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 .
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 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 23 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimori et al. (CN 102548563).
Regarding claims 1, 3, Fujimori et al. teaches a hydrophobic fabric (polyester fabric is taught) coated with an aqueous (water is taught as the solvent) coating formulation comprising at least one polymer (polymers taught in 0047) and particles of at least one low water insolubility antimicrobial material (copper iodide taught in 0015) [0010, 0047, 0072, Examples]. The average size of the particles of the at least one low water insolubility antimicrobial material is in the claimed range (1 nm or greater is taught)[0045]. The aqueous coating formulation forms a water insoluble coating (coating taught in Examples and 0047 and 0010 are water insoluble) on the hydrophobic fabric upon removal of water [0073 and 0090].
Regarding claim 2, Fujimori et al. teach inclusion of at least one other antimicrobial material [claim 3].
Regarding claim 4, the fabric is nonwoven [0061].
Regarding claim 7, Fujimori et al. teaches the low water solubility antimicrobial material in the insoluble coating is present in a concentration greater than 0.1% and less than 35% by weight of the insoluble coating [0057].
Regarding claim 8, Fujimori et al. teaches a personal protective item selected from a face mask, a gown, and a hair covering comprising the coated hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 [0067].
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Fujimori et al. teaches a hydrophobic fabric (fabric is taught) coated with an aqueous (water is taught as the solvent) coating formulation comprising at least one polymer (polymers taught in 0047) and particles of at least one low water insolubility antimicrobial material (copper iodide taught in 0015) [0010, 0047, 0072, Examples]. The average size of the particles of the at least one low water insolubility antimicrobial material is in the claimed range (1 nm or greater is taught)[0045]. The aqueous coating formulation forms a water insoluble coating (coating taught in Examples and 0047 and 0010 are water insoluble) on the hydrophobic fabric upon removal of water [0073 and 0090]. Fujimori et al. teach the fabric includes polyolefin fabrics and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given polyolefin fabrics are taught and in order to coat a variety of fabrics including polyolefins in order to render them antimicrobial and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Fujimori et al. teach inclusion of at least one other antimicrobial material [claim 3].
Regarding claim 13, Fujimori et al. teaches the low water solubility antimicrobial material in the insoluble coating is present in a concentration greater than 0.1% and less than 35% by weight of the insoluble coating [0057].
Regarding claims 28-29, Fujimori et al. teach A hydrophobic fabric coated with an aqueous coating formulation comprising at least one polymer and at least one low water solubility antimicrobial material (cuprous iodide is taught), wherein the aqueous coating formulation forms a water-insoluble coating on the hydrophobic fabric upon removal of water from the aqueous coating formulation coated on the hydrophobic fabric [0010, 0047, 0072-0073, 0090, Examples].
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimori et al. (CN 102548563) or in the alternative over Fujimori (CN 102548563)in view of Cui et al. (CN 111602896).
Regarding claim 9, Fujimori et al. is silent regarding the multiple layers. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the mask have the multiple layers of fabric in the mask of Fujimori et al. with one of the layers being the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to improve the strength of the mask and protection properties and further use all layers of the mask to be the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to provide uniform properties throughout the mask and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative Cui et al. teach multilayer mask in order to provide improved protection, filtration and skin friendly properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the multiple layers of Cui et al. in Fujimori et al. in order to provide improved protection, filtration and skin friendly properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Fujimori et al. is silent regarding the multiple layers. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the mask have the multiple layers of fabric in the mask of Fujimori et al. with one of the layers being the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to improve the strength of the mask and protection properties and further use all layers of the mask to be the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to provide uniform properties throughout the mask and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative Cui et al. teach multilayer mask in order to provide improved protection, filtration and skin friendly properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the multiple layers of Cui et al. in Fujimori et al. in order to provide improved protection, filtration and skin friendly properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimori (CN 102548563) in view of Choi et al. (KR 2006/0111181).
Regarding claims 24-25, Fujimori et al. teach a hydrophobic nonwoven fabric coated with an aqueous formulation comprising particles of an antimicrobial material having a water solubility in the claimed range (cuprous iodide taught in 0015) [0010, 0047, 0072, Examples] wherein the aqueous formulation forms a water insoluble coating on the hydrophobic fabric upon drying.
Fujimori et al. teaches surfactants (surface active agent), but are silent regarding the surfactant being a Gemini type surfactant. However, Choi et al. teach a Gemini type surfactant in order to provide low irritation to the human body, having excellent biodegradability and excellent compatibility with other surfactants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Gemini type surfactant of Choi et al. in Fujimori et al. in order to provide low irritation to the human body, having excellent biodegradability and excellent compatibility with other surfactants and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26, Fujimori et al. teach inclusion of at least one other antimicrobial material [claim 3].
Regarding claim 27, Fujimori et al. teach a product comprising the hydrophobic non-woven fabric of claim 24, wherein the product is a face mask, a hair covering, or a gown [0067].
Claims 5, 11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimori (CN 102548563) in view of Takino et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0359633).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Fujimori et al. are silent regarding the cuprous iodide particles being functionalized. However, Takino et al. teach cuprous iodide particle functionalized with zirconium oxide in order to improve dispersibility. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the functionalized cuprous iodide particles of Takino et al. in Fujimori et al. in order to improve dispersibility and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 21-22, Fujimori et al. teach the water insoluble polymer in the aqueous coating, but are silent regarding the claimed water soluble polymer in the aqueous coating. However, Takino et al. teach inclusion of water soluble polymer which is PVP in order to increase the contribution of polar component to surface free energy on a surface of the coating film or the resin member and thus bacteria and/or viruses having both a hydrophilic group and a hydrophobic group are readily spread and adsorbed on the surface of the coating film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the water soluble PVP in the aqueous coating along with the water insoluble polymer of Takino et al. in Fujimori et al. in order to increase the contribution of polar component to surface free energy on a surface of the coating film or the resin member and thus bacteria and/or viruses having both a hydrophilic group and a hydrophobic group are readily spread and adsorbed on the surface of the coating film and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 21-23 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takino et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0359633) as evidenced by Fujimori et al (CN 102548563) and CA 2746980.
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, Takino et al. teach a hydrophobic nonwoven fabric
(polypropylene, polyethylene are taught and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any substrate including the taught nonwoven with polyolefin fibers which are hydrophobic in order to render such fabric hydrophobic) coated with a coating formulation comprising at least one polymer and particles of at least one low solubility antimicrobial material (taught as functionalized particles (functionalized by zirconium oxide) of cuprous iodide) with a concentration of the particles in the claimed amount [Table 1, 0016, 0031, 0058-0059, 0095 and 0130]. Takino et al. teach a personal protective item including a mask [0058-0059]. Takino et al. teach inclusion of a solvent and it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the most common which is water (and thus create an aqueous coating) and well known solvent in the art for cost savings and readily available materials and further evidenced by Fujimori et al. and CA 2746980, water is known as a solvent used in the art and an obvious alternative to toluene and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for a cost savings. It is also noted that Examples 1-3 teach water insoluble coating (98% olefin with 1% PVP on polypropylene sheet (which is hydrophobic) and also teaches nonwoven fabric as an alternative to the sheet and therefore plain and clear that Fujimori encompassed aqueous coating on hydrophobic fabrics and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention given the teachings of Fujimori et al. in order to provide fabrics with antibacterial properties including polyolefin fabric in order to provide hydrophobicity and good filtration properties polypropylene fabric provide and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Takino et al. teach the aqueous coating formulation additionally contains at least one another antimicrobial material, an antibiotic or antiviral agent [0082].
Regarding claims 10-11, 13 and 23, Takino et al. teach a product including a mask comprising a hydrophobic polyolefin fabric (polypropylene, polyethylene are taught and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any substrate including the taught nonwoven with polyolefin fibers which are hydrophobic in order to render such fabric hydrophobic) coated with an antimicrobial formulation comprising particles of a low water solubility copper compound (including functionalized particles of cuprous iodide) with a concentration of the particles in the claimed amount and at least one water insoluble polymer and the aqueous antimicrobial formulation forms a water insoluble coating on the hydrophobic polyolefin fabric upon the removal of water [Table 1, 0016, 0031, 0058-0059, 0095 and 0130]. Takino et al. teach inclusion of a solvent and it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the most common which is water (and thus create an aqueous coating) and well known solvent in the art for cost savings and readily available materials and further evidenced by Fujimori et al. and CA 2746980, water is known as a solvent used in the art and an obvious alternative to toluene and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for a cost savings. It is also noted that Examples 1-3 teach water insoluble coating (98% olefin with 1% PVP on polypropylene sheet (which is hydrophobic) and also teaches nonwoven fabric as an alternative to the sheet and therefore plain and clear that Fujimori encompassed aqueous coating on hydrophobic fabrics and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention given the teachings of Fujimori et al. in order to provide fabrics with antibacterial properties including polyolefin fabric in order to provide hydrophobicity and good filtration properties polypropylene fabric provide and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Takino et al. teach the aqueous coating formulation additionally contains at least one another antimicrobial material, an antibiotic or antiviral agent [0082].
Regarding claims 21-22, the aqueous coating formulation comprises a water insoluble polymer and a water soluble polymer (taught as PVP) [0026 and 0056 and Examples].
Regarding claims 28-29, Takino et al. teach a hydrophobic fabric (polypropylene, polyethylene are taught and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any substrate including the taught nonwoven with polyolefin fibers which are hydrophobic in order to render such fabric hydrophobic)coated with an aqueous coating formulation comprising at least one polymer and at least one low water solubility antimicrobial material (copper compound) wherein the aqueous coating formulation forms a water insoluble coating on the hydrophobic fabric upon the removal of water from the aqueous coating formulation coated on the hydrophobic fabric [Table 1, 0016, 0031, 0058-0059, 0095 and 0130]. Takino et al. teach inclusion of a solvent and it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the most common which is water (and thus create an aqueous coating) and well known solvent in the art for cost savings and readily available materials and further evidenced by Fujimori et al. and CA 2746980, water is known as a solvent used in the art and an obvious alternative to toluene and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for a cost savings.
It is also noted that Examples 1-3 teach water insoluble coating (98% olefin with 1% PVP on polypropylene sheet (which is hydrophobic) and also teaches nonwoven fabric as an alternative to the sheet and therefore plain and clear that Fujimori encompassed aqueous coating on hydrophobic fabrics and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention given the teachings of Fujimori et al. in order to provide fabrics with antibacterial properties including polyolefin fabric in order to provide hydrophobicity and good filtration properties polypropylene fabric provide and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takino et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0359633) or in the alternative over Takino et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0359633) in view of Cui et al. (CN 111602896).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Takino et al. are silent regarding the multiple layers. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the mask have the multiple layers of fabric in the mask of Takino et al. with one of the layers being the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to improve the strength of the mask and protection properties and further use all layers of the mask to be the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to provide uniform properties throughout the mask and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative Cui et al. teach multilayer mask in order to provide improved protection, filtration and skin friendly properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the multiple layers of Cui et al. in Takino et al. in order to provide improved protection, filtration and skin friendly properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takino et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0359633) in view of Choi et al. (KR 20060111181).
Regarding claims 24-25, and 27, Takino et al. teach a hydrophobic nonwoven (polypropylene, polyethylene are taught and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any substrate including the taught nonwoven with polyolefin fibers which are hydrophobic in order to render such fabric hydrophobic) coated with a formulation comprising particles of an antimicrobial material having a water solubility of less than 100 mg/L (cuprous iodide particles) wherein the aqueous formulation forms a water insoluble coating on the hydrophobic nonwoven fabric upon drying [Table 1, 0016, 0031, 0058-0059, 0095 and 0130]. Takino et al. teach a product comprising the hydrophobic nonwoven fabric of claim 24 which is a mask. Takino et al. teach inclusion of a solvent and it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the most common which is water (and thus create an aqueous coating) and well known solvent in the art for cost savings and readily available materials and further evidenced by Fujimori et al. and CA 2746980, water is known as a solvent used in the art and an obvious alternative to toluene and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for a cost savings.
It is also noted that Examples 1-3 teach water insoluble coating (98% olefin with 1% PVP on polypropylene sheet (which is hydrophobic) and also teaches nonwoven fabric as an alternative to the sheet and therefore plain and clear that Fujimori encompassed aqueous coating on hydrophobic fabrics and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention given the teachings of Fujimori et al. in order to provide fabrics with antibacterial properties including polyolefin fabric in order to provide hydrophobicity and good filtration properties polypropylene fabric provide and arrive at the claimed invention.
Takino et al. teach surfactants, but are silent regarding the surfactant being a Gemini type surfactant. However, Choi et al. teach a Gemini type surfactant in order to provide low irritation to the human body, having excellent biodegradability and excellent compatibility with other surfactants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Gemini type surfactant of Choi et al. in Takino et al. in order to provide low irritation to the human body, having excellent biodegradability and excellent compatibility with other surfactant and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26, Takino et al. teach the aqueous coating formulation additionally
contains at least one another antimicrobial material, an antibiotic or antiviral agent [0082].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, it is noted that since Takino, which was previously used in rejection set forth on 09/03/2025, The Office has responded to those arguments. Applicant argues Takino does not teach coating a hydrophobic polyolefin fabric with an aqueous formulation to form a water insoluble coating. Takino et al. teach a hydrophobic nonwoven fabric (polypropylene, polyethylene are taught and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any substrate including the taught nonwoven with polyolefin fibers which are hydrophobic in order to render such fabric hydrophobic) coated with a coating formulation comprising at least one polymer and particles of at least one low solubility antimicrobial material (taught as functionalized particles (functionalized by zirconium oxide) of cuprous iodide) with a concentration of the particles in the claimed amount [Table 1, 0016, 0031, 0058-0059, 0095 and 0130]. Takino et al. teach inclusion of a solvent and it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the most common which is water (and thus create an aqueous coating) and well known solvent in the art for cost savings and readily available materials and further evidenced by Fujimori et al. and CA 2746980, water is known as a solvent used in the art and an obvious alternative to toluene and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for a cost savings. It is also noted that Examples 1-3 teach water insoluble coating (98% olefin with 1% PVP on polypropylene sheet (which is hydrophobic) and also teaches nonwoven fabric as an alternative to the sheet and therefore plain and clear that Fujimori encompassed aqueous coating on hydrophobic fabrics and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention given the teachings of Fujimori et al. in order to provide fabrics with antibacterial properties including polyolefin fabric in order to provide hydrophobicity and good filtration properties polypropylene fabric provide and arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claimed coating a hydrophobic polyolefin fabric with an aqueous formulation to form a water insoluble coating is obvious over Takino et al. It is further noted the rejection set forth a 35 USC 102 rejection over Takino in the Office Action dated 09/03/2025 and the rejection above used a 35 USC 103 rejection over Takino.
Applicant argues the claimed multiple layers is not obvious over Takino. Takino et al. are silent regarding the multiple layers. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the mask have the multiple layers of fabric in the mask of Takino et al. with one of the layers being the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to improve the strength of the mask and protection properties and further use all layers of the mask to be the hydrophobic fabric of claim 1 in order to provide uniform properties throughout the mask and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative Cui et al. teach multilayer mask in order to provide improved protection, filtration and skin friendly properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the multiple layers of Cui et al. in Takino et al. in order to provide improved protection, filtration and skin friendly properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art Not Used but Relevant
US Pat. 6723428 teaches antimicrobial fibrous products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights