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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the amendment made on 12/15/2025; after entry of this amendment, claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-33 are currently pending in this Application with claims 20-33 being withdrawn from further examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 11-106697 to Ukai et al. (hereinafter Ukai) with evidence provided from 2010/0272693 to Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
References made to the page numbers and/or paragraph numbers in Ukai are based off of the machine translation of this reference (see attached).
With respect to claim 1, Ukai discloses an antimold coating composition comprising chitosan, which has excellent antifungal and antibacterial properties, solvent to make chitosan water soluble, stabilizer and surfactant (Ukai, pages 2 and 3). Ukai teaches chitosan bonds to the cell wall of the mold or bacteria to inhibit the growth of the mold or bacteria (Ukai, page 2, pages [0006]); also, the reference teaches the solvent is used to make chitosan water soluble (page 3). Thus, these disclosures are seen to read on the claimed recitation of the carrier agent being a “cleaning” agent. Also, the fact that chitosan inhibits the growth of mold and bacteria, chitosan is seen to read on the claimed “preservative”.
Ukai teaches the solvent is organic acids such as acetic acid and citric acid (Ukai, pages 2 and 3, [0009]) which are among the acids used to make the chitosan water soluble (Ukai, page 3, [0010]). The disclosed solvent is seen to read on the claimed “carrier agent”.
Ukai does not expressly and/or literally disclose chitosan citrate acetate solution or salts thereof; however, Ukai discloses acids such as citric acid and acetic acid make chitosan water soluble, which means they react with chitosan (Ukai, page 5, [0015]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the disclosed acids such as citric acid and acetic acid to make chitosan water soluble. Thus, even though Ukai may not literally disclose an embodiment teaching the use of these two acids as the only acids, the fact that the reference recognizes the effect of such acids on chitosan would reasonably suggest that the acids can be acetic and citric acids. Also, it is noted that according to MPEP 2144.06 I, “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Lee teaches chitosan is an aminopolysaccharide (Lee, [0045]). Lee teaches a variety of acids can be used for forming aminopolysaccharide salts like chitosan salt and discloses acids such as citric acid and acetic acid to make chitosan salts (Lee, [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have recognized the composition of Ukai results in the presence of compounds such as chitosan citrate acetate because of the presence of chitosan, acetic acid, and citric acid which would react with each other, as evidence provided from Lee, to produce chitosan salts such as chitosan citrate acetate.
With respect to claim 2, considering the fact that Ukai teaches citric acid as well as acetic acid, and the fact that the combination of Ukai in view of Lee shows a reaction of these acids with chitosan, it would have been well within the scope of a skilled artisan, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that some chitosan inevitably may react with only one acid. In short, the presence of both chitosan citrate acetate solution as well as chitosan acetate solution are expected in the composition of Ukai in view of Lee.
With respect to claim 4, Ukai teaches the use of 0.02-10 wt% of chitosan (Ukai, page 4, [0013]); this teaches an overlapping range of concentration with the claimed concentration of 0.01-5 wt%.
Assuming this is not found persuasive because the disclosed concentration of 0.02-10 wt% is for chitosan, the claimed concentration is the concentration of “chitosan based agent”, it is noted a chitosan based agent is produced as a result of a reaction between chitosan and solvents, i.e. citric acid and acetic acid. Ukai teaches 0.01-10 wt% of solvent (Ukai, page 4, [0013]) as well. The combined concentrations of chitosan and solvents, as disclosed by Ukai, overlaps with the claimed concentration of chitosan based agent.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claims 5 and 9, Ukai teaches the use of 0.02-10 wt% of chitosan (Ukai, page 4, [0013]); this teaches an overlapping range of concentration with the claimed concentration of 0.01-1.0 wt% as claimed in claim 5 and 0.01-0.4 wt% as claimed in claim 9.
Assuming this is not found persuasive because the disclosed concentration of 0.02-10 wt% is for chitosan, the claimed concentration is the concentration of “chitosan based agent”, it is noted a chitosan based agent is produced as a result of a reaction between chitosan and solvents, i.e. citric acid and acetic acid. Ukai teaches 0.01-10 wt% of solvent (Ukai, page 4, [0013]) as well. The combined concentrations of chitosan and solvents, as disclosed by Ukai, overlaps with the claimed concentration of chitosan based agent.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 7, Ukai discloses an antimold coating composition comprising chitosan, which has excellent antifungal and antibacterial properties, solvent to make chitosan water soluble, stabilizer and surfactant (Ukai, pages 2 and 3). Ukai teaches chitosan bonds to the cell wall of the mold or bacteria to inhibit the growth of the mold or bacteria (Ukai, page 2, pages [0006]); also, the reference teaches the solvent is used to make chitosan water soluble (page 3). Thus, these disclosures are seen to read on the claimed recitation of the carrier agent being a “cleaning” agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-9, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10 under 103 obviousness have been fully considered and, in view of the amendments, are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ukai in view of Lee.
It is important to note that claim 1 has not been amended with the limitation of claim 3 because claims limits the chitosan based agent to chitosan citrate acetate, but claim 1 is amended to recite, in part, “the chitosan based agent comprises chitosan citrate acetate solution and salts thereof”.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-9, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 11, 13-15, 17-19 over Mikalsen, Feng with evidence from Cardinal and Winston, and Quadir have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11, 13-15, 17-19 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13-15, 17-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art do not disclose or suggest the a coating system comprising a carrier agent, wherein the carrier agent is a polishing agent and a preservative comprising a chitosan based agent, wherein the chitosan based agent is chitosan acetate solution and salts thereof, chitosan citrate acetate solution and salts thereof, or combinations thereof, wherein the coating system comprises 0.01-0.8 wt% chitosan based agent.
Moreover, the prior art do not disclose or suggest a coating system comprising a carrier agent, wherein the carrier agent is a polishing agent, and a preservative comprising a chitosan based agent, wherein the chitosan based agent is chitosan acetate solution and salts thereof, chitosan citrate acetate solution and salts thereof, or combination thereof, wherein the chitosan based agent has a pH of 6 to 9.
Furthermore, the prior art do not disclose or suggest a coating system comprising a carrier agent, wherein the carrier agent is a finishing agent, and a preservative comprising a chitosan based agent, wherein the chitosan based agent is chitosan acetate solution and salts thereof, chitosan citrate acetate solution and salts thereof, or combination thereof, wherein the coating system comprises 0.01-0.8 wt% chitosan based agent.
In addition, the prior art do not disclose or suggest a coating system comprising a carrier agent, wherein the carrier agent is a finishing agent, and a preservative comprising a chitosan based agent, wherein the chitosan based agent is chitosan acetate solution and salts thereof, chitosan citrate acetate solution and salts thereof, or combinations thereof, wherein the chitosan based agent has a pH of 6 to 9.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art do not disclose the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 3 wherein the chitosan based agent is chitosan citrate acetate solution and salts thereof. Claim 1, as currently amended, recites, in part, the chitosan based agent “comprises” chitosan citrate acetate, which is open to have other chitosan based agents as well. However, claim 3 limits the chitosan based agent is chitosan citrate acetate solution and salts thereof without the option of having any other chitosan based agent being present.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731