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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/KR2020/018476. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 22 November 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on the applications filed in Korea on 17 December 2019 and 26 February 2020.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 03 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the subject matter of each invention is sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because the elected invention is compositional distinct from the non-elected inventions and are classified separately.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 3 April 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 16 June 2022, 11 July 2022, 26 June 2023, and 26 February 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 11 July 2022 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: minor typographical errors.
Claim 1, line 5, recites “20 o 35%”, it is believed it should read “20 to 35%”.
Claim 5, line 9, recites “Cuo”, it is believed if should read “CuO”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph
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 2-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the antimicrobial glass" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claim 2 depends recites “An antibacterial glass”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the antimicrobial glass" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claim 2 depends recites “An antibacterial glass”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the antimicrobial glass" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claim 2 depends recites “An antibacterial glass”.
Claim 5 recites a method of making “an antibacterial glass composite” and refers to the “antibacterial glass composite” in lines 1-2, 3, 11, and 13. The term “antibacterial glass composite” is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear from the claim or the specification that the manufacturing method results in a composite glass material, where the glass is combined with a different material such as a fiber or metal. But rather is appears that the manufacturing method relates to the making of a glass having the antibacterial glass composition. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will read the claim such that product being made is the glass of the antibacterial glass composition.
Claims 6-8 are also rejected as indefinite since they refer to the “antibacterial glass composite” recited in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the antimicrobial glass" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 from which claim 6 depends recites “an antibacterial glass”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the antimicrobial glass" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 from which claim 5 depends recites “an antibacterial glass”.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP H 06-219771 A in view of Seneschal et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2005/0233888 A1.
A machine-generated translation of JP h 06-219771 A accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Kondo et al. teach an antibacterial glass composition (see paragraph [0001]). Kondo et al. teach that antibacterial glasses comprise ions like Ag+ and Cu+ since they are toxic to microorganisms (see paragraph [0002]). Kondo et al. teach a antibacterial glass composition comprising in terms of weight %, 25-60% of SiO2, 18-60% of B2O3, 0-20% of Al2O3,8-30% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-20% of MgO+CaO+BaO+ZnO, 0.05-2% of Ag2O, 0.01-0.1% of SO3, and 0-0.1% of Fe2O3 (see paragraphs [0008]-[0017]).
The weight percent ranges of SiO2, B2O3, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, MgO, CaO, ZnO, and Ag2O taught by Kondo et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with the antibacterial glass comprising 20-60 wt% of SiO2, 5-20 wt% of B2O3, 10-20 wt% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 20-35wt% of ZnO+CaO+MgO, and 0.01-0.1 wt% of Ag2O as recited in instant claim 1. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
However, Kondo et al. fail to teach that the antibacterial glass comprises the recited weight percentages of CuO and Fe2O3.
Seneschal et al. teach a similar antimicrobial (antibacterial) glass composition comprising 0-15 wt% of CuO and 0-5 wt% of Fe2O3 (see paragraphs [0037] and [0047]). Seneschal et al. teach that antimicrobial activity includes biocidal activity against bacterial (see paragraph [0054]). Seneschal et al. teach that the addition of metals such as Fe to compensate for the coloration due to Ag2O (see paragraph [0058]). Seneschal et al. teach that the addition of CuO to an antibacterial glass comprising Ag2O results in synergistic antimicrobial action (see paragraphs [0060]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an antibacterial glass of Kondo et al. as suggested by Seneschal et al. because the resultant antibacterial glass would have the superior melting and forming properties while having the color compensating and added antimicrobial action of the glass composition of Seneschal et al. See paragraphs [0054], [0058], and [0060]-[0063] of Seneschal et al.
As to claim 2, Kondo et al. teach an antibacterial glass that comprises 25-60 wt% of SiO2 and 18-60 wt% of B2O3 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0011]), which reads on an antibacterial glass comprising a content of SiO2 greater than the content of B2O3 as recited in instant claim 2.
The weight percent ranges taught by Kondo et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 2 and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kondo et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Kondo et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. teach an antibacterial glass comprising 0-15 wt% of CuO and 0-5 wt% of Fe2O3 ( see paragraphs [0037] and [0047] of Seneschal et al.), which read on the antibacterial glass having a weight ratio of Fe2O3/CuO in the range of 1.5-4.5 as recited in instant claim 3.
The weight percent ranges taught by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 3 and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 4, Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. teach an antibacterial glass comprising 0-15 wt% of CuO and 0-5 wt% of Fe2O3 ( see paragraphs [0037] and [0047] of Seneschal et al.), which read on the antibacterial glass comprising a total amount of Fe2O3 and CuO that is at most 20 wt% as recited in instant claim 4.
The weight percent ranges taught by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 4 and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 5, Kondo et al. teach an antibacterial glass composition (see paragraph [0001]). Kondo et al. teach that antibacterial glasses comprise ions like Ag+ and Cu+ since they are toxic to microorganisms (see paragraph [0002]). Kondo et al. teach a antibacterial glass composition comprising in terms of weight %, 25-60% of SiO2, 18-60% of B2O3, 0-20% of Al2O3,8-30% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-20% of MgO+CaO+BaO+ZnO, 0.05-2% of Ag2O, 0.01-0.1% of SO3, and 0-0.1% of Fe2O3 (see paragraphs [0008]-[0017]). Kondo et al. teach that the glass composition is batched and melted (see paragraph [0021].) Kondo et al. further teach that the glass is cooled on a stainless-steel plate (see paragraph [0021]).
Kondo et al. teach a method of manufacturing an antibacterial glass (see paragraph [0021]), which reads on the manufacturing method of an antibacterial glass by preparing the antibacterial glass composition, melting the antibacterial glass composition and cooling the antibacterial glass composition on a quenching roller as recited in instant claim 5. Furthermore, the weight percent ranges of SiO2, B2O3, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, MgO, CaO, ZnO, and Ag2O taught by Kondo et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with the antibacterial glass comprising 20-60 wt% of SiO2, 5-20 wt% of B2O3, 10-20 wt% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 20-35wt% of ZnO+CaO+MgO, and 0.01-0.1 wt% of Ag2O as recited in instant claim 5. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
However, Kondo et al. fail to teach that the antibacterial glass comprises the recited weight percentages of CuO and Fe2O3.
Seneschal et al. teach a similar antimicrobial (antibacterial) glass composition comprising 0-15 wt% of CuO and 0-5 wt% of Fe2O3 (see paragraphs [0037] and [0047]). Seneschal et al. teach that antimicrobial activity includes biocidal activity against bacterial (see paragraph [0054]). Seneschal et al. teach that the addition of metals such as Fe to compensate for the coloration due to Ag2O (see paragraph [0058]). Seneschal et al. teach that the addition of CuO to an antibacterial glass comprising Ag2O results in synergistic antimicrobial action (see paragraphs [0060]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an antibacterial glass of Kondo et al. as suggested by Seneschal et al. because the resultant antibacterial glass would have the superior melting and forming properties while having the color compensating and added antimicrobial action of the glass composition of Seneschal et al. See paragraphs [0054], [0058], and [0060]-[0063] of Seneschal et al.
As to claim 6, Kondo et al. teach an antibacterial glass that comprises 25-60 wt% of SiO2 and 18-60 wt% of B2O3 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0011]), which reads on an antibacterial glass comprising a content of SiO2 greater than the content of B2O3 as recited in instant claim 6.
The weight percent ranges taught by Kondo et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 6 and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kondo et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Kondo et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 7, Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. teach an antibacterial glass comprising 0-15 wt% of CuO and 0-5 wt% of Fe2O3 ( see paragraphs [0037] and [0047] of Seneschal et al.), which read on the antibacterial glass having a weight ratio of Fe2O3/CuO in the range of 1.5-4.5 as recited in instant claim 7.
The weight percent ranges taught by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 7 and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 8, Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. teach an antibacterial glass comprising 0-15 wt% of CuO and 0-5 wt% of Fe2O3 ( see paragraphs [0037] and [0047] of Seneschal et al.), which read on the antibacterial glass comprising a total amount of Fe2O3 and CuO that is at most 20 wt% as recited in instant claim 8.
The weight percent ranges taught by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 8 and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Kondo et al. in view of Seneschal et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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 R. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
2 May 2026
Prosecution Insights