DETAILED ACTION
The receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ after final amendment filed 11/26/2025; and request for RCE filed 12/08/2025.
The after final amendment filed 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 5, 6, 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/02/2024.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are subject of this office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the article to Edwards et al. (“Antimicrobial and hemostatic activities of cotton-based dressing designed to address prolonged field care applications”, currently provided).
Claim 1 is directed to a fabric composition comprising attached a zeolite Y/pectin complex; wherein the zeolite Y/pectin complex is deposited as ordered inter-fibrillar sheets on the fabric.
Edwards disclosed antimicrobial hemostatic wound dressing comprising zeolite Y/pectin complex adhered and deposited on nonwoven, greige, unbleached cotton fabric. The zeolite Y/pectin complex is deposited as ordered inter-fibrillar sheets. The dressing is multilayered fabric. See the entire document, and in particular the abstract; page 117; results; discussion and conclusion.
All the limitations of the claimed fabric composition as claimed by claim 1 are met by the reference.
Regarding claims 2-4, the reference disclosed the claimed nonwoven fabric.
Regarding fabric is multiple layers as claimed by claim 4, this is disclosed by the reference.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article to Edwards et al. (Antimicrobial and hemostatic activities of cotton-based dressing designed to address prolonged field care applications) in view of the article to Edwards et al. (hereinafter Edwards-2, “Development of a nonwoven hemostatic dressing based on unbleached cotton: A de novo design approach”, previously provided).
Applicant Claims
Claim 7 is directed to the fabric composition of claim 2 comprises about 85% by weight non-scoured, non-bleached greige cotton fibers, and about 15% by weight bleached cotton fibers.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
The teachings of Edwards are discussed under 102 rejection above. Edwards teaches all the limitations of claims 1-4 as discussed above.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
While Edwards teaches unbleached cotton fabric, the reference however does not explicitly teach the fabric comprising about 85% by weight non-scoured, non-bleached greige cotton fibers, and about 15% by weight bleached cotton fibers as claimed by claim 7,
Edwards-2 teaches raw unbleached nonwoven textile comprising greige cotton
fibers improves fibrin formation and reduces the clotting time of blood when combined
with bleached cotton fibers in 10% or 15%, samples B3 or B4 of table 2. The fibers can
incorporate clay (see entire document, and in particular the abstract; page 2; page 3,
last paragraph; page 11, table 2; conclusion). The teaching of the reference of presence of bleached cotton fibers in 10-15% of the fabric implies that the rest of the fabric is unbleached, i.e. 85-90% unbleached.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide hemostatic cotton fabric comprising zeolite Y/pectin complex deposited on nonwoven greige or unbleached cotton fabric as taught by Edwards, and add 10%-15% bleached cotton fibers to the unbleached cotton fibers as taught by Edwards-2. One would have been motivated to do so because Edwards-2 teaches unbleached griege cotton fabric comprising 10-15% bleached cotton fibers improves fibrin formation and reduces the clotting time of blood. One would reasonably expect formulating hemostatic griege cotton fabric comprising zeolite Y/pectin wherein the cotton fabric comprising 10%-15% bleached cotton fibers wherein the fabric has improved fibrin formation and reduced clotting time, hence improved hemostatic properties.
Regarding the amount of unbleached cotton fibers of 85% as claimed by claim 7, Edwards-2 teaches bleaches fibers in cotton fabric in amount that can be 15% that implies unbleached fibers in amount of 85% in the fabric. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In any event applicants failed to show any unexpected results obtained from claimed amount of bleached or unbleached cotton fibers.
Absent any evidence to the contrary, and based upon the teachings of the prior art, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the instantly claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isis A D Ghali whose telephone number is (571)272-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/ISIS A GHALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611 /I.G./