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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1 and withdrawn Claims 10-14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 29-31 in the response filed on 1/7/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-9, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25, and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: To promote clarity, please amend each respective preambles to recite the treated plant cellulosic fiber (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: To promote clarity, please amend “the cellulosic fiber treated” to “the treated cellulosic fiber”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: To promote clarity, please amend “treated cellulosic fiber of claim 1” to “treated plant cellulosic fiber of claim 1” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25, and 28 are 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cellulosic fiber interior" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 3 reciting the cellulosic fiber is selected from the group consisting of “white cotton”, “sticky white cotton”, “naturally colored cotton”, “scoured and bleached cotton”, and/or “sticky fiber” may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim(s) do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether “white cotton”, “sticky white cotton”, “naturally colored cotton”, “scoured and bleached cotton”, and “sticky fiber” are distinct/different from each other or is it Applicant’s intention to overlap in scope. For example, “scoured and bleached cotton” may be construed as “white cotton”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a final article”, and the claim also recites “a yarn, a thread, a twine, a rope, a cloth, a woven fabric, a knitted fabric, a film-based composite, a nonwoven fabric”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Another example is a yarn (broad recitation) will necessarily comprise a thread (narrower statement). Please note that the Examiner is not limited to only these examples.
Claim 6 is also considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether “a yarn”, “a thread”, “a twine”, “a rope”, “a cloth”, “a woven fabric”, a knitted fabric”, “a film-based composite”, a “nonwoven fabric”, and “a final article” are distinct/different from each other or is it Applicant’s intention to overlap in scope. For example, “a cloth” may be construed as “a woven fabric”, “knitted fabric”, “nonwoven fabric” or “a final article”. It also appears that “a knitted fabric” would overlap in scope with a “woven fabric”. Please note that the Examiner is not limited to only these examples.
Similarly, Claim 8 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether “a curtain”, “a bedding”, “a surgical arena fabric”, “a surgical personnel protective garment”, “a would patient dressing”, “a non-would patient dressing”, “a bandage”, “a gauze”, “a packing material”, and “a cleaning material” are distinct/different from each other or is it Applicant’s intention to overlap in scope. For example, the claimed medical textiles are multifunctional, and thus a “bandage” can be used as a “cleaning material”, “packing material” wound or non-wound patient dressing. Please note that the Examiner is not limited to only this example.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature(s) introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-9, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160208430 (“Duffy et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20100003296 (“Cheng et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1-4, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25, and 28, Duffy et al. teaches a treated plant cellulosic fiber comprising silver nanoparticles embedded throughout an interior of the cellulosic fiber (both the inner pore surfaces and the external fibre surface) (Abstract, [0017], [0018], [0054], and [0055]).
This is produced by swelling cellulose fibers in an aqueous alkali solution and mixing the swollen cellulose fibers with an appropriate aqueous solution to impregnate the fibers with silver nanoparticles ([0011]-[0015]). The alkali solution is a solution of a Group I hydroxide, a Group II carbonate, a Group I bicarbonate, a tetraalkylammonium hydroxide, and mixtures thereof [0021]. In the aqueous alkali solution, sodium hydroxide is considered to be especially beneficial for opening up the pores in the swelling step, wherein the amount of compound used to prepare the solution is no more than 2.0 moles per 30 g of cellulose fibers. In further embodiments, the amount of compound is at least 0.25 moles per 30 g of cellulose fibers. In light of the low/weak alkaline solution and not necessarily requiring sodium hydroxide (e.g. using carbonates instead), the Examiner deems that the cellulose fibers do not undergo the mercerization treatment to swell its fibers (i.e. causing irreversible rearrangement from cellulose I/parallel into cellulose II/antiparallel).
While Duffy et al. recognizes that cotton is a conventional cellulosic fiber material used with silver nanoparticles [0009], Duffy et al. does not explicitly teach the claimed cellulosic fiber material(s) having the claimed cellulosic structure.
However, Cheng et al. teaches silver nanoparticles attached to cellulosic fibers, wherein the cellulosic fibers are cotton, linen, blending fibers, or combination thereof, which intrinsically have a multilayer microfibrillar crystalline structure with microfibrils aligned in parallel to one another, have cuticle and primary wall, and inner layers (Abstract and [0028]-0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Duffy et al.’s cellulosic fibers with embedded silver nanoparticles comprise of the common white cotton fiber material in view of their known versatility, breathability, and durability.
Therefore, the Examiner deems that the combination of Duffy et al. in view of Cheng et al. teach the silver nanoparticles are embedded throughout the multilayer microfibrillar crystalline structure of the cellulosic cotton fiber interior, wherein the multilayer microfibrillar crystalline structure of the treated cellulosic cotton fiber is not rearranged into anti-parallel cellulose chains.
With regards to Claim 4, Duffy et al. does not teach at least about 50% of the silver nanoparticles remain embedded in the treated cellulosic fiber after at least about 10 laundering cycles.
However, Cheng et al. teaches that its treated cellulosic fiber comprising silver nanoparticles attached to cellulosic fibers are still effective as being antimicrobial after 100 times of washing ([0072]-[0078]). Due to the silver nanoparticles provide antimicrobial properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a substantial amount of silver nanoparticles remain attached to the cellulosic fibers after washing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 50% of the silver nanoparticles remain embedded in Duff et al.’s treated cellulosic fiber after repeated washing in order to maintain its antimicrobial property, antibacterial property, etc. after each use, and to be sustainable and environmentally friendly.
With regards to Claim 5-8, Duffy et al. teaches the claimed article(s). Please see paragraphs [0077]-[0078].
With regards to Claim 9, please see paragraphs [0003] and [0146].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785