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
Examiner Miller, who worked on the non-final Office action which was mailed on 1/26/26, is no longer with the Office. As such, this case has been transferred to the undersigned Examiner. The restriction requirement, mailed on 8/7/25, is wholly maintained. Claims 1-17 are currently pending with claims 18-30 being withdrawn to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 3/31/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 to include the limitation that the polymer is a polymer fiber. This amendment overcomes the prior art rejection to Huang et al. (CN-110317282). Huang et al. teaches the reaction of a cellulose (chitosan) with an amine-porphyrin. However, Huang et al. does not teach that the cellulose is in the form of a fiber which is required by independent claim 1. Applicants amendments to claims 6 and 14 overcome the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections, respectively, from the previous Office action. Further search has led to new prior art rejections as described below. A claim which was previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter has been included in one of the rejections below. As such, this Office action is non-final.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation as recited in the non-final rejection from 1/26/26 also applies herein with equal force.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chauhan et al. (Chem. Commun. 2013, 49, 8525-8527, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 12/29/23).
Claims 1-4: Chauhan et al. teaches the preparation of nanocrystalline cellulose-porphyrin hybrids wherein an amino-functional porphyrin is reacted with cellulose fibril. A fibril can be considered to be a fiber as a fibril is merely a micro- or nano-scale fiber component rather than a standalone textile fiber. However, claim 1 does not distinguish the limitation “fiber” in any way. Scheme 1 of Chauhan et al shows the reaction between a -COOH functionalized cellulose fibril (which reads on Applicants polymer comprising carboxyl groups on a surface) and an amino-functional porphyrin (which reads on Applicants amino-functionalized macrocycle). Cellulose is a polysaccharide satisfying claim 2 and claim 3 and the amino-functionalized porphyrin satisfies claim 4.
Claims 7, 8, 11, and 12: Chauhan et al. teaches that the reaction between the cellulose fibrils and the porphyrin is done using carbodiimide chemistry in water, which satisfies the limitations of claims 7, 8, 11, and 12 (page 8525, bottom right).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2001, 82, 839-846).
Claims 1-5: Figure 2 of Cho et al. teaches a grafting reaction between a polypropylene fabric (which inherently comprises a plurality of fibers) and a macrocyclic compound. The difference between Figure 2 of Cho et al. and independent claim 1 is that the polypropylene fabric in Cho et al. is amine-functionalized and the macrocycle is carboxylic-acid functionalized while independent claim 1 is drawn to a polymer fiber having carboxyl groups on a surface and the macrocycle comprises an amine group. While Cho et al. and independent claim 1 differ, the resulting treated fiber comprises an amide bond between the polymer and the macrocycle in both Cho et al. and claim 1.
It is well established in the chemical arts that when two groups are joined via a standard condensation linkage (such as the creation of an amide bond between the reaction of an amine and a carboxylic acid), swapping the molecule which bears the nucleophile (-NH2) and which bears the electrophile (-COOH) is a matter of routine optimization. The resulting chemical bridge linking the macrocycle to the polymer backbone is functionally identical. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the reaction shown in Figure 2 of Cho et al. could go either way. For example, grafting acrylic acid or maleic anhydride onto polypropylene to introduce -COOH group is just as common as plasma-modifying it to be -NH2 terminated. Coupling either variation to a complementary phthalocyanine uses the exact same water-soluble carbodiimide (WSC) chemistry shown in Figure 2 of Cho et al. Such a modification achieves the same exact structural goal, which is covalently anchoring a phthalocyanine to a polypropylene textile platform to exploit the catalytic or deodorizing properties described by Cho et al. A polypropylene fabric comprising a plurality of carboxylic acid groups also satisfies the limitations of claims 2 and 3 and an amino-functional phthalocyanine satisfies the limitations of claims 4 and 5.
Claims 7 and 8: The WSC chemistry described by Cho et al. involves mixing the polymer fabric and the macrocycle in a water soluble carbodiimide so as to react the polymer fiber and macrocycle, thereby satisfying claims 7 and 8.
Claims 11 and 12: The WSC chemistry described by Cho et al. employs 1-ethyl-3-dimethylaminopropyle carbodiimide which is a coupling agent satisfying the limitations of claims 11 and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 10, and 13-17 are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights