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 .
Priority
The instant claims are the national stage entry of PCT/IB2021/057357 filed 10 August 2021. Acknowledgement is made of the Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to application IN202021034915 filed 13 August 2020.
Examiner's Note
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 17 December 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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. In the Applicant's response, filed 17 December 2025, it is noted that claim 1 has been amended and no new matter or claims have been added. Support can be found in the claims as originally filed.
This office action is non-final on the second action in order to address deficiencies in the previous rejection.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
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 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandawewala et al. (EP 3342902) in view of Hoyt et al. (US 6,531,218) in view of Gopi et al. (US 2017/0258743).
Mandawewala teaches the use of natural and herbal products in the manufacture of non-natural fiber or filaments to exhibit anti-microbial benefits [0009]. The natural or herbal products used in making the herbal masterbatch comprise plant extracts or processed plant extracts of Curcuma longa (aka turmeric) [0019]. The herbal masterbatch may be powder or liquid and may have a powder particle size of preferably less than 25 microns [0022]. The natural or herbal product (0.1-30 wt%) can be mixed with a coupling agent (0.1-10 wt%) and a base polymer (50-99 wt%) [0023] wherein the base polymer can be selected from the group comprising PET, PBT, and polyamide [0026]. The blended mix may then be extruded followed by melt blending to product fibers having denier range between 0.3-30 DPF [0030]. The fiber or filament made using the herbal masterbatch can then be used to manufacture knitted, woven, or non-woven fabrics [0034].
Mandawewala does not teach the temperature of melt extrusion. Mandawewala does not teach wherein the extracts of Curcuma longa is hydrogenated.
Hoyt teaches that yarn can be extruded at a melt temperature of 265 ºC (col 18, lns 40-42).
Gopi teaches the catalytic hydrogenation of pure curcuminoids obtained from Curcuma longa, commonly known as turmeric [0001]. Tetrahydrocurcuminoid is a hydrogenated phenolic compound known for antioxidant properties and skin protection and inhibition of tyrosinase [0005]. The enriched fractions of tetrahydroxycurcumin exhibit potent antioxidative action and reduce inflammation [0010]. It is noted that this citation to specific passages in Gopi was previously omitted by accident despite the reference being cited in the office action.
It would have been prima facie obvious to prepare the anti-microbial and antioxidant fibers of Mandawewala by mixing hydrogenated turmeric extract (0.1-30%) with PBT (50-99%) and then melt extruding the fibers to form an antimicrobial polymeric yard for use in a textile. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to look to Gopi, since Mandawewala teaches the products can comprise antioxidants, for a process of hydrogenating the extract of Curcuma longa in order to enhance the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties thereof. The resulting antioxidant composition would comprise tetrahydrocurcuminoid and PBT. The base polymer of Mandawewala, which fills the balance of the formulation, accounts for the claimed polymer as the carrier and the base polymer of claim 1. Regarding the turmeric extract, it can be used as a liquid, powder, or both, but with a particle size of less than 25 microns when used as a particle. That being said, however, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR at 1741. The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been obvious to have selected various combinations of antimicrobial extracts and base polymers from within Mandawewala, to arrive at compositions “yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.” Since Mandawewala does not teach a temperature at which to carry out the melt extrusion of the yarn, it would have been obvious to look to Hoyt for general conditions of melt extruding at 265 ºC.
Regarding instant claim 2, the composition of Mandawewala which comprises the required anti-microbial extract of turmeric and/or other antimicrobial components would necessarily have the property of being able to reduce Gram negative and Gram positive bacteria by 85-99.99%. It is noted that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2112.01 (II)).
Regarding instant claim 7, the species of polyamides are interpreted as being optional forms of the polymer of claim 1.
Therefore, the teachings of Mandawewala in view of Hoyt and Gopi render obvious instant claims 1-8.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandawewala et al. (EP 3342902) in view of Hoyt et al. (US 6,531,218) in view of Gopi et al. (US 2017/0258743) in view of Hedley (US 2003/0138595).
Mandawewala and Hoyt, as applied supra, are herein applied in their entirety for the teachings of an antimicrobial polymeric fiber comprising turmeric extract and a base polymer.
Mandawewala does not teach using the fibers for form a textile with twists.
Hedley teaches a mat with a fabric layer comprising anti-microbial fibers (abstract). The blended yarn (fibers) has 2-20 plies and is formed into a twisted synthetic yarn that can be heat set [0020]. For example, a two-ply yarn can comprise 195 twists per meter [0050].
It would have been prima facie obvious to prepare the anti-microbial fibers of Mandawewala for use in a woven or non-woven textile, and apply them in the anti-microbial mat of Hedley. Hedley teaches twisting the fibers prior to forming the mat, thus rendering obvious instant claims 9-10 in addition to claims 1-8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues, on pages 5-6 of their remarks, that Mandawewala discloses a two-step process with two distinct temperature zones whereas the instant claims are towards a one-step processing of melt blending and melt extrusion.
In response, the instant claims use “comprising” language and thus do not forbid additional steps to be present in the prior art. Moreover, the claims are worded so that the broadest reasonable interpretation includes the step of the herbal masterbatch and the base polymer to be melted and then extruded together, wherein “together” simply refers to the combined extrusion of the herbal masterbatch and the base polymer. That being said, Mandawewala teaches extrusion followed by melt blending wherein the blend of herbal product and base polymer are combined. Hoyt is provided to teach that a melt extrusion temperature can fall within the claimed range, thus it would have been obvious to use for the melt and/or extrusion steps if they were to be performed sequentially.
The Applicant argues, on page 6 of their remarks, that Hoyt’s melting temperature is strictly restricted to the extruding temperature only.
In response, the example in Hoyt teaches 265 ºC as a melt temperature to be used during extrusion, thus implying the same temp for both melting and extruding.
The Applicant argues, on page 6 of their remarks, that Gopi fails to teach or suggest hydrogenation of a turmeric extract and including it in an herbal masterbatch wherein the extract would yield superior performance in melt-processed polymeric yarns. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Gopi does not provide a reasonable expectation that tetrahydrocurcuminoids could withstand melt extrusion temperatures of 175-300 ºC.
In response, Gopi is applied to teach a motivation for including tetrahydrocurcuminoid as it has antioxidant properties and Mandawewala teaches the natural products can include antioxidants. The reason for including the teachings of Gopi do not require the art to teach superior performance in polymeric yarns. If the Applicant is implying an unexpected result, they must provide evidence in the form of data either in the specification or in a signed declaration.
The Applicant argues, on page 7 of their remarks, that the combination of Mandawewala, Hoyt, and Gopi does not help the skilled artisan in the production of the claimed polymeric yarn, which can be synergistically effective in killing bacteria between 85-99.99%.
In response, Mandawewala teaches their yarn as having anti-microbial properties which can be attributed to the plant extracts used, such as extract of Curcuma longa (turmeric). Therefore, it would have been expected for the resulting yarn made by the combination of Mandawewala, Hoyt, and Gopi to be antimicrobial/antibacterial. The Applicant is merely citing results that would have been expected. It is reminded that any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (see MPEP 716.02). In addition, to establish an unexpected result, the claimed invention must be compared with the closest subject matter that exists in the prior art (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW S ROSENTHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-6276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm 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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ANDREW S ROSENTHAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights