DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 17, 2026 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 17, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicant was contacted via telephone regarding interview request in the remarks dated February 17, 2026: after brief discussion Examiner and Applicant agreed that an interview may be postponed or deferred at this stage of prosecution.
Claim Status
Claim 27 is cancelled.
Claims 29 and 30 are newly added.
Claims 1 – 26 and 28 – 30 are examined here-in.
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.
Claims 8, 12, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "at least two different compounds according to claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests “at least two different monomer units according to claim 1”, or as otherwise appropriate.
The term “natural” in claim 12 is a subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “natural” is not defined by the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (in paragraph 0040 of the instant specification, examples for natural organic products are presented, but not a limiting definition), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the base material". Claim 29 depends on claim 9 which recites “a polymeric base material”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the base material” in claim 29. The Examiner suggests adding “polymeric” so the phrase reads “the polymeric base material”.
As a note: claims 23, 26, and 30 recite “a base material”, if appropriate, the Examiner suggests amending this phrase to “a polymeric base material”. Regarding claims 23, 26, and 30, this is not a 112b rejection, merely a suggestion to promote consistency throughout the claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (WITHDRAWN)
Applicant’s arguments with regards to Dizman’s teachings of MAMP homopolymers are persuasive: The Examiner agrees that Dizman’s teachings would not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a MAMP homopolymer and expect resulting antimicrobial properties (Remarks pages 9 and 10). Furthermore, Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 “A polymer consisting of monomer units each comprising a compound of Formula (I)…” would necessarily exclude a NIPAAm co-monomer, further distinguishing the instant application over the prior art of Dizman.
Since a polymer consisting of monomer units of Formula (I) does not appear to be taught or rendered obvious over the prior art, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1 – 8, 20 – 22, 27, and 28 over Dizman in view of Daly and for claims 9 – 19 and 23 – 26 over Dizman in view of Daly and further in view of Chiattello are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Claims 1 – 26 and 28 – 30 appear to be allowable over the prior art.
The 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections over claims 8, 12, and 29 remain.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Toriana N. Vigil whose telephone number is (571)270-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/TORIANA N. VIGIL/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights