DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-2) and the species of “graphene doped with -N” in the reply filed on 24 July 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not provided evidence that one of skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the teachings of the two cited references. This is not found persuasive because the lack of unity is shown using the standard under PCT Rule 13.1 and 13.2, not based on 35 USC 103 and case law related thereto. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 3-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes that no information disclosure statement has been filed in this application. Applicant is reminded that in nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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 1 and 2 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 1 recites that the wound dressing material comprises a “graphene-based 2,3 dialdehyde bacterial cellulose.” It is unclear what is meant by this term. The specification refers to “graphene-based cellulose wound dressing” as a dressing comprising hydrogel and graphene derivatives of film type having 2,3 dialdehyde bacterial cellulose structure (page 7, lines 14-17). No more description of what the term means is provided in the specification (it is referred to, but not further elaborated upon). Originally filed claim 3 states that the wound dressing material comprising graphene-based 2,3 dialdehyde bacterial cellulose is prepared by “loading” bacterial cellulose with graphene. But it is unclear whether graphene “loaded” 2,3 dialdehyde bacterial cellulose reads upon the instantly recited graphene-“based” cellulose wound dressing. The term “loaded” is used in the specification, but it is unclear whether it is synonymous with “based.” For example, the methods disclosed are stated to prepare “graphene-loaded 2,3 dialdehyde bacterial cellulose wound dressing” (see for example page 8, lines 24-26).
For purposes of examination with respect to the prior art, the term will be taken to include wound dressings with both graphene and 2,3- dialdehyde bacterial cellulose (where they can be optionally “loaded”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 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 2 recites the limitation “wherein the graphene material.” This claim depends from claim 1. However, claim 1 does not recite a “graphene material.” Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammadnejad et al. (Eng. Life Sci., 2018, vol. 18, pages 298-307) in view of Li et al. (Mater. Sci. Eng. C, 2009, vol. 29, pages 1635-1642).
Mohammadnejad et al. discloses graphene oxide/silver nanocomposite which is impregnated into bacterial cellulose based wound dressings (abstract). The impregnation of the antibacterial graphene material is considered to read upon the “graphene-based” limitation as it is taken to include graphene-loaded cellulose material.
Mohammadnejad et al. does not teach that the cellulose is further modified with 2,3 dialdehyde, which is a limitation recited by instant claim 1. Mohammadnejad et al. does note that the bacterial cellulose used in the wound dressing is biodegradable (page 298, first paragraph).
Li et al. discloses 2,3 dialdehyde bacterial cellulose, and that this is an improved version of bacterial cellulose which has improved biodegradability (abstract & conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the 2,3-dialdehyde bacterial cellulose in the wound dressing taught by Mohammadnejad et al. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, using the 2,3-dialdehyde bacterial cellulose would provide for improved biodegradability.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammadnejad et al. (Eng. Life Sci., 2018, vol. 18, pages 298-307) and Li et al. (Mater. Sci. Eng. C, 2009, vol. 29, pages 1635-1642) as applied above, and further in view of Kuo et al. (Biomaterials, 2017, vol. 120, pages 185-194).
Mohammadnejad et al. and Li et al. teach all of the limitations of the instant claims. However, they do not teach the elected species of graphene material (graphene doped with -N).
Kuo et al. discloses nitrogen-doped graphene quantum dots, and their highly improved antimicrobial effects (abstract). This material can be used as an efficient alternative for easily eliminating malignant microbes (id.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the nitrogen-doped graphene quantum dots taught by Kuo et al. in the wound dressing taught by Mohammadnejad et al. Doing so would provide for highly improved antimicrobial effects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Gulledge whose telephone number is (571) 270-5756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am - 4pm.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at (571) 272-3311. 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.
/Brian Gulledge/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699