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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are currently under examination and the subject of the present Office Action. Claims 16-24 are withdrawn from consideration without traverse.
As such, the restriction is made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/08/2023 has been considered here.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "plurality of pore" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "protease" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of search and consideration, the claim is understood to read “The article of claim 14, wherein the maximum characteristic dimension of the plurality of pores is smaller than the maximum characteristic dimension of the biomolecule.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/036410 A1 (Marcellan, 2015; submitted on IDS of 11/08/2023 as Epsci).
In regards to claims 1-3, Marcellan teaches an article (see abstract) comprising a glueing agent or nanoparticles as an adhesive (see page 6, line 24) (i.e., an adhesive layer), a hydrogel support layer attached using the nanoparticles (see page 34, lines 18-21), wherein the nanoparticles are organo-metallic nanoparticles (see page 24, lines 27-29). Further, Marcellan teaches that nanoparticles used as adhesives are known to be thrombin conjugated in the art previously (see page 3, lines 19-23) (i.e. as a composite with the nanoparticle). It is also taught that the pH of the nanoparticles is adjusted using polyacrylic acid macromolecules on their surface (i.e., part of the adhesive layer) (see Marcellan, page 27, lines 22-29; page 30, lines 21-28).
In regards to claim 4, Marcellan teaches that the hydrogel support layer comprises polymers of agarose or methylcellulose (see Marcellan, page 32, lines 14-17).
In regards to claims 7-8 and 10-11, the hydrogel support layer is shown to have random protrusions that attach to the nanoparticles (see Marcellan, page 69, figures 1a and 1b).
Marcellan does not teach with sufficient specificity to anticipate and so the claims are obvious. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the teachings of Marcellan with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain the article of the instant claims.
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[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 v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the article of the instant claims with predictable results.
Claims 5, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/036410 A1 (Marcellan, 2015; submitted on IDS of 11/08/2023 as Epsci) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-11 above, and further in view of Yang (2019).
The teachings of Marcellan have been described supra.
The teachings of Marcellan are silent on the metal-organic framework being selected from the group listed in claim 5, the biomolecule selected from the group listed in claim 6, the features of the support layer are in a pattern or in a cylindrical shape, and having pores in the metal-organic framework.
In regards to claims 5, 9, and 13, Yang teaches zeolite imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF-8) nanoparticles on cotton fabric (see Yang, abstract). The cotton fibers (i.e., a support layer) are shown to be cylindrically shaped in a patterned manner (see Yang, page 4, Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 14, it is taught that metal-organic frameworks, such as ZIF-8, are known to have pores (see Yang, page 1, introduction).
In regards to claim 15, it is noted that the pore size of the ZIF-8 is taught as adjustable and is used to optimize the utility of the ZIF-8 in various uses (see Yang, page 1, introduction), the pore size would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed pore size cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, pore size in Yang to obtain the desired balance between the use of the ZIF-8 nanoparticles as taught by Yang (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regards to claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-15, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Marcellan and Yang as instantly claimed as both references teach metal-organic nanoparticles being used in articles, with Yang further providing an example of a metal-organic framework nanoparticle that is known to be used in fabrics such as cotton. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the ZIF-8 and cotton fabric of Yang with the known method of using nanoparticles as adhesives in articles (see Marcellan, examples 1-13) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/036410 A1 (Marcellan, 2015; submitted on IDS of 11/08/2023 as Epsci) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-11 above, and further in view of Vaidya (2019) as evidenced by “Enzyme Innovation”.
The teachings of Marcellan have been described supra.
The teachings of Marcellan are silent are on the biomolecule being lipase.
Vaidya teaches a ZIF-8 lipase composite that is taught to have an enhanced stability when compared to free lipase (see Vaidya, abstract; 4.2. chemical stability; conclusion). Further it is known lipase is used in cleaning products for breaking down lipids and biofilms (see Enzyme Innovation, “What is lipase”, “where it is commonly used”).
In regards to claim 6, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Marcellan and Vaidya to formulate an article comprising a ZIF-8/lipase composite for cleaning as lipase is a biomolecule that is known to be used with organo-metallic nanoparticles, such as those taught in Marcellan. Further, specifically it would be beneficial to use the ZIF-8/lipase composite of Vaidya as it provides a stable form of lipase, which would be beneficial for its use in a cleaning product. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the ZIF-8/lipase composite of Vaidya with the known method of using organo-metallic nanoparticles as adhesives in articles (see Marcellan, examples 1-13) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable WO 2015/036410 A1 (Marcellan, 2015; submitted on IDS of 11/08/2023 as Epsci) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-11 above, and further in view of (KR 20150081318 A (Faulks, 2015).
The teachings of Marcellan have been described supra.
The teachings of Marcellan are silent are on the size of the features in the support layer.
Faulks teaches an absorbent article (see Faulks, abstract) comprising particles (see Faulks, paragraph bridging pages 10-11) and a support layer comprising hydrogels (see Faulks, page 27, paragraph 4). The article is also taught to comprise a protruding layer that is entangled with the support layer (see Faulks, paragraph bridging pages 27-28). It is also taught that the protrusions have height of about 1mm (i.e., about 1000µm) (see Faulks, page 22, paragraph 6).
In regards to claim 12, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Marcellan and Faulks to formulate an article comprising a support layer with protrusions having a height of about 1mm as instantly claimed as the protrusions provide various benefits such as serving as a detergent aid, reducing overall skin contact for a softer feel, among others (see Faulks, page 3, paragraph 4). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the protrusions of Faulks with the known method of using organo-metallic nanoparticles as adhesives in articles (see Marcellan, examples 1-13) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYAAN A ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/ISIS A GHALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights