DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 11/6/2025 wherein claims 1 and 4 have been amended, claims 27-69 have been cancelled and claim 70 has been added.
Claims 1-7, 12-26 and 70 are presented for examination on the merits. Claims 8-11 remain withdrawn.
The following rejections are made.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 70 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 2/5/2026 overcomes the rejection of claims 1-7, 17-26, 57 and 58 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Kato et al. (Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 47(5), 1995, 557-566) in view of You et al. (US 2004/0137041; of record, 12/15/2022 IDS) and Sun et al. (US 2010/0233458). This rejection has been withdrawn as the references fail to teach polymer film as having been treated by UV, plasma or corona treatment. It is noted that claims 57 and 58 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments filed 2/5/2026 overcomes the rejection of claim 4 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 112(b). This rejection has been withdrawn.
New Rejections, Necessitated by Amendment
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, 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.
Claims 1-7 and 12-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 47(5), 1995, 557-566; of record) in view of Keogh (US 5728420), You et al. (US 2004/0137041; of record, 12/15/2022 IDS) and Sun et al. (US 2010/0233458; of record).
Kato describes a microfiber comprising a polyethylene terephthalate base (‘polymer’) which is coated with polyacrylic (‘hyrogel’) (see instant claims 2-4) and then modified with an immunoglobulin such as IgY and IgG (see instant claims 1, 5-7) (see page 558). Figure 1 of Kato provide the following representation of the process to create the material:
PNG
media_image1.png
723
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Figure 1). It is observed that the immunoglobulin protein is attached to the surface via amido (CONH) bond (see instant claims 18 and 19).
Regarding the IgY being active against a bacterium virus or fungus as recited by instant claims 12-17, this is an inherent property of the immunoglobulin. As the IgY of the prior art is structurally the same as that being claimed, the properties must necessarily follow despite not being recognized as such.
Kato’s material is free/substantially free of inorganic components as observed from Figure 1 noted above (see instant claims 22 and 23).
Kato does not teach their composition as including an antibiotic and so it can be said that the composition is free of antibiotic drugs (see instant claim 24).
As Kato’s material is overlapping with that claimed (i.e. polymer/hydrogel/antimicrobial agent), it must also have the property of being compostable, despite being unrecognized as such by the prior art (see instant claim 25).
Kato fails to teach the polymer layer as being treated by UV, plasma or corona discharge.
Keogh describes an oxidative method for the covalent attachment of glycoproteins to device surfaces. Immunoglobulins, as contemplated by Kato, are glycoproteins (see column 4, lines 57-59). The surface of the device to be covalently modified by glycoprotein is functionalized by treatment with ozone, UV, corona and plasma discharge (see column 5, lines 21-25). It is taught that treatment of hydrophobic surfaces with such treatments prevents any unwanted hydrophobic interactions between the glycoprotein and the surface which can destroy the biological properties of the attached protein. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the surface of the substrate material using the techniques (e.g. UV, corona, plasma and/or corona discharge) of Keogh with a reasonable expectation in a) rendering the surface suitable for receipt of the immunoglobulin and b) rendering the surface hydrophilic so as to do away with unfavorable hydrophobic interactions between the substate material and the attached protein. It’s noted that Kato suggests an ozone surface treatment. The modification of Kato’s material is nothing more that the use of a known technique to improve a similar product in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Kato fails to teach the polymer/hydrogel/protein structure as being in the form a film.
You is directed to film compositions wherein the composition comprises a PET film which is sprayed with a chitosan gel composition and then treated with an immunoglobulin (see abstract, [0012, 0019, 0033]). It is taught that films and fibers are interchangeable (see [0010]) and that the composite is useful as a food packaging material. One would have been motivated to modify Kato’s fibers/fabric material to instead provide a structure (polymer/hydrogel/immunoglobulin) as a film, such as that described by You, with a reasonable expectation for success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) which states that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is evidence of obviousness. See also MPEP 2144.4(IV)(B) that states changes in shape are obvious absent some evidence to the contrary. Thus, manipulating Kato’s composition to be structured as a film would have been obvious and been readily envisioned by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Kato (and You) fail to teach the polymer as being polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT).
Sun describes a thermoplastic polymer microfiber/film material for use in biocidal textiles, woven fabrics, protein supports and so on (see abstract) wherein the composite is based upon a thermoplastic polymer. Exemplified thermoplastic polymers include polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) (see claim 11) (see instant claims 1, 20 and 21). Given that PET and PBAT were both known to be interchangeable polyester polymers for use in fibers and films, one would have had a reasonable expectation for success in modifying the combination of Kato and You such that the polymer support layer was that of PBAT. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) which states that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is indicia of obviousness.
Regarding the claim limitations that the film be a packaging film for a perishable item, this is an intended use limitation. See MPEP 2111.02(II). Absent a clear structural limitation as to how the claimed film differs from the resulting film of Kato, You and Sun, the obvious film resulting therefrom would be expected to be capable of packaging a perishable item. However, it is noted that You teaches their film may be used as a food packaging film.
Regarding the limitation that the thickness of the film be substantially free of antimicrobial agent, this is a feature of the cited prior art as the references provide a base polymer and unto its surface provide the antimicrobial. Thus, the thickness of the film can be fairly described as being substantially free of the antimicrobial agent.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611