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 .
Claims 1-23 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 9-17 in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 18-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 13-17 are 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 13 recites the limitation "the salt solution" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 9 makes no reference to a salt solution. Claims 14-17 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 13 and inheriting the same deficiency.
Claim 14 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. The term “organic or inorganic types” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “organic or inorganic types” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term types seems to suggest more than just the listed salts, but the term “types” does not provide clarity as to what these other salts may contain. For examination purposes the examiner interpreted the claims to contain any sodium, potassium and lithium salts of chlorides citrates, sulfates and phosphates.
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. The term “etc.” is indefinite as it provides no clarity as to what else in the list is incorporated. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Further, Claim 15 recites the broad recitation “sugar alcohols”, and the claim also recites “sorbitol” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Similarly claim 15 also recites PEG’s recitation (broad) and the polyethylene glycol (narrow) and it is unclear if the PEGs is simply the acronym or includes more polyethylene glycol based compounds. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Applicant should also define the acronym PPGs in the claim as polypropylene glycol for clarity. For examination purposes the examiner interpreted the claims to include polyethylene glycol, sorbitol and polypropylene glycol as the groups represented by PEGs and PPGs and sugar alcohol and disregarded the term etc. as no definition was given for the species “etc.” encompasses.
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 9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 8,734,421).
Sun teaches a woven fabric carrier (column 15, lines 46-50; column 21, line 14-16,24-33 and 41) wetted with a conductive solution (column 25, 11-25) containing conductive electrolyte salts of sodium chloride, potassium chloride or lithium chloride , water, organic solvents selected from glycerin, propylene glycol, butylene glycol, hexylene glycol, and polyethylene glycol (applicant’s claimed humectants), citric acid and phosphoric acid salts (citrates, phosphates), sodium sulfate, sorbitol, urea and fluid absorbing materials which are also adhesive binders selected from natural gums such as guar gum or synthetic binders such as ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (column 8, line 64-67; column 9, lines 5-49, 60-63, column 10, lines 9-33, column 11, lines 15-37). Sun teaches the fabric carrier is wetted with the solution at the time of use and a power supply is coupled to the anode and cathode at opposite ends of the fabric to provide current through the fabric and produce a bactericidal effect (Figure 1, column 9, line 19-21; column 12, lines 5-15; column 13, lines 6-18;column 20, line 60 - column 21, line 15column 23, lines 12-48; column 25, lines 11-26; column 27, line 28-30; column 28, lines 60-62). Table 1, No.2 contains citrate or phosphate salts of sodium potassium or lithium, polyacrylates, cellulose or synthetic or natural gums as binders, propylene glycol humectant and water (columns 30-31).
Sun does not teach all the claimed embodiments in a single example, but one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could arrive at the claimed invention from selecting from the teachings of Sun.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a bactericidal fabric such as a face mask, with electrodes on opposite ends of the mask wherein the electrodes are coupled with wires to a battery as a power source and by providing a carrier fabric for the face mask and soaking it with a conductive solution containing the claimed conductive electrolyte salts, humectants, water and binders to provide a skin treatment device because Sun teaches fabrics soaked with these compositions and powered to provide electric current from the electrodes through the conductive soaked carrier fabric can effectively produce bactericidal effects.
Claims 9-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 8,734,421) in view of Yang (CN 212728879U).
Sun is relied upon as set forth above.
Sun does not teach power supply comprising a resistive load coupled in parallel or in series with a battery.
Yang teaches antibacterial face masks are effectively powered by battery slots on the left and right ends of the mask which are connected in series or in parallel to the resistor through wires (page 5, paragraph 9, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a battery set up connected through wires in series or in parallel to the resistor as a power supply in the methods of Sun as taught by Yang because Yang teaches this provides an effective electric to charge the regenerate power to the antimicrobial face mask. Sun invites the inclusion of battery powering to the face masks. Using a known effective method for providing power to a face mask in another method that also requires providing power to a face mask is obvious to provide electric current to the conductive fabric.
Claims 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 8,734,421) in view of Zhu (CN 212728879U).
Sun is relied upon as set forth above.
Sun does not teach power supply comprising a regulator coupled in series with a battery.
Zhu teaches antiviral face masks are effectively powered by battery to the mask which is connected in series to a regulator through a wires on opposite ends of the mask to adjust the current provided to the mask(page 2, paragraphs 3-4; page 3, paragraph 3, page 5, paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a battery set up connected through wires on opposite sides of the mask in series to the regulator as a power supply in the methods of Sun as taught by Zhu because Zhu teaches this provides an effective way of controlling the current to the antimicrobial face mask. Sun invites the inclusion of battery powering to the face masks. Using a known effective method for providing power to a face mask in another method that also requires providing power to a face mask is obvious to provide controlled levels of electric current to the conductive fabric.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (US 2021/0282475).
Nagel teaches a conductive fabric wherein the fabric (paragraph 0083) is treated with salts, antibacterial and conductive fluids (paragraph 0085) and is powered by a battery power supply connected to the mask through wires on opposite ends of the mask (paragraph 0086, 0088, 0095; Figures 4 and 10). Nagel teaches applying saline (sodium chloride in water) and synthetic binders such as polyacrylates to the substrate (paragraph 0096,0106,0108). Nagel teaches salts assist in maintaining a conductive environment (paragraph 0141) and the conductive fabric can be in the form of a face mask (paragraph 0143). Nagel teaches destroying bacteria (bactericidal paragraph 0262).
Nagel does not teach all the claimed embodiments in a single example, but one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could arrive at the claimed invention from selecting from the teachings of Sun.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a bactericidal fabric such as a face mask, with electrodes or electrical connections on opposite ends of the mask wherein the electrodes/electrical connections are coupled by wires to a battery as a power source and by providing a conductive fabric treated with salts, saline, water and binders for the face mask to provide an electrically conductive environment and apply current through the mask because Nagel teaches fabrics treated with these compositions and powered by batteries connected to the opposite ends of the fabric to provide electric current from the power source to the conductive fabric can effectively produce bactericidal effects.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (US 2021/0282475) in view of Yang (CN 212728879U).
Nagel is relied upon as set forth above.
Nagel does not teach power supply comprising a resistive load coupled in parallel or in series with a battery.
Yang teaches antibacterial face masks are effectively powered by battery slots on the left and right ends of the mask which are connected in series or in parallel to the resistor through wires (page 5, paragraph 9, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a battery set up connected through wires in series or in parallel to the resistor as a power supply in the methods of Nagel as taught by Yang because Yang teaches this provides an effective electric to charge the regenerate power to the antimicrobial face mask. Nagel invites the inclusion of battery powering and any energy source capable of producing a current in the system to the face masks. Using a known effective method for providing power to a face mask in another method that also requires providing power to a face mask is obvious to provide electric current to the conductive fabric.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (US 2021/0282475) in view of Zhu (CN 212728879U).
Nagel is relied upon as set forth above.
Nagel does not teach power supply comprising a regulator coupled in series with a battery.
Nagel teaches antiviral face masks are effectively powered by battery to the mask which is connected in series to a regulator through a wires on opposite ends of the mask to adjust the current provided to the mask(page 2, paragraphs 3-4; page 3, paragraph 3, page 5, paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a battery set up connected through wires on opposite sides of the mask in series to the regulator as a power supply in the methods of Nagel as taught by Zhu because Zhu teaches this provides an effective way of controlling the current to the antimicrobial face mask. Nagel invites the inclusion of battery powering and any energy source capable of producing a current in the system to the face masks. Using a known effective method for providing power to a face mask in another method that also requires providing power to a face mask is obvious to provide controlled levels of electric current to the conductive fabric.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (US 2021/0282475) in view of Sun (US 8,734,421).
Nagel is relied upon as set forth above.
Nagel does not teach humectants.
Sun teaches a woven fabric carrier (column 15, lines 46-50; column 21, line 14-16,24-33 and 41) wetted with a conductive solution (column 25, 11-25) containing conductive electrolyte salts of sodium chloride, potassium chloride or lithium chloride , water, organic solvents selected from glycerin, propylene glycol, butylene glycol, hexylene glycol, and polyethylene glycol (applicant’s claimed humectants), citric acid and phosphoric acid salts (citrates, phosphates), sodium sulfate, sorbitol, urea and fluid absorbing materials which are also adhesive binders selected from natural gums such as guar gum or synthetic binders such as ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (column 8, line 64-67; column 9, lines 5-49, 60-63, column 10, lines 9-33, column 11, lines 15-37). Table 1, No.2 contains citrate or phosphate salts of sodium potassium or lithium, polyacrylates, cellulose or synthetic or natural gums as binders, propylene glycol humectant and water (columns 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate conductive salts such as potassium chloride, lithium chloride, citric acid and phosphoric acid salts (citrates, phosphates) or sodium sulfate, organic solvents which are humectants such as glycerin, propylene glycol, butylene glycol, hexylene glycol, other humectants such as polyethylene glycol, sorbitol, urea and fluid absorbing materials which are also adhesive binders selected from natural gums such as guar gum into the fabric of Nagel as Sun teaches these compound are conventionally applied in conductive solutions to face masks or fabrics which carry electric current and provide bactericidal effects to skin. Incorporating known additives such as conductive electrolytes, humectants, organic solvent and moisture absorbing agents into compositions for treating similar electrified face masks is obvious to achieve the bactericidal benefit. 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, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761