least one element from each claim combination.

Design-around pathways

1. Avoid NaCl

   • If you functionalize MTAB-GNRs with TA without adding NaCl, you likely avoid claims requiring “adding a solution of sodium chloride.”

2. Avoid MOPS

   • Using a different buffer (or no buffer) to run the functionalization avoids claims requiring “adding a MOPS buffer.”

3. Avoid vortexing

   • Static mixing, gentle agitation, or different agitation profiles may not meet “vortexing.”

4. Avoid the specific purification sequence

   • Claims requiring centrifugation to remove residual TA, and sterile water washing, can potentially be avoided by using alternative purification (e.g., dialysis, ultrafiltration tangential flow, column purification) if those steps do not meet “centrifuging” plus wash features.

Highest-risk dependent claim is claim 10

Claim 10 combines:

• NaCl + MOPS + centrifugation separation from residual TA and supernatant

This is more specific than claims 3-9 but also closer to a typical “standard operating procedure” profile. If a commercial process matches it closely, infringement exposure rises.

---

Which competing IP themes typically overlap with US 10,010,508 for tannin-coated gold nanorods?

Without relying on unrelated speculation, the landscape adjacent to this specific chemistry typically clusters into:

1. gold nanorods with cationic ligands (MTAB or equivalents)
2. polyphenol coatings and surface adhesion on metal nanoparticles
3. functionalization protocols that use salts/buffers and agitation for reproducible coating
4. purification and stabilization steps after ligand exchange or surface coating

US 10,010,508 is positioned most strongly at the intersection: TA coating + MTAB-GNR platform plus process-specific operational steps.

---

What is the likely “core infringement fact pattern” for US 10,010,508?

Most direct infringement trigger

• manufacture or supply MTAB-TA GNRs where TA is coated onto MTAB-capped gold nanorods in a way that matches claim 1, or
• perform the solution-phase functionalization method of claim 2 using MTAB-GNRs and tannic acid, particularly if the process also includes NaCl and MOPS and vortexing and centrifugation as in dependent claims.

Evidence that matters in litigation

• proof that the starting material is MTAB-capped GNRs (not CTAB or other capping chemistries)
• proof that the TA forms a coating layer (surface characterization, not just residual adsorption)
• batch documentation that matches salt/buffer/agitation/purification steps

---

What could weaken or strengthen enforcement of US 10,010,508 claims in practice?

Enforcement strengthening factors

• The coating is clearly TA-on-MTAB: surface adsorption signatures consistent with a coating layer.
• The manufacturing records include vortexing, NaCl, MOPS, and centrifugation/wash steps consistent with dependent claims.
• Product supplied is compositionally consistent with claim 1.

Enforcement weakening factors

• Use of a different nanorod capping platform instead of MTAB.
• Use of TA analogs or tannin fractions that are not “tannic acid.”
• Purification or agitation methods that differ materially from “centrifuging” and “vortexing” requirements in dependent claims.

---

How does US 10,010,508 compare with “gold nanorod ligand exchange” patents that often exist in the field?

US 10,010,508 is less about a broad ligand-exchange doctrine and more about a specific:

• starting ligand: MTAB
• coating reagent: tannic acid
• processing steps: salt + buffer + vortexing + centrifugation/wash in dependent claims

Compared with broader ligand-exchange patents that claim “nanoparticles functionalized with polyphenols” or “metal nanoparticles with tannin coatings,” US 10,010,508’s enforceable footprint is narrower but can still be commercially meaningful because the combinations (MTAB + TA + process parameters) map to standardized wet-lab workflows.

---

What does the “patent strength” look like for business decisions (licensing vs design-around)?

Strength dimensions for a nanomaterials estate

• Chemical specificity: high. Claim 1 locks in TA and MTAB.
• Process specificity: moderate to high. Claims 3-12 specify operational details that can be tracked in manufacturing.
• Avoidance sensitivity: high. Changing capping chemistry or functionalizing chemistry can avoid claim 1 and claim 2 at the starting-material level.

Commercial implication

• Licensing is most compelling for manufacturers that already run MTAB-GNR synthesis and functionalize with TA using NaCl and MOPS and vortex/centrifuge workflows.
• Design-around is most feasible when a supplier is willing to change either the capping ligand platform or the functionalizing conditions sufficiently to avoid claim 2 and/or at least avoid dependent claim elements.

---

Key takeaways

• US 10,010,508 centers on MTAB-capped gold nanorods coated with tannic acid (product claim 1) and a solution-phase functionalization method using TA on MTAB-GNRs (method claim 2).
• Dependent claims add specific operational limitations: vortexing, NaCl, MOPS buffer, and centrifugation with residual TA removal and sterile water wash.
• The strongest infringement hooks are (i) using MTAB-GNR as the starting nanorod surface, (ii) coating with tannic acid, and (iii) running manufacturing steps that match the dependent claim combinations.
• The highest-value design-arounds are to shift away from MTAB as the capping platform, to avoid tannic acid as the functionalizing reagent, or to change manufacturing steps so that salt/buffer/agitation/purification do not match the dependent claim limitations.

---

FAQs

1. Can a competitor infringe US 10,010,508 claim 1 with CTAB-capped gold nanorods coated with tannic acid?
   If the competitor’s starting GNRs are not MTAB-GNRs, claim 1’s “MTAB-GNR coated with tannic acid” requirement is not met.

2. Does US 10,010,508 cover tannic-acid functionalized gold nanorods without an MTAB intermediate?
   No. Claim 1 and claim 2 both require MTAB-GNRs as the substrate.

3. If tannic acid is added but NaCl is omitted, which claims are avoided?
   Claims that require “adding a solution of sodium chloride” (e.g., claim 4 and claim 10) would be avoided, but claim 2 may still apply if TA is functionalized onto MTAB-GNRs.

4. Do purification methods that replace centrifugation avoid dependent method claims?
   Claims requiring “centrifuging” to separate residual tannic acid and supernatant (e.g., claims 8, 9, 12, and claim 10’s purification step) are structurally tied to centrifugation.

5. Is the independent method claim 2 limited to specific buffer systems or agitation?
   No. Claim 2 is not limited to NaCl, MOPS, or vortexing in its base form; those appear in dependent claims.

---

References (APA)

1. United States Patent No. 10,010,508. “(Claims as provided): 11-mercaptoundecyl trimethylammonium bromide gold nanorods coated with tannic acid and methods of making same.”

Details for Patent 10,010,508

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc	ZOSTAVAX	zoster vaccine live	For Injection	125123	May 25, 2006		2036-12-15