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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-13 are pending and under current examination.
Withdrawn Claim Objections and Rejections
All objections pertaining to claim 1 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 6/11/2026.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 6/11/2026.
All provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections over co-pending application no. 18/833,966 are withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed and approved on 6/11/2026.
All provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections over co-pending application no. 18/995,974 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims and arguments filed 6/11/2026.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
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.
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, 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoine et. al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, pg. 196-205, publication year: 2014, cited in the IDS filed 2/17/2023, of record) in view of Denadai et. al. (Carbohydrate Research, pg. 2286-2296, publication year: 2007, of record) and Yasuhiro (JPH06158002A, publication date: 6/7/1994, citations refer to machine translation), as evidenced by Deshwal et. al. (Journal of Food Science Technology, pg. 4391-4403, publication year: 2019, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Lavoine discloses cellulosic paper substrates (pg. 197, 2.1 Materials) that are coated with a chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex (pg. 198, 2.2.3 Coating mixtures). The chlorhexidine and beta-cyclodextrin are mixed in a ratio of 67/33, which is a ratio of about 2:1 (pg. 198, 2.2.3 Coating mixtures). Lavoine also teaches that beta-cyclodextrins provide reservoir systems for chlorhexidine molecules. Chlorhexidine molecules not included into beta-cyclodextrins still remain homogenously distributed within the paper matrix and can thus be considered a monolithic system. The chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin coated sample therefore involved two release mechanisms: the reservoir and monolithic systems. The use of beta-cyclodextrin induces a “lag-time effect” because the chlorhexidine takes time to diffuse into the beta-cyclodextrins and paper substrate and cross it (pg. 201, 3.2.1 CHX release in aqueous medium). After 10 hours of release, 5mg/g chlorhexidine is released from the chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin coated sample (pg. 201, 3.2.1 CHX release in aqueous medium). Lavoine also discloses that the paper samples have an initial use for food packaging (pg. 197, 2.1 Materials).
Regarding claim 5, Lavoine discloses that the chlorhexidine was diluted to 2% by weight (pg. 197, 2.1 Materials and 2.2.3 Coating Mixtures).
Regarding claim 6, Lavoine discloses that the coated paper may be prepared by first mixing chlorhexidine and beta-cyclodextrin in distilled water (pg. 198, 2.2.3 Coating Mixtures). The samples are prepared by the coating of the base paper with the solution with a bar-coating process. The bar-coating process occurred at a speed of 5cm/s (pg. 197, 2.2.2 Coating Process) and the paper samples had a size of 10x10cm2 (pg. 198, 2.2.4 Determination of CHX amount introduced in paper samples). Five successive layers of the solutions are coated onto the untreated paper surface (pg. 197, 2.2.2 Coating Process); therefore the paper samples are coating for a 2s/layer and a total of 10s/5 layers. The paper samples are dried at 105oC between each layer and after the final layer (pg. 197, 2.2.2 Coating Process). The instant specification details a saturation process to include dripping a paper sample and subsequent spreading with a steel rod [0085 of instant specification]. The Examiner therefore considers the coating process disclosed by Lavoine to read on the “saturation” limitation of the instant claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Lavoine discloses that the paper samples have an initial use for food packaging (pg. 197, 2.1 Materials). The chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex is released after 24 hours (pg. 204, Results and Discussion). Deshwal teaches that paper food packaging is disposable by incineration, landfilling, pyrolysis and composting (pg. 4391, Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Lavoine discloses that the paper samples have an initial use for food packaging (pg. 197, 2.1 Materials). The chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex is released after 24 hours (pg. 204, Results and Discussion).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the claims recite the limitation “including against coronaviruses”; the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in or order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention form the prior art, therefore the coated paper samples embraced by Lavoine reads on the instant claims. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 1, Lavoine does not teach an adhesive, a molar ratio of chlorhexidine to cyclodextrin or a release range within the range embraced by the instant claims. However this deficiency is cured by Yasuhiro and Denadai.
Yasuhiro teaches an antimicrobial pressure-sensitive adhesive tape comprising an isothiocyanate ester included in a cyclodextrin [0008]. The base material of the tape may be formed of paper [0016]. The base material forms a skeleton of the tape and a pressure sensitive adhesive disposed on one side of the base material, wherein the base material or the pressure sensitive adhesive or both of then contain an antimicrobial agent in which isothiocyanic acid ester is included in cyclodextrin [0007]. The antimicrobial gas is gradually released into a packaging material only by appropriately adhering the tape to the packaging material. The degree of the antimicrobial effect to be imparted to food within the packaging can be appropriately adjusted by the adhesion position and amount of the tape in the packaging material. An antimicrobial effect can be easily imparted to food in the packaging form when necessary by attaching the antimicrobial tape [0022]. The tape may be utilized in any material for handling food, such as a lunch box, food tray, or food packaging bag [0021]. Denadai teaches that a 1:4 molar ratio of chlorhexidine to beta-cyclodextrin can increase the concentration of the active component and that the activity of the formulations is molar ratio dependent (pg. 2294, 2.4 Antimicrobial evaluation).
Finding of a Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to include an adhesive with the paper substrate of Lavoine. One would have understood in view of Yasuhiro that a pressure-sensitive adhesive enables a paper substrate coated with a cyclodextrin: antimicrobial agent inclusion complex to enables control of the location and amount of antimicrobial effect imparted to a food contained within the package. It would have been obvious to include such an adhesive with the paper substrate of Lavoine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an adhesive with the paper substrate of Lavoine in order to control the location and amount of antimicrobial effect and to easily impart the antimicrobial effect to non-disposable items such as a lunch box or food tray. The artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success because Yasuhiro teaches that a paper substrate containing a cyclodextrin: antimicrobial agent inclusion complex may also contain an adhesive.
Regarding the molar ratio of chlorhexidine to cyclodextrin as specified in claim 1, MPEP 2144.05 states:
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Denadai teaches that the antimicrobial activity of a chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex is molar ratio dependent (pg. 2294, 2.4 Antimicrobial evaluation). The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected molar ratios in claim 1 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the direct effect that the molar ratio of chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin has on the antimicrobial activity of a formulation, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the molar ratio. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the molar ratio as this could be expected to be advantageous for optimizing the antimicrobial activity of the composition.
Regarding the release rate of chlorhexidine as specified in claim 1, MPEP 2144.05 states:
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Lavoine teaches that beta-cyclodextrin forms reservoirs for chlorhexidine that slow the diffusion of chlorhexidine through the paper substrate. The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected release rate in claim 1 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the direct effect that beta-cyclodextrin has on the release rate of chlorhexidine from the paper substrate, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the release rate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the release as this could be expected to be advantageous for the prolonged antimicrobial activity of the paper substrate.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoine et. al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, pg. 196-205, publication year: 2014, cited in the IDS filed 2/17/2023, of record) of Denadai et. al. (Carbohydrate Research, pg. 2286-2296, publication year: 2007, of record) and Yasuhiro (JPH06158002A, publication date: 6/7/1994, citations refer to machine translation), as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Davenport (U.S. Patent No. 8,062,415, issue date: 11/22/2011, of record), as evidenced by Werner Mathis (Coating of a Wide Range of Materials, available 2017, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Lavoine teaches the relevant limitations as described above.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Lavoine does not teach the inclusion of a varnish or dye in the aqueous solution. However, this deficiency is cured by Davenport.
Davenport teaches an aqueous solution that may contain an organic coloring pigment and an anionic direct dye (col. 1 lines 40-53). The solutions may be utilized in a bath that is added to a Werner Mathis size press through which a paper sample is passed through (col. 3 lines 55-57). Werner Mathis teaches that a size press is used for coating paper samples (pg. 8, Sizepress type SP).
Finding of a Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to include a dye or varnish in the aqueous solution used to coat the paper disclosed by Lavoine. One would have understood in view of Davenport that an organic pigment or anionic dye may be included in an aqueous solution that is to be applied to paper via a size press. It would have been obvious that the aqueous solution taught by Lavoine that is applied to paper via spreading may also include a dye. One of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have been motivated to include a dye in the aqueous solution in order to impart a desired color to the paper. The artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success because Davenport teaches that an aqueous solution comprising an organic pigment or dye may be used to dye a paper substrate via a coating process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoine et. al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, pg. 196-205, publication year: 2014, cited in the IDS filed 2/17/2023, of record) in view of Denadai et. al. (Carbohydrate Research, pg. 2286-2296, publication year: 2007, of record) and Yasuhiro (JPH06158002A, publication date: 6/7/1994, citations refer to machine translation), as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Williams (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0230539, publication year: 2020).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Lavoine teaches the relevant limitations as described above. Lavoine also teaches that the cellulose fibers of the paper are linked to the chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin by both the chlorhexidine and cyclodextrin molecules, which facilitates the release of the entire complex over a longer period of time (pg. 203, 3.2.2 CHX/βCD-coated samples and Figure 6). Lavoine also teaches that the chlorhexidine: cyclodextrin inclusion complexes have a positive charge that enable association with the negatively charged cellulose fibers (Figure 6).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Lavoine does not teach an air conditioning filter comprising a mesh material coated with a chlorhexidine and cyclodextrin inclusion complex. However, this deficiency is cured by Williams.
Williams teaches a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning home air filter comprising paper, foam, cotton, spun fiberglass, or other known filter materials and may be woven or non-woven [0009]. An electrostatic portion of the filter medium comprises at least some fibers that are treated with a coating of antimicrobial molecules configured to destroy microbes. The antimicrobial molecules comprise positively charged molecules distributed around a circumference of each of the at least some fibers [0012].
Finding of a Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to substitute equivalents, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (the antimicrobial coating of Williams and the chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex coating of Lavoine for the purpose of imparting antimicrobial activity to a negatively charged mesh material). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
The claim recites the limitation “including against coronaviruses”; the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in or order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention form the prior art, therefore the coated air filters embraced by Lavoine in view of Williams reads on the instant claims. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoine et. al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, pg. 196-205, publication year: 2014, cited in the IDS filed 2/17/2023, of record) in view of Denadai et. al. (Carbohydrate Research, pg. 2286-2296, publication year: 2007, of record) and Yasuhiro (JPH06158002A, publication date: 6/7/1994, citations refer to machine translation), as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Fox, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 5,616,338, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Lavoine teaches the relevant limitations as described above. Lavoine also teaches that the cellulose fibers of the paper are linked to the chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin by both the chlorhexidine and cyclodextrin molecules, which facilitates the release of the entire complex over a longer period of time (pg. 203, 3.2.2 CHX/βCD-coated samples and Figure 6). Lavoine also teaches that the chlorhexidine: cyclodextrin inclusion complexes have a positive charge that enable association with the negatively charged cellulose fibers (Figure 6).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Lavoine does not teach a personal protection equipment comprising a mesh material coated with a chlorhexidine and cyclodextrin inclusion complex. However, this deficiency is cured by Fox, Jr..
Fox, Jr. teaches a polymeric coating agent that enables the antimicrobial agent to be retained and released in an active state on the coated medical device over an appreciable period of time, from about 12 to in excess of 21 days (col. 3 line 65- col. 4 line 2). The antimicrobial agent includes chlorhexidine (col. 2 line 33). Surfaces which may embody the present invention include surgical and examination gloves (col. 3 lines 12-13).
Finding of a Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to substitute equivalents, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (the coating composition of Fox, Jr. and the chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex coating of Lavoine for the purpose of imparting controlled release of chlorhexidine). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
The claim recites the limitation “including against coronaviruses”; the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in or order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention form the prior art, therefore the coated personal protective equipment embraced by Lavoine in view of Fox, Jr. reads on the instant claims. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoine et. al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, pg. 196-205, publication year: 2014, cited in the IDS filed 2/17/2023, of record) in view of Denadai et. al. (Carbohydrate Research, pg. 2286-2296, publication year: 2007, of record) and Yasuhiro (JPH06158002A, publication date: 6/7/1994, citations refer to machine translation), as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Conolly (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0216948, publication date: 7/9/2020, of record), as evidenced by Cotton Incorporated (Cotton Morphology and Chemistry, available 4/2/2019, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Lavoine teaches the relevant limitations as described above. Lavoine also teaches that the cellulose fibers of the paper are linked to the chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin by both the chlorhexidine and cyclodextrin molecules, which facilitates the release of the entire complex over a longer period of time (pg. 203, 3.2.2 CHX/βCD-coated samples and Figure 6). Lavoine also teaches that the chlorhexidine: cyclodextrin inclusion complexes have a positive charge that enable association with the negatively charged cellulose fibers (Figure 6).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Lavoine does not teach a clothing comprising a mesh material coated with a chlorhexidine and cyclodextrin inclusion complex. However, this deficiency is cured by Conolly.
Conolly teaches composite materials for use in garments or footwear [0003]. The garment may utilize cotton fibers [0040]. At least one textile fabric such as woven, non-woven, or knitted fabric is applied to a substrate after coating with an organic or in-organic layer [0271]. The organic or in-organic coatings include functional components such as antimicrobial coatings form encapsulated antimicrobial agents, including chlorinated aromatic compounds [0272]. Cotton Incorporated teaches that after scouring and bleaching, cotton is 99% cellulose (pg. 16, Cellulose Chemistry).
Finding of a Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to substitute equivalents, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (the antibacterial coating of Conolly and the chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex coating of Lavoine for the purpose of imparting antimicrobial activity to a cellulose material). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
The claim recites the limitation “including against coronaviruses”; the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in or order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention form the prior art, therefore the coated personal protective equipment embraced by Lavoine in view of Conolly reads on the instant claims. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, Applicant argues that the evidence of record demonstrates that the claimed invention achieves a result that is neither taught nor suggested by the cited references and that would have not have been reasonably expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is not found persuasive. In response, please refer to MPEP 716.02 (b) which details the burden on Applicant to establish that results in a side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art are unexpected and significant. Specifically, Applicant must establish that differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and are of both practical and statistical significance. Additionally, evidence of unexpected properties must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious: The unexpected results amount to a long-lasting virucidal effect rendered by the mesh materials of the instant invention. However, the Applicant has not clearly demonstrated the criticality of the molar ratio of chlorhexidine to cyclodextrin. The evidence presented in Example 6 of the instant specification is limited to the virucidal effect at 5 minutes and 2 hours. The samples described in Example 6 and the corresponding Table 6 contain only one molar ratio of chlorhexidine: beta-cyclodextrin (1:2) and vary only the concentration of the inclusion complex included in the sample. There is no evidence provided that demonstrates the criticality of the molar ratio to the virucidal activity of the mesh material. Furthermore, as described in the obviousness rejection above, Denadai teaches that a 1:4 molar ratio of chlorhexidine to beta-cyclodextrin can increase the concentration of the active component and that the activity of the formulations is molar ratio dependent (pg. 2294, 2.4 Antimicrobial evaluation). One of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have therefore recognized the molar ratio and chlorhexidine to beta-cyclodextrin as a result effective variable that one would routinely optimize. Furthermore, the data presented in Tables 7 and 8 of the instant specification simply demonstrate increased virucidal activity when chlorhexidine is included in an inclusion complex with cyclodextrin. The lag-time rendered by the inclusion complex is taught by the teachings of Lavoine as described in the obviousness rejection above. Therefore, the evidence of unexpected results is not unexpected or unobvious.
Differences are of both practical and statistical significance: The evidence of unexpected results amounts to a long-lasting virucidal effect rendered by the mesh materials of the instant invention; therefore the evidence of unexpected results is of practical significance. However, the Applicant has provided no data or analysis demonstrating the significance of the virucidal effect over 30 days comparing the virucidal effect rendered by differing molar ratios of chlorhexidine: cyclodextrin. Therefore, the differences are not of statistical significance.
Evidence of unexpected properties must be in commensurate scope with the claims: The instant claim 1 recites a chlorhexidine: cyclodextrin inclusion complex that may comprise 8 different species of cyclodextrin. In order to be in commensurate scope with the claims, the evidence of unexpected results must demonstrate the increased virucidal effect for each and every species of cyclodextrin embraced by the claims. However, the evidence of unexpected results amounts to increased virucidal activity when chlorhexidine is in an inclusion complex with beta-cyclodextrin or hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin at a molar ratio of 1:1 or 1:2. Therefore, the evidence of unexpected results is not in commensurate scope with the claims.
Additionally, no side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art is provided to establish unexpectedly superior performance. There is no nexus between the purportedly unexpected property and the differences between the instant invention, as claimed, and the closest prior art. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
On page 7, Applicant argues that the cited reference does not disclose the claimed saturation process. This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the saturation process recited in the instant specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant case, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the Examiner considers the coating process of Lavoine to read on the “coating” limitation of the instant claim 6.
Response to Declaration
Declarant’s arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3, Declarant argues the observed antiviral performance of the inventive antiviral mesh to provide both rapid and sustained effective antiviral performance for at least 30 days is unexpected and that the molar ratio range recited in the claims is critical to the observed performance. This is not found persuasive. As described in the response to arguments above, the evidence of unexpected results is not unexpected or unobvious over the prior art, is not of statistical significance, and is not in commensurate scope with the claims. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm ET.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERSExaminer, Art Unit 1617
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights