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 .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 10/07/2022. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 9 and 11-15 were amended, and claims 16-17 were newly added. Thus, claims 1-17 are presently pending in this application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding specification paragraph [002] line 4, the term “COVD-19” should read --COVID-19-- to correct spelling.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1 line 8, the term “95% microbes” should read --95% of microbes-- or an appropriate equivalent in order to be grammatically correct.
Regarding claim 16 line 2, the term “90% microbes” should read --90% of microbes-- or an appropriate equivalent in order to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an engagement structure” of claim 1 line 6 and claim 11 lines 1-2
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-17 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 1 lines 11, the term “the group” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6 line 1-2, the term “a thickness” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a thickness” of claim 1 line 16.
Regarding claim 6 line 2, claim 7 line 4, claim 8 line 18, and claim 16 line 2, the term “microbes” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “microbes” introduced in claim 1 line 8.
Regarding claim 7 line 4 and claim 8 lines 17-18, the term “the coating material” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9 lines 2-3 and claim 16 lines 1-2, the term “a sulfonated polymeric layer” is unclear as to of the term is the same or different than “a sulfonated polymeric layer” of claim 1 lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 11 lines 1-2, the term “an engagement structure” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “an engagement structure” of claim 1 line 6.
Regarding claim 12 line 3, the term “the polymeric layer” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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, 4, 6, 9-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US 8,678,002; hereinafter “Stewart”) in view of Bhattacharyya et al. (US 2023/0225433; hereinafter “Bhattacharyya”).
Regarding claim 1, Stewart discloses a face mask (see Stewart facial mask 18) comprising:
a mask body configured to cover at least a wearer's mouth and nose (see Stewart Fig. 3 Col. 17 lines 26-27 facial mask 18 comprising facepiece 20 configured to cover the mouth and nose), the mask body allows passage of air from ambient through to the wearer (see Stewart Col. 19 lines 18-19 “wearer is breathing through the covering”), the mask body has a first surface facing the face of the wearer (see Stewart back side 26) and a second surface disposed opposite to the first surface and exposed to the ambient (see Stewart front side 24); and
an engagement structure configured to attach the mask body to the wearer's head (see Stewart one or more than one extension 22);
wherein at least one of the first surface and the second surface is protected by a sulfonated polymeric layer (see Stewart fabric 10 comprising binding substances 12 and the facepiece 20 comprises the fabric comprising a binding substance; Claim 1 “the human pathogen binding group is selected from the group consisting of a sulfate group and a sulfonate group”). Stewart is silent as to the surface protected by a sulfonated polymeric layer is able to kill at least 95% microbes within 30 minutes of contact with the first surface. However, Stewart teaches all of the claimed components required for the face mask surface structure comprising the sulfonated polymeric layer made by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. microbe killing efficacy, would naturally arise and be achieved by a sulfonated polymeric layer having the same chemical composition. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Stewart discloses wherein the sulfonated polymeric layer consists essentially of a sulfonated polymer, the sulfonated polymer is selected from the group of sulfonated polyolefins… sulfonated polyesters, sulfonated polysulfones… and mixtures thereof (see Stewart sulfate or sulfonate group disclosed above, and Col. 7 lines 10-11 “fabrics made from polyester or polyolefin”…);
wherein the sulfonated polymer has a degree of sulfonation of at least 10% (see Stewart Col. 10 lines 39-40, 45-50 “The degree of sulfation is determined by any suitable analytical method that measures sulfate, sulfonate or total sulfur”… degree of sulfonation between 0.02 and 2, 0.05 and 0.5, 0.09 and 0.21).
Stewart is silent as to wherein the sulfonated polymeric layer has a thickness of at least > 1 µm. However, Bhattacharyya teaches the sulfonated polymeric layer has a thickness of at least > 1 µm (see Bhattacharyya mask 10 with polymeric membrane 18; [0044] membrane 18 has a thickness between 30-500 microns (1 to 1 conversion from microns to µm), which is greater than 1 µm; [0045] membrane 18 may be made from polysulfone). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the sulfonated polymeric layer of Stewart with the thickness of the sulfonated polymeric layer as taught by Bhattacharyya as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of sulfonated polymeric layer at a particular thickness for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. kill microbes as a sulfonated polymeric layer does.
Regarding claim 4, modified Stewart discloses the sulfonated polymeric layer, but does not explicitly disclose and is therefore silent as to a surface pH of < 3.0. However, modified Stewart teaches all the claimed structures and ingredients required for the structure of the sulfonated polymeric layer which may be made by a substantially similar process to the present invention. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. surface pH, would naturally arise and be achieved by an antimicrobial layer having the same chemical composition. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding claim 6, modified Stewart discloses the sulfonated polymeric layer has a thickness of at least > 5 µm (see Bhattacharyya rejection to claim 1 above regarding layer thickness), but is silent as to killing >95% of microbes within 120 minutes of contact after six months of protection. However, Stewart teaches all of the claimed components required for the face mask surface structure comprising the sulfonated polymeric layer made by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. microbe killing efficacy, would naturally arise and be achieved by a sulfonated polymeric layer having the same chemical composition. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding claim 9, modified Stewart discloses the mask body includes a filter for filtering air passing therethrough, wherein the filter also comprises a sulfonated polymeric layer (see Stewart Fig. 9 filter 50; Col. 3 lines 36-40 “a removable filter comprising a fabric comprising one or more than one binding substance that binds the one or more than one human pathogen”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Stewart discloses the filter is removable from the mask body (see Stewart Col. 3 lines 36-40 removable filter).
Regarding claim 11, modified Stewart discloses an engagement structure for engaging the face mask to the wearer and retaining the mask body covering the mouth and face of the wearer (see Stewart one or more than one extension 22; Col. 17 lines 26-27 facial mask 18 comprising facepiece 20 configured to cover the mouth and nose).
Regarding claim 12, modified Stewart discloses the face mask is a gas mask (see Stewart Fig. 10 facial mask 18 as gas mask 52) and the mask body includes a filter adapted to absorb one or more gases from the air passing therethrough (see Stewart mechanism 48 for holding filter 50), wherein the filter includes the polymeric layer (see Stewart rejection to claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 13, modified Stewart discloses the face mask includes a transparent screen adapted to be arranged covering eyes of the wearer (see Stewart Fig. 10 pair of eye screens pictured in drawing; covering eye holes).
Regarding claim 14, modified Stewart discloses the sulfonated polymeric layer is applied onto the first surface by any of coating, dispersion coating (see Stewart Col. 7 lines 7-11, 34-36 reactive dyes containing sulfonate groups are coated onto the fabric in the dyeing process).
Regarding claim 17, modified Stewart discloses all of the claimed structures, see rejection to claim 4 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Bhattacharyya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Snapp-Leo et al. (US 2023/0201800; hereinafter “Snapp-Leo”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Stewart is silent as to explicitly disclosing the mask body has a Bacteria Filtration Efficiency (BFE) of > 60%. However, Snapp-Leo teaches the mask body has a Bacteria Filtration Efficiency (BFE) of > 60% (see Snapp-Leo face mask 30 comprised of filter material 1; where [0015] filter material can have a particular bacterial filtration efficiency greater than or equal to 95%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mask body of modified Stewart with the mask body bacterial filtration efficiency value as taught by Snapp-Leo so as to ensure filtering of bacteria by the mask body at a certain rate to protect against certain sized particles.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Bhattacharyya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vachon (US 2017/0304815).
Regarding claim 3, modified Stewart is silent as to the sulfonated polymer has an ionic exchange capacity (IEC) of > 0.5 meq/g. However, Vachon teaches the sulfonated polymer has an ionic exchange capacity (IEC) of > 0.5 meq/g (see Vachon [0052] “Desired ion-exchange capacities found useful for production of activated ion-exchange polymer salts of the invention will typically range between 0.1 and 20.0 mEq/gram”; and [0179] the polymer composites of the invention can be used to construct surgical masks). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfonated polymer of modified Stewart with the sulfonated polymer having an ionic exchange capacity of > 0.5 meq/g as taught by Vachon as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of sulfonated polymer for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. have an ionic exchange capacity suitable for the purpose of protecting against microbes.
Regarding claim 15, modified Stewart discloses all of the claimed structures, see rejection to claim 3 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Bhattacharyya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Claussen et al. (US 2008/0251081; hereinafter “Claussen”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Stewart the sulfonated polymer is neutralized with at least salt (see Stewart Claim 1 “the fabric further comprises one or more than one type of multivalent metallic ion or metallic salt”). Modified Stewart is silent as to the salt is selected from ammonium, phosphonium, pyridinium, and sulfonium salts. However, Claussen teaches the salt is selected from ammonium, phosphonium, pyridinium, and sulfonium salts (see Claussen Figs. 3-5 showing face masks; at least one layer comprises [0078] acid salt may be selected from the group… ammonium salt). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the salt of modified Stewart with the ammonium salt as taught by Claussen as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of metallic salt for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. neutralize the sulfonated polymer as a salt.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Bhattacharyya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Willis et al. (US 7,737,224; hereinafter “Willis”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Stewart is silent as to the sulfonated polymer is selectively sulfonated to contain from 10 - 100 mol % sulfonic acid or sulfonate salt functional groups based on the number of monomer units or blocks in the sulfonated polymer susceptible to sulfonation, for the coating material to kill at least 95% of microbes within 30 minutes of contact. However, Willis teaches the sulfonated polymer is selectively sulfonated to contain from 10 - 100 mol % sulfonic acid or sulfonate salt functional groups based on the number of monomer units or blocks in the sulfonated polymer susceptible to sulfonation (see Willis Col. 9 lines 57-60 “each B block is a polymer block containing 10 to 100 mol percent sulfonic acid or sulfonate functional groups based on the number of monomer units of the B block”; see Title “Sulfonated blocks” such as block B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfonated polymer of modified Stewart with the specific chemically composed sulfonated polymer as taught by Willis as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of sulfonated polymer for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. serve as a sulfonated polymer with antimicrobial properties on the facial mask.
Modified Stewart is silent as to the coating material to kill at least 95% of microbes within 30 minutes of contact. However, modified Stewart teaches all of the claimed components required for the structure of the coating material made by a substantially similar process to the present invention. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. antimicrobial properties, would naturally arise and be achieved by an antimicrobial layer having the same chemical composition. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding claim 8, modified Stewart is silent as to the the sulfonated polymer is a selectively sulfonated negative-charged anionic block copolymer having a general configuration of. A-B-A, (A-B)n(A), (A-B-A)n, (A-B-A)nX, (A-B)nX, A-D-B, A-B-D, A-D-B-D-A, A-B-D-B- A, (A-D-B)A, (A-B-D)A (A-D-B)X, (A-B-D)X or mixtures thereof, wherein
n is an integer from 0 to 30,
X is a coupling agent residue,
each A and D block is a polymer block resistant to sulfonation,
each B block is susceptible to sulfonation,
the A block is selected from polymerized (i) para-substituted styrene monomers, (ii) ethylene, (iii) alpha olefins of 3 to 18 carbon atoms; (iv) 1,3-cyclodiene monomers, (v) monomers of conjugated dienes having a vinyl content less than 35 mol percent prior to hydrogenation, (vi) acrylic esters, (vii) methacrylic esters, and (viii) mixtures thereof,
the B block is a vinyl aromatic monomer, and
the D block is a hydrogenated polymer or copolymer of a conjugated diene selected from isoprene, 1,3-butadiene and mixtures thereof, and
wherein the block B is selectively sulfonated to contain from 10 - 100 mol % sulfonic acid or sulfonate salt functional groups based on the number of monomer units, for the coating material to kill at least 99% of microbes within 30 minutes of contact.
However, Willis teaches the sulfonated polymer is a selectively sulfonated negative-charged anionic block copolymer (see Willis Title “Sulfonated block copolymers”) having a general configuration of A-B-A, (A-B)n(A), (A-B-A)n, (A-B-A)nX, (A-B)nX, A-D-B, A-B-D, A-D-B-D-A, A-B-D-B- A, (A-D-B)A, (A-B-D)A (A-D-B)X, (A-B-D)X or mixtures thereof (see Willis Col. 16 lines 65-67 and Col. 17 line 1 “Preferred structures have the general configuration A-B-A, (A-B)n(A), (A-B-A)n, (A-B-A)nX, (A-B)nX, A-B-D-B-A, A-D-B-D-A, (A-D-B)n(A), (A-B-D)n(A), (A-B-D)nX, (A-D-B)nX or mixtures thereof”), wherein
n is an integer from 0 to 30 (see Willis Col. 17 lines 1-2 “n is an integer from 2 to about 30”),
X is a coupling agent residue (see Willis Col. 17 lines 2 “X is coupling agent residue”),
each A and D block is a polymer block resistant to sulfonation (see Willis Col. 8 lines 60-62 “a. each A block and each D block is a polymer block resistant to sulfonation”),
each B block is susceptible to sulfonation (see Willis Col. 8 lines 60-62 “each B block is a polymer block susceptible to sulfonation”),
the A block is selected from polymerized (i) para-substituted styrene monomers, (ii) ethylene, (iii) alpha olefins of 3 to 18 carbon atoms; (iv) 1,3-cyclodiene monomers… and (viii) mixtures thereof (see Willis Abstract “ each A block comprising one or more segments selected from polymerized (i) para-substituted styrene monomers, (ii) ethylene, (iii) alpha olefins of 3 to 18 carbon atoms; (iv) hydrogenated 1,3-cyclodiene monomers”),
the B block is a vinyl aromatic monomer (see Willis Abstract “each B block comprising segments of one or more polymerized vinyl aromatic monomers”), and
the D block is a hydrogenated polymer or copolymer of a conjugated diene selected from isoprene, 1,3-butadiene and mixtures thereof (see Willis Col. 8 lines 41-46 “at least one block D… One such block comprises a hydrogenated polymer or copolymer of a conjugated diene selected from isoprene, 1,3-butadiene and mixtures thereof”), and
wherein the block B is selectively sulfonated to contain from 10 - 100 mol % sulfonic acid or sulfonate salt functional groups based on the number of monomer units (see Willis Col. 9 lines 57-60 “each B block is a polymer block containing 10 to 100 mol percent sulfonic acid or sulfonate functional groups based on the number of monomer units of the B block”).
Modified Stewart is silent as to the coating material to kill at least 99% of microbes within 30 minutes of contact. However, modified Stewart teaches all of the claimed components required for the structure of the coating material made by a substantially similar process to the present invention. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. antimicrobial properties, would naturally arise and be achieved by an antimicrobial layer having the same chemical composition. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Bhattacharyya as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Brody (US 4,414,693) and Willis.
Regarding claim 16, modified Stewart is silent as to the transparent screen is coated with a sulfonated polymeric layer, sulfonated to > 25 mol % and configured to kill at least 90% microbes within 30 minutes of contact. However, Brody teaches the transparent screen is coated with a sulfonated polymeric layer (see Brody Col. 4 lines 32-34 “the lens 70 is a sheet of transparent hydrophylic polymer, preferably Nafion, or other perfluorosulfonic acid polymer”; wherein perfluorosulfonic acid polymer is listed as a sulfonated polymeric layer in claim 1 of the present invention). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transparent screen of modified Stewart with the transparent screen coating with a sulfonated polymeric layer as taught by Brody so as to provide antimicrobial effects from the sulfonated polymer on another surface contacting the user’s face.
Modified Stewart is silent as to a sulfonated polymeric layer sulfonated to > 25 mol %. However, Willis teaches a sulfonated polymeric layer sulfonated to > 25 mol % (see Willis Col. 9 lines 57-60 “each B block is a polymer block containing 10 to 100 mol percent sulfonic acid or sulfonate functional groups based on the number of monomer units of the B block”; see Title “Sulfonated blocks” such as block B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfonated polymer of modified Stewart with the specifically chemical composition of the sulfonated polymer as taught by Willis as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of sulfonated polymer for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. serve as a sulfonated polymer with antimicrobial properties on the facial mask.
Modified Stewart is silent as to the surface is configured to kill at least 90% microbes within 30 minutes of contact. However, modified Stewart teaches all of the claimed components required for the face mask surface structure comprising the sulfonated polymeric layer made by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. microbe killing efficacy, would naturally arise and be achieved by a sulfonated polymeric layer having the same chemical composition. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Higginson et al. (US 2020/0179848) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0185678) are cited to show a multiple layer sulfonated polymer fiber.
Gan (US 2025/0057167) is cited to show a face mask with sulfonate properties and bacterial filtration efficiency.
Zhu et al. (US 2018/0001244) is cited to show a filtration media with sulfonated group layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Justine Yu can be reached at (571) 272-4835. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785