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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 11/20/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1-27 and 39 are cancelled and claims 28-38 and 40-53 are pending.
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 28-42 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.
Regarding claim 28, the group structure for the metals is improper. It is advised changing the phrase “or a combination” in line 5 of claim 28 to the phrase “and combinations” in order to overcome this rejection (see MPEP 2117).
Regarding claim 33, the group structure for the inorganic material is improper. It is advised changing the term “or” in line 21 of claim 33 to “and” in order to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 41, the group structure for the fungicide is improper. It is advised changing the term “or” in line 2 of claim 41 to “and” in order to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 28-38 and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preuss et al (US 2010/0136073 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Preuss discloses an antimicrobial coating composition comprising an acrylate polymer (radiation hardenable compound; paragraphs [0025] and [0050]), an antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]), silver supported on zeolite or glass (particulates loaded with a metal having a zero oxidation state where the metal is silver; paragraph [0019]), from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight silver based on the total weight of coating solids (paragraph [0022]) and further antimicrobials in an amount from 0.01% to 5% by weight based on the polymer material (paragraph [0069]).
Preuss does not disclose the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the amount of IPBC being 1.5% to 3.5 by weight of the total weight of the protective varnish.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of IPBC to be 1.5% to 3.5% by weight of the total weight of the protective varnish because doing so would provide enhanced antimicrobial or fungicidal activity as IPBC is a known antimicrobial or fungicide.
Preuss does not disclose the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the ratio of IPBC to silver ranging from 0.001 to 0.007.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of IPBC to silver to be from 0.001 to 0.007 because doing so would provide the desired enhanced antimicrobial or fungicidal activity as IPBC is a known antimicrobial or fungicide while providing a medium on which the IPBC can be supported.
Regarding claim 29, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising an antimicrobial comprising IPBC (antimicrobial coating composition having biocidal activity; paragraph [0024]). The antimicrobial comprising IPBC is an antimicrobial coating composition having biocidal activity. IPBC is the same as Applicant’s preferred material and would inherently provide the antimicrobial coating composition with biocidal activity
Regarding claim 30, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising silver supported on zeolite or glass (inorganic particulate material; paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 31, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the silver supported on zeolite or glass comprising 0.5% to 5% by weight silver based on the total weight of silver and support material (paragraph [0019]).
The amount of silver supported on zeolite or glass overlaps the claimed range of the amount of metal based on the total weight of particulates and metal.
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 in order to have superior antimicrobial effects for the antimicrobial coating composition while not using excess silver as a means for reducing manufacturing cost. Silver supported on zeolite or glass provides superior antimicrobials effects (paragraph [0006] of Preuss). An amount too low would not provide the antimicrobial coating composition with superior antimicrobial effects. An amount too high would lead to excess material being used leading to higher manufacturing cost. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 32, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the silver supported on zeolite or glass having a particle size of from about 1 to 20 micrometers (paragraph [0019]). The particle size of silver supported on zeolite or glass overlaps the claimed range for the particle size of the particulates.
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 in order to have superior antimicrobial effects for the antimicrobial coating composition while not having the particles protruding from the surface of the coating. Silver supported on zeolite or glass provides superior antimicrobials effects (paragraph [0006] of Preuss). A particle size too low would result in particles not providing superior antimicrobial effects leading to using a higher loading amount in order to compensate for the small particle size. A particle size too high would result in particles protruding from the surface leading to a rough surface texture. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 33, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the antimicrobial coating composition comprising silver supported on zeolite or glass (inorganic particulate material; paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 34, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the antimicrobial coating composition comprising silver supported on zeolite or glass (paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 35, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight silver based on the total weight of coating solids (paragraph [0022]).
Preuss does not disclose the antimicrobial coating composition comprising 0.001% to 0.02% by weight of silver based on the total weight of the protective varnish.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of silver to be 0.001% to 0.02% by weight of silver based on the total weight of the protective varnish because doing so provides the desired support for the antimicrobial leading to enhanced antimicrobial or fungicidal activity.
Regarding claim 36, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition being a radiation curable composition curable by UV curing (paragraphs [0167]-[0168] and [0174]) and comprising an acrylate polymer (paragraphs [0025], [0050] and [0174]).
Regarding claim 37, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition being a radiation curable composition curable by UV curing (paragraphs [0167]-[0168]) and comprising an acrylate polymer comprising ethyl α-cyano-6,6-diphenylacrylate (unsaturated acrylic resin; paragraphs [0025 and [0050]). The ethyl α-cyano-6,6-diphenylacrylate is considered to be an unsaturated acrylic resin as ethyl α-cyano-6,6-diphenylacrylate contains unsaturated bonds.
Regarding claim 38, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising a photoinitiator (paragraph [0168]) and wherein the photoinitiator is IRGACURE 500 (free-radical photoinitiator; paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claim 40, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight silver based on the total weight of coating solids (paragraph [0022]), further antimicrobials in an amount from 0.01% to 5% by weight based on the polymer material (paragraph [0069]) and the antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]).
Preuss does not disclose the ratio of IPBC to silver ranging from 0.0008 to 0.007.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of IPBC to silver to be from 0.0007 to 0.01 because doing so would provide the desired enhanced antimicrobial or fungicidal activity as IPBC is a known antimicrobial or fungicide while providing a medium on which the IPBC can be supported.
Regarding claim 41, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising an antimicrobial comprising N-butyl-benzisothiazoline (isothiazoline derivative; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 42, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition being a topcoat on a wood coating of a stain or impregnation (antimicrobial coating composition being an overprint varnish; paragraphs [0171] and [0173]).
Regarding claim 43, Preuss discloses an article comprising wood (object; paragraph [0170] and the antimicrobial coating composition coated on the wood to form an antimicrobial coating (protective coating formed from a protective varnish; paragraph [0170]).
Regarding claim 44, Preuss discloses a method comprising coating an antimicrobial coating composition on wood (paragraph [0170]) and UV curing the antimicrobial coating composition (paragraph [0167]); and wherein the antimicrobial coating composition comprises an acrylate polymer (paragraphs [0025 and [0050]), an antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]) and silver supported on zeolite or glass (paragraph [0019]).
Claims 28-45 and 47-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US 2011/0200656 A1) in view of Preuss et al (US 2010/0136073 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Olsson discloses a banknote comprising a sheet (paragraph [0015]) and one or more acrylate layers disposed on the sheet (protective varnish; paragraph [0016]); wherein the one or more acrylate layers comprise one or more antimicrobial agents (paragraph [0016]), wherein the antimicrobial agent comprises silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (particulates loaded or doped with a metal having a zero oxidation state where the metal is silver; paragraph [0021]), wherein the one or more acrylate layers further comprises an additional antimicrobial agent (paragraph [0024]), wherein the one or more acrylate layers is cured via UV curing (radiation hardenable compound; paragraph [0019]),
Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising a fungicide comprising IPBC, from 0.1% to 5.0% by weight of IPBC relative to a total weight of protective varnish and a metal to IPBC weight ratio ranging from 0.0007 to 0.01.
However, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight silver based on the total weight of coating solids (paragraph [0022]), further antimicrobials in an amount from 0.01% to 5% by weight based on the polymer material (paragraph [0069]) and the antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]).
Preuss does not disclose the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the amount of IPBC being 1.5% to 3.5% by weight of the total weight of the protective varnish.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of IPBC to be 1.5%% to 3.5% by weight of the total weight of the protective varnish because doing so would provide enhanced antimicrobial or fungicidal activity as IPBC is a known antimicrobial or fungicide.
Preuss does not appear to explicitly disclose the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the ratio of IPBC to silver ranging from 0.001 to 0.007.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of IPBC to silver to be from 0.001 to 0.007 because doing so would provide the desired enhanced antimicrobial or fungicidal activity as IPBC is a known antimicrobial or fungicide while providing a medium on which the IPBC can be supported.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the IPBC of Preuss for the additional antimicrobial agent of Olsson because having an additional antimicrobial agent such as IPBC provides enhanced antimicrobial activity.
Regarding claim 29, Olsson discloses the banknote having bacterial efficacy (protective varnish having biocidal activity; paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 30, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the antimicrobial agent comprising silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (inorganic particulate material; paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 31, Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising the particulates loaded with from 0.5% to 3% by weight of the metal relative to a total weight of the particulates and metal.
However, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the silver supported on zeolite or glass comprising 0.5% to 5% by weight silver based on the total weight of silver and support material (paragraph [0019]). The amount of silver supported on zeolite or glass overlaps the claimed range of the amount of metal based on the total weight of particulates and metal.
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 in order to have superior antimicrobial effects for the antimicrobial coating composition while not using excess silver as a means for reducing manufacturing cost. Silver supported on zeolite or glass provides superior antimicrobials effects (paragraph [0006] of Preuss). An amount too low would not provide the antimicrobial coating composition with superior antimicrobial effects. An amount too high would lead to excess material being used leading to higher manufacturing cost. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the amount of silver for the silver supported on zeolite or glass based on the total weight of silver and support material of Preuss for the silver in amorphous glass or zeolite of Olsson because doing so superior antimicrobial effects for the antimicrobial coating composition while not using excess silver as a means for reducing manufacturing cost. Silver supported on zeolite or glass provides superior antimicrobials effects (paragraph [0006] of Preuss). An amount too low would not provide the antimicrobial coating composition with superior antimicrobial effects. An amount too high would lead to excess material being used leading to higher manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 32, Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising the particulates having a particle size less than 10 µm.
However, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising the silver supported on zeolite or glass having a particle size of from about 1 to 20 micrometers (paragraph [0019]). The particle size of silver supported on zeolite or glass overlaps the claimed range for the particle size of the particulates.
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 in order to have superior antimicrobial effects for the antimicrobial coating composition while not having the particles protruding from the surface of the coating. Silver supported on zeolite or glass provides superior antimicrobials effects (paragraph [0006] of Preuss). A particle size too low would result in particles not providing superior antimicrobial effects leading to using a higher loading amount in order to compensate for the small particle size. A particle size too high would result in particles protruding from the surface leading to a rough surface texture. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the particle size of the silver supported on zeolite or glass of Preuss for the silver in amorphous glass or zeolite of Olsson because doing so provides superior antimicrobial effects for the antimicrobial coating composition while not having the particles protruding from the surface of the coating. Silver supported on zeolite or glass provides superior antimicrobials effects (paragraph [0006] of Preuss). A particle size too low would result in particles not providing superior antimicrobial effects leading to using a higher loading amount in order to compensate for the small particle size. A particle size too high would result in particles protruding from the surface leading to a rough surface texture.
Regarding claim 33, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the antimicrobial agent comprising silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 34, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the antimicrobial agent comprising silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 35, Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising from 0.001% to 0.2% by weight of the metal relative to a total weight of the protective varnish.
However, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight silver based on the total weight of coating solids (paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the amount of silver based on the total weight of the coating solids of Preuss for the silver of Olsson because doing so provides the desired antimicrobial activity.
Regarding claim 36, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the one or more acrylate layers cured via UV curing (paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 37, Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising an unsaturated acrylic resin.
However, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition being a radiation curable composition curable by UV curing (paragraphs [0167]-[0168]) and comprising an acrylate polymer comprising ethyl α-cyano-6,6-diphenylacrylate (unsaturated acrylic resin; paragraphs [0025 and [0050]). The ethyl α-cyano-6,6-diphenylacrylate is considered to be an unsaturated acrylic resin as ethyl α-cyano-6,6-diphenylacrylate contains unsaturated bonds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the ethyl α-cyano-6,6-diphenylacrylate of Preuss for the acrylate of Olsson because doing so provides the desired curing of the coating.
Regarding claim 38, Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising a free radical photoinitiator.
However, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising a photoinitiator (paragraph [0168]) and wherein the photoinitiator is IRGACURE 500 (paragraph [0201]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Olsson and Preuss before him or her, to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the IRGACURE 500 of Preuss in the acrylate layer of Olsson because doing so improves curing rate and efficiency of the acrylate coating.
Regarding claim 40, Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising a weight ratio of metal to IPBC ranging from 0.0008 to 0.007.
However, Preuss discloses the antimicrobial coating composition comprising from about 0.001% to about 2% by weight silver based on the total weight of coating solids (paragraph [0022]), further antimicrobials in an amount from 0.01% to 5% by weight based on the polymer material (paragraph [0069]) and the antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]).
Preuss does not disclose the ratio of IPBC to silver ranging from 0.0008 to 0.007.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of IPBC to silver to be from 0.0007 to 0.01 because doing so would provide the desired enhanced antimicrobial or fungicidal activity as IPBC is a known antimicrobial or fungicide while providing a medium on which the IPBC can be supported.
Regarding claim 41, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the acrylate layer comprising triclosan (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 42, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the acrylate layer applied to protect the printing (paragraph [0017]). The acrylate layer reads on the claimed overprint varnish.
Regarding claim 43, Olsson discloses a banknote comprising a sheet (object; paragraph [0015]) and one or more acrylate layers disposed on the sheet (protective varnish; paragraph [0016]); wherein the one or more acrylate layers comprise one or more antimicrobial agents (paragraph [0016]), wherein the antimicrobial agent comprises silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (particulates loaded or doped with a metal having a zero oxidation state where the metal is silver; paragraph [0021]), wherein the one or more acrylate layers further comprises an additional antimicrobial agent (paragraph [0024]) and wherein the one or more acrylate layers is cured via UV curing (paragraph [0019]).
Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising a fungicide comprising IPBC.
However, Preuss discloses an antimicrobial coating composition comprising an acrylate polymer (paragraphs [0025 and [0050]), an antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]) and silver supported on zeolite or glass (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the IPBC of Preuss for the additional antimicrobial agent of Olsson because having an additional antimicrobial agent such as IPBC provides enhanced antimicrobial activity.
Regarding claim 44, Olsson discloses a method of making a banknote comprising applying an acrylate layer onto a sheet (paragraphs [0016] and [0017]) and curing the acrylate layer using a UV curing process (paragraph [0019]), wherein the one or more acrylate layers comprise one or more antimicrobial agents (paragraph [0016]), wherein the antimicrobial agent comprises silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (paragraph [0021]) and wherein the one or more acrylate layers further comprises an additional antimicrobial agent (paragraph [0024])
Olsson does not disclose the method comprising a fungicide comprising IPBC.
However, Preuss discloses an antimicrobial coating composition comprising an acrylate polymer (paragraphs [0025 and [0050]), an antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]) and silver supported on zeolite or glass (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Olsson and Preuss before him or her, to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the IPBC of Preuss for the additional antimicrobial agent of Olsson because having an additional antimicrobial agent such as IPBC provides enhanced antimicrobial activity.
Regarding claim 45, Olsson discloses a banknote comprising a sheet (security document; paragraph [0015]) and one or more acrylate layers disposed on the sheet (protective varnish; paragraph [0016]); wherein the one or more acrylate layers comprise one or more antimicrobial agents (paragraph [0016]), wherein the antimicrobial agent comprises silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (particulates loaded or doped with a metal having a zero oxidation state where the metal is silver; paragraph [0021]), wherein the one or more acrylate layers further comprises an additional antimicrobial agent (paragraph [0024]) and wherein the one or more acrylate layers is cured via UV curing (radiation hardenable compound; paragraph [0019]).
Olsson does not disclose the banknote comprising a fungicide comprising IPBC.
However, Preuss discloses an antimicrobial coating composition comprising an acrylate polymer (paragraphs [0025 and [0050]), an antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]) and silver supported on zeolite or glass (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the IPBC of Preuss for the additional antimicrobial agent of Olsson because having an additional antimicrobial agent such as IPBC provides enhanced antimicrobial activity.
Regarding claim 47, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the sheet comprising a polymer (plastic material; paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 48, Olsson discloses the banknote having security features (paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 49, Olsson discloses the banknote having security features (paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 50, Olsson discloses a method of making a banknote comprising applying an acrylate layer onto a sheet (paragraphs [0016] and [0017]) and curing the acrylate layer using a UV curing process (paragraph [0019]), wherein the one or more acrylate layers comprise one or more antimicrobial agents (paragraph [0016]), wherein the antimicrobial agent comprises silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (paragraph [0021]) and wherein the one or more acrylate layers further comprises an additional antimicrobial agent (paragraph [0024])
Olsson does not disclose the method comprising a fungicide comprising IPBC.
However, Preuss discloses an antimicrobial coating composition comprising an acrylate polymer (paragraphs [0025 and [0050]), an antimicrobial comprising IPBC (paragraph [0024]) and silver supported on zeolite or glass (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the banknote of Olsson to include the IPBC of Preuss for the additional antimicrobial agent of Olsson because having an additional antimicrobial agent such as IPBC provides enhanced antimicrobial activity.
Regarding claim 51, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising two thin acrylate layers applied on each side (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 52, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the acrylate layer protecting the printing and the note itself (protective layer configured to reduce or prevent soiling of the security document; paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 53, Olsson discloses the banknote comprising the acrylate layer containing one or more antimicrobial agents (protective coating configured to impart antimicrobial properties to the security document; paragraph [0016]).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (US 2011/0200656 A1) in view of Preuss et al (US 2010/0136073 A1) as described above and further in view of Hofer et al (US 2015/0317919 A1).
Olsson and Preuss are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 46, Olsson in view of Preuss do not disclose the security document comprising cellulosic fibers.
However, Hofer discloses an identification device comprising a face stock and an antimicrobial coating thereon (paragraph [0026]) and wherein the face stock comprises a synthetic material and alternatively a paper material (paragraph [0032]). The paper material is made of cellulose and is considered to contain cellulosic fibers
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Olsson, Preuss and Hofer before him or her, to modify the security document of Olsson and Preuss to include the paper of Hofer for the polymer sheer of Olsson because having paper for a security document provides an alternative material on which an antimicrobial coating is applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 with respect to the claim rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the 112(b) rejections should be withdrawn.
This argument is not persuasive as claims 28, 33 and 41 use language such as “selected from” with the term “or” for the metal in claim 28, the inorganic material in claim 33 and the fungicide in claim 41. When using language similar to Markush group, such as “selected from the group consisting of”, the term “and” should be used instead of “or” (see MPEP 2117). For claims, not using Markush group language, the use of the term “or” is acceptable.
Applicants argue that Preuss fails to disclose or suggest particulates loaded with zero oxidation state metal and that Preuss distinguishes between elemental silver and supported silver.
This argument is not persuasive as paragraph [0019] of Preuss discloses silver supported on zeolite or glass. The supported silver is in particle form with a diameter from 1 to 100 micrometers. Also, the silver is elemental silver (see paragraph [0031] of Preuss) and is the same as the material of the instant application. The patent documents that Preuss refers to in paragraphs [0002]-[0003] and [0015] is not limited to silver ions. Silver supported zeolite also refers to zeolite supporting silver nanoparticles. Based on these reasons, Preuss discloses zeolite supported zero valent silver.
Applicants argue that Preuss fails to disclose or suggest a metal to IPBC ratio ranging from 0.001 to 0.0007 and fails to explain how a person of ordinary skill ion the art would be motivated to arrive at the claimed wt% and presently claimed ratio.
This argument is not persuasive as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of IPBC to silver to be from 0.001 to 0.007 because doing so would provide the desired enhanced antimicrobial or fungicidal activity as IPBC is a known antimicrobial or fungicide while providing a medium on which the IPBC can be supported.
Applicants argue that Olsson and Preutt fail to disclose or suggest particulates loaded with zero oxidation state metal.
This argument is not persuasive as Olsson discloses silver in amorphous glass or zeolite (see paragraph [0021] of Olsson)
Applicants argue that there is no rationale to combine Preuss and Olsson as antimicrobial agents are susceptible to UV light when exposed to UV light.
This argument is not persuasive as paragraph [0019] states that there are antimicrobial agents that degrade upon exposure to UV light. However, there is no evidence that a dried or cured coating containing IPBC would undergo such degradation.
Applicants argue that Preuss fails to remedy the deficiencies of Olsson.
This argument is not persuasive as Preuss is a teaching reference used to teach an antimicrobial coating composition.
However, note that while Preuss does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Preuss is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely an antimicrobial coating composition, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argue that unexpected results are shown with respect to antiviral activity.
This argument is not persuasive as the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data in Tables 14 and 15. Also, criticality has not been shown for the endpoints of 0.0007 and 0.01 for the ratio of metal to IPBC. Based on these reasons, the 103 rejections are maintained.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-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, 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785