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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are pending in Claim Set filed 9/30/2025.
Claims 1 and 13 are canceled.
Claims 2 and 12 (Withdrawn) have been amended.
Claims 6, 8, 12 and 14-19 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Applicants elected: ascorbic acid as ingredient; a nonwoven fabric as the type of fabric material; a 100% greige cotton as the type of cotton; a wound dressing as the type of article; and multilayered as the number of layers in the fabric.
Herein, claims 2-5, 7 and 9-11 are for examination to the extent they read on the elected species.
Withdrawn Objection
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn. Applicants submitted a Replacement for Figure 1.
The rejection of claims 2-5, 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Edwards et al (US20190380878) view of Cheng et al (Cosmetic textiles with biological benefits: Gelatin microcapsules containing Vitamin C, p.411, July, 2009 and Pareek et al (SYNTHESIS AND CHARACTERIZATION OF CELLULOSE ASCORBIC ACID RESIN AND ITS APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF HEAVY METAL IONS FROM EFFLUENT OF STEEL INDUSTRIES, International Journal Of Engineering Sciences & Management Research, p.42, April, 2018) is withdrawn in favor of the New Grounds of Rejection as set forth below.
The rejection of claims 2-5, 7, and 9-11 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No.
11246756 (herein '756) in view of Cheng et al (Cosmetic textiles with biological benefits: Gelatin microcapsules containing Vitamin C, p.411, July, 2009 and Pareek et al (SYNTHESIS AND CHARACTERIZATION OF CELLULOSE ASCORBIC ACID RESIN AND ITS APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF HEAVY METAL IONS FROM EFFLUENT OF STEEL INDUSTRIES, International Journal Of Engineering Sciences & Management Research, p.42, April, 2018) is withdrawn in favor of the New Grounds of Rejection as set forth below.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL - The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The rejection of claims 2-5, 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention is maintained and made again.
This is a New Matter rejection. There is lack of written description for claim 2.
Claim 2 has been amended to recite in Claim Set filed 9/30/2025:
A cellulose-containing fabric composition comprising ascorbic acid, citric acid, sodium hypophosphite, or a mixture thereof; wherein the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked directly to at least one portion of a cellulose fiber in the fabric composition; or the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked with citric acid directly to at least one cellulosic portion of the fabric composition.
Previously claim 2 in the Claim Set filed 1/08/2025 recited:
A cellulose-containing fabric composition of claim comprising ascorbic acid, citric acid, sodium hypophosphite, or a mixture thereof;
wherein the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked directly to at least one portion of a cellulose fiber in the composition.
The new matter rejection was based on the limitation:
ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked directly to at least one portion of a cellulose fiber in the composition.
In particular, the phrase ‘chemically crosslinked’.
As stated in the Non-Final Rejection filed 7/14/2025:
The Applicants crosslink ascorbic acid with citric acid, but there does not appear to be support for the more general concept of ‘chemically crosslinked’ where any reagents or crosslinkers can be utilized. The paragraphs Applicants point to do not support the more general concept of chemically crosslinked which includes other nondisclosed chemicals and reagents.
Applicants have not pointed to where there is support for the genus chemical crosslinking and furthermore the crosslinking in the Specification is directed only to crosslinked ascorbic acid (See Specification: paragraphs [0085]-[0087]; [0117], [0118]).
When given the limitation: ‘chemically crosslinked’, the broadest reasonable interpreted, the limitation ‘chemically crosslinked’ would encompass crosslinkers in general, i.e., a genus comprising chemically crosslinked’.
If Applicants intentions are to specifically limit the crosslinking to only consist of ascorbic acid, alone, that is chemically crosslinked to cellulose, then applicants should amend the claims to clarify the scope of the claims. Evidence as to any unexpected benefits must be "clear and convincing" In re Lohr, 137 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1963).
M.P.E.P. §2163 states that amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement.
Thus, the disclosure does not provide support for the claim amendments by changing the scope of the disclosure; thereby, constituting new matter.
The remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that that the application as filed supports treatment of a fabric composition with ascorbic acid as the only treatment on the fabric composition. The application as filed shows that the cellulosic fiber treated with ascorbic acid alone presented with antimicrobial activity. See for Example, paragraph numbered [0074], that teaches that treatments for antimicrobial activity include (1) 10 mM ascorbic acid alone; (4) ascorbic acid alone. Paragraphnumbered [0080] that teaches preparation of fabrics with ascorbic acid antimicrobial finish. Paragraph numbered [0081] that teaches the pilot run for applying ascorbic acid to BioGauze. Table 1, top two rows, which show that samples treated with ascorbic acid alone presented with antibacterial activity. Table 2, top 6 rows, which show the percent add on of fabric samples treated with ascorbic acid at different psi. Paragraph numbered [0085] teaches the processes used for crosslinking ascorbic acid to the fabric. Table 3, rows 2, 8, and 14 show data for ascorbic acid alone. In Table 9, describes the different treatments, including rows 2, 4, and 6 to 8 that use ascorbic acid alone. Table 10 shows that fabrics treated with ascorbic acid alone (rows 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7) presented with antimicrobial activity similar to that of fabrics treated with ascorbic acid and citric acid. Paragraph numbered [0118] describes the characterization of the fabrics, including those treated with ascorbic acid alone. Thus, the application as filed supports the ascorbic acid chemically crosslinked directly to at least one portion of a cellulose fiber in the fabric composition; and the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked with citric acid directly to at least one cellulosic portion of the fabric composition.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the entire claimed range. Instant claims recite ascorbic acid without further limiting the amounts thereof. For example, the Specification states (1) 10 mM ascorbic acid alone (Applicants state above). Thus, the examples fail to be commensurate in scope with the claimed range.
MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope with Claimed Invention [R-08.2012]
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, c. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
That is, the ascorbic acid that is chemically crosslinked that generated said alleged unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with ascorbic acid that is chemically crosslinked, which is presently claimed (i.e., results generated by the single composition presented Examples 2 and 3 is not commensurate in scope. Moreover, the phrase ‘chemically crosslinked’ is a broad genus that encompasses an array of varied crosslinkers that is not supported by the disclosure.
Furthermore, para, [0082] states: Selected fabrics were submitted to Situbiosciences (Wheeling, Illinois, USA) for fabric testing, AATCC TM 100 test method designed to measure the antimicrobial properties of textile or absorbent material incubated with selected microorganisms. Evidence as to any unexpected benefits must be "clear and convincing" In re Lohr, 137 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1963). In contrast, Figures 7-8 demonstrate that the combination of citric acid and ascorbic acid form ester bonds, i.e. evidence of covalent bonding of citric acid to cellulose where ascorbic acid is crosslinked to citric acid; See Figure 1.Moreover, as shown in Figure 7, the highest intensity band in the ester region was observed for the fabric treated with the combination of citric acid, ascorbic acid, and SHP, with a peak point at 1723 cm·1 (CA+ Asp A+ SHP). Specification para. [0118] states: Remarkable in this study is that the intensity of the ester bands followed the percent add-ons observed for the fabrics, with the ascorbic acid-treated fabric showing the lowest intensity band and add-on (1.56%), and the fabric treated with citric acid, ascorbic acid, and SHP, showing the highest intensity and add-on (9.43%). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked with citric acid directly to at least one cellulosic portion of the fabric composition (see Figure 1, shown below), whereas, evidence for ascorbic acid that is chemically crosslinked (i.e., alone) is not sufficiently supported by Figure 7 or Figure 8. Evidence as to any unexpected benefits must be "clear and convincing" In re Lohr, 137 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1963). Moreover, the results shown in Figure 7 are obtained using bleached non-woven fabric, whereas instant claim 1 generally recites cellulose fiber.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
New Grounds of Rejection necessitated by Claim Amendments
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-5, 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are rejected as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al (Environmentally sound approach for imparting antibacterial and UV-protection functionalities to linen cellulose using ascorbic acid, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, p.88, 2019) in view Edwards et al (US20190380878, of record).
Regarding claims 2-5, 7 and 9-11,
Ibrahim teaches crosslinking ascorbic acid to linen cellulose using citric acid and sodium hypophosphite (Abstract; 2.1 Materials, p.88:
Mill-scoured and half bleached plain weave linen cellulose; 2.2.2, p.89; see entire document). Ibrahim teaches linen fabric samples was paddled twice in finishing formulation containing Citric Acid CA (25 g/L), sodium hypophosphite (SHP) (15 g/L), active ingredient, e.g. ascorbic acid (0–15 g/L) and nonionic wetting agent (2 g/L), to 80% wet pick up. After then, the treated fabric samples were dried/cured in a microwave oven at 900 W for 4 min, thoroughly washed, dried and conditioned before testing. Ibrahim teaches ascorbic acid (AI: Active Ingredient) loaded (covalently attached) cellulose structure, i.e., ester-crosslinking of the linen structure (see 3.2, p.91).
PNG
media_image2.png
396
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ibrahim teaches the imparted antibacterial activity against the nominated pathogens follows the decreasing order: Gram-positive (S. aureus) N Gram negative (E. coli) (p.92). By comparison, Ibrahim teaches the wetting time as a function of type of active ingredient follows the decreasing order: Ascorbic acid N resorcinol N gallic acid N salicylic acid ≫ none (p.92). Furthermore, Ibrahim teaches that the antibacterial efficiency of the treated fabric samples demonstrates the following order: Ascorbic acid > salicylic acid > resorcinol > gallic acid ≫ none, keeping other parameters fixed (p.92). Ibrahim teaches that all treated fabrics showed an IR spectra peak at around 1730cm-1 that is attributed to the carbonyl groups C=O for ester-link between citric acid and linen fabric. In the case of treatment with ascorbic acid, a new peak was observed at 1659 cm−1 that can be assigned to the C=O stretching of the ascorbic acid (Tabl2, p.90). Moreover, Ibrahim teaches the fixed/immobilized active ingredients can act as a killer/barrier for the harmful microorganisms, thereby preventing bacteria growth underneath of the finished fabric samples (p.90). Ibrahim teaches the antimicrobial functionalization of cellulosic textiles is necessarily used to: protect the textile user from harmful microorganisms, avoid diseases transmission, cross-infection, and offensive odors formation, as well as to safeguard the cellulosic textile material from the negative impacts of microbial growth such as staining, deterioration, and discoloration (Introduction, p.88).
Ibrahim differ from the claims in that the documents do not teach that the cellulose fabric is a nonwoven fabric; a 100% greige cotton as the type of cotton; a wound dressing as the type of article; and multilayered as the number of layers in the fabric.
However, Edwards cures the deficiency.
Edwards teaches a multi-layered nonwoven wound dressing, containing (1) at least one inner layer containing (a) about 50% by weight to about 95% by weight (e.g., 50% to 95) non-scoured, non-bleached greige cotton fibers and (b) about 5% by weight to about 50% by weight (e.g., 5% to 50%) hydrophobic fibers, all percentages adding up to 100 wt %, and (2) at least one outer layer containing (a) about 5% by weight to about 95% by weight (e.g., 5% to 95%) non-scoured, non-bleached greige cotton fibers, (b) about 5% by weight to about 95% by weight (e.g., 5% to 95%) bleached cotton fibers, and (c) about 5% by weight to about 60% by weight (e.g., 5% to 60%) hydrophobic fibers (e.g., polypropylene nylon); all percentages adding up to 100 wt% (Abstract; [0002]; [0028]; claim 8; See entire document). Further, Edwards teaches an ascorbic acid antimicrobial finish provided to greige cotton material [0090]; Fabric data; See entire document). Furthermore, Edwards teaches 100% greige cotton (See Table 1, p.23). Cotton meets the limitation of containing cellulose (evidenced by paragraph 0117 of the instant specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ibrahim to provide a nonwoven fabric; a 100% greige cotton as the type of cotton; a wound dressing as the type of article; and multilayered as the number of layers in the fabric in view of Edwards. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to use the fabric as taught by Edwards because Edwards teaches a composition comprising these materials, e.g., a nonwoven fabric; a 100% greige cotton as the type of cotton; a wound dressing as the type of article; and multilayered as the number of layers in the fabric, that is used as a wound dressing for topical application onto external wounds, in order to prevent penetration of foreign bodies into the wound and to absorb blood and wound secretions [0031].
One skilled in the art would have recognized that ascorbic acid possesses antimicrobial properties as taught by Ibrahim and Edwards and would have been motivated to chemically crosslinked the ascorbic acid to a wound dressing to ensure a reliable stable connection to the wound dressing having a reasonable expectation of success of enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of a wound dressing comprising chemically crosslinked antimicrobial ascorbic acid.
All the claimed elements herein are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instantly claimed antimicrobial composition and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as evidenced by Ibrahim and Edwards, as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that Edwards, Cheng, and/or Pareek, alone and/or in combination, do not teach or suggest a cellulose-containing fabric composition comprising ascorbic acid, citric acid, sodium hypophosphite, or a mixture thereof; wherein the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked with citric acid directly to at least one cellulosic portion of the fabric composition.
Applicants’ arguments directed to Cheng and Pareek are moot because the teachings of Cheng and Pareek are not used in the above 103 rejection.
Ibrahim teaches crosslinking ascorbic acid to linen cellulose using citric acid and sodium hypophosphite.
Further, Edwards teaches a composition comprising these materials, e.g., a nonwoven fabric; a 100% greige cotton as the type of cotton; a wound dressing as the type of article; and multilayered as the number of layers in the fabric, that is used as a wound dressing for topical application onto external wounds, in order to prevent penetration of foreign bodies into the wound and to absorb blood and wound secretions [0031].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instantly claimed antimicrobial composition and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as evidenced by Ibrahim and Edwards, as a whole.
New Grounds of Rejection necessitated by Claim Amendments
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11246756 (herein ‘756) in view of Ibrahim et al (Environmentally sound approach for imparting antibacterial and UV-protection functionalities to linen cellulose using ascorbic acid, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, p.88, 2019) and Edwards et al (US20190380878, of record).
Claim 2 of instant application recites a cellulose-containing fabric composition comprising ascorbic acid, citric acid, sodium hypophosphite, or a mixture thereof; wherein the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked with citric acid directly to at least one cellulosic portion of the fabric composition.
‘756 Claims 1-5 and 7 are directed to a single layered nonwoven fabric comprising ascorbic acid wherein the fabric is composition is 100% weight greige cotton fibers (e.g., cellulose containing fabric).
‘ 756 claims differ from instant claims in that the ‘756 claims do teach that ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked with citric acid directly to at least one cellulosic portion of the fabric composition.
However, Ibrahim and Edwards, as a whole, cures the deficiencies.
Ibrahim teaches crosslinking ascorbic acid that is chemically crosslinked with citric acid directly to at least one cellulosic portion of a cellulose fabric, wherein the composition comprises crosslinking ascorbic acid, citric acid and sodium hypophosphite, or a mixture thereof.
Edwards teaches a multi-layered nonwoven wound dressing, containing composition comprising a nonwoven fabric; a 100% greige cotton as the type of cotton; a wound dressing as the type of article; and multilayered as the number of layers in the fabric, that is used as a wound dressing for topical application onto external wounds, in order to prevent penetration of foreign bodies into the wound and to absorb blood and wound secretions [0031].
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the Patent ‘756 in view of the teaching of Ibrahim and Edwards, as a whole, because one skilled in the art would have recognized that ascorbic acid possesses antimicrobial properties as taught by Ibrahim and Edwards and would have been motivated to chemically crosslinked the ascorbic acid to a wound dressing to ensure a reliable stable connection to the wound dressing having a reasonable expectation of success of enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of a wound dressing comprising chemically crosslinked antimicrobial ascorbic acid.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instantly claimed antimicrobial composition and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of the Patent ‘756 and the teachings of Ibrahim and Edwards, as a whole.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned Patent No. 11246756 (herein ‘756) discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the '756 Patent, Cheng, and/or Pareek, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the amended claims. Neither the '756 Patent, Cheng, and/or Pareek, alone or in combination, teach or suggest a cellulose-containing fabric composition comprising ascorbic acid, citric acid, sodium hypophosphite, or a mixture thereof; wherein the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked directly to at least one portion of a cellulose fiber in the fabric composition; or the ascorbic acid is chemically crosslinked with citric acid directly to at least one cellulosic portion of the fabric composition.
Applicants’ arguments directed to Cheng and Pareek are moot because the teachings of Cheng and Pareek are not used in the above Double Patenting Rejection.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because Ibrahim teaches crosslinking ascorbic acid to linen cellulose using citric acid and sodium hypophosphite. Further, Edwards teaches a composition comprising these materials, e.g., a nonwoven fabric; a 100% greige cotton as the type of cotton; a wound dressing as the type of article; and multilayered as the number of layers in the fabric, that is used as a wound dressing for topical application onto external wounds, in order to prevent penetration of foreign bodies into the wound and to absorb blood and wound secretions [0031].
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the Patent ‘756 in view of the teaching of Ibrahim and Edwards, as a whole, because one skilled in the art would have recognized that ascorbic acid possesses antimicrobial properties as taught by Ibrahim and Edwards and would have been motivated to chemically crosslinked the ascorbic acid to a wound dressing to ensure a reliable stable connection to the wound dressing having a reasonable expectation of success of enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of a wound dressing comprising chemically crosslinked antimicrobial ascorbic acid.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instantly claimed antimicrobial composition and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of the Patent ‘756 and the teachings of Ibrahim and Edwards, as a whole.
Conclusions
No claim is allowed.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thurman Wheeler whose telephone number is (571)-270-1307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-6:00 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, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/T.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/SARAH ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619