DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP H10324804, “Inoue” a machine translation of which is of record, submitted 2/15/23, and is used as the citation copy) further in view of Sawazato et al. (JP 201820368, “Sawazato”).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue teaches a polyarylene sulfide resin composition comprising a polyarylene sulfide resin ([0009] – [0011]) and an antiviral agent ([0003], [0009] – [0011]), and wherein the antiviral agent may comprise a borate glass containing a metal ion (see [0013] – [0015], borosilicate glass including an oxide of boron, please also see present specification at [0033] describing borate glass components; Inoue additionally teaches the inclusion of phosphate components and thus a phosphate glass that includes, e.g., a silver ion, see [0023], [0014]). The Examiner notes that while Inoue describes its metal ions as antibacterial and antifungal, they would be expected to have concurrent antiviral properties at least insofar as they read on the language “metal ion-containing phosphate and/or borate glass” (Inoue, [0006] – [0008]; and please see present specification at [0004] – [0011], [0041]). The Examiner further notes that borosilicate glass may be considered a type of “borate glass.” Please also see evidentiary reference Sawazato, which teaches that the combination of a silver ion in a B2O3 network (that is, such as that described by Inoue) serves to function as an antiviral agent (Sawazato, pp. 1-3), thus such an inclusion would have been taught and/or obvious and expected to serve as an antiviral agent. While Inoue fails to specifically teach more than 15 parts by mass of the antibacterial or antiviral glass, Sawazato teaches that the inclusion of such a glass as an antiviral agent in amounts of up to 20% based on the resin component and thus the inclusion in this amount in the resin of Inoue would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to create an effective antibacterial or antiviral agent (see Sawazato, p. 2). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Inoue additionally teaches that the antiviral agent may be a borate glass ([0010], borosilicate glass; additionally may include a phosphate and silver ion, [0023], [0014]).
Regarding claims 9, 17, and 18, Inoue additionally teaches that the resin composition may be a molten blend (i.e., may be melted and blended, see [0026], describing that the resin may be melt kneaded).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue additionally teaches that the resin composition may be molded into an article (e.g., [0026], molded into a desired shape, [0013], resin molded article).
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Sawazato as applied to claim 6, above, and further in view of Seneschal et al. (JP 2005-255517, “Seneschal”).
Regarding claims 21-24, Inoue fails to specifically teach a glass having a phosphate oxide composition of from 40 to 75 mol%, however, in the same field of endeavor of glass compositions for use as antiviral components in resin compositions, Seneschal teaches that a P2O5 composition from 45 to 90% in order to balance corrosive qualities of the glass with good chemical resistance (p. 5) and a B2O3 composition from 0 to 60% in order to provide good chemical resistance (p. 6). Seneschal further teaches that having a silver component of from 0.1% to 3% (p. 4) and that this may be useful in making a glass that has good antibacterial properties while reducing the likelihood of the silver tinting the glass (p. 4). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adopted these amounts of the specified components in order to provide a glass component having good antibacterial properties and good chemical resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/10/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Therefore, claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 21-24 are rejected as described above.
Conclusion
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights