DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The “n” in the configurations of claim 4 should be consistently presented as a subscript.
The GSM in claims 7 and 8 should specify that it is “based on the area of the entangled fibers” – see claim 6.
Claims 12-14 should refer to the “outer layer” of the substate – see paragraphs 0057-0061 of the specification (see also paragraphs 0053-0056 of the pre-publication).
The “oC” in claim 15 should be replaced with oC.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd paragraph (b)
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1-14, claim 1 ends by reciting the limitation "the antimicrobial coating". However, the claim fails to previously introduce an antimicrobial coating. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-14 are rejected because they are dependent from claim 1.
Further regarding claim 4, the sulfonated copolymer includes a “B block” which “is susceptible to sulfonation”. The claim goes on to state that “the B block is a vinyl aromatic monomer”. However, it is unclear how a monomer can represent a polymer block of a copolymer. It appears that the B block comprises segments of one or more polymerized vinyl aromatic monomers – see paragraph 0033 of the specification (see also paragraph 0032 of the pre-publication).
Further regarding claim 9, the claim states that the powder: is deposited into the void spaces by any of precision scatter coating, powder spraying, vacuum, electrostatic charge, ultrasonic, vibration feeding, and combinations thereof. However, it is unclear how “vacuum”, “electrostatic charge” or “ultrasonic”, alone, can deposit a powder. Rather, these appears to be possible features of the claimed powder spraying – see paragraph 0070 of the specification (see also paragraph 0063 of the pre-publication).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 4th paragraph (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The sulfonated copolymer of claim 4 attempts to further limit the sulfonated copolymer of claim 1. It includes a “B block” which “is susceptible to sulfonation”. A number of the claimed copolymer configurations have the “B block” associated with subscript “n”. The claim defines n as “an integer from 0 to 30”. However, several configurations would not include sulfonation when n is 0. In addition, a number of the configurations would no longer represent a copolymer when n is 0. Accordingly, the claim scope improperly broadens/shifts the scope of the sulfonated copolymer in claim 1 to include (co)polymers that are not sulfonated.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Suggested Claim Language
The following is suggested claim language to overcome the above objections and rejections:
1. (Suggested Language) A multilayer structure and an antimicrobial coating formed from an outer layer of the substate and a sulfonated copolymer in powder form
the has an average particle size of 10-850 micron, and the sulfonated copolymer has 10CFU within 120 minutes contact with the sulfonated copolymer;
the outer layer of the substrate comprises entangled fibers having void spaces with surface area sufficiently sized for deposition of the powder therein, and the fibers comprise oC; and
the antimicrobial coating is formed by: and heating the deposited powder oC to entrap the powder
2. (Suggested Language) The
3. (Suggested Language) The
4. (Suggested Language) The (A-B)n(A), (A-B-A)n, (A-B-A)nX, (A-B)nX, A-D-B, A-B-D, A-D-B-D-A, A-B-D-B-A, (A-D-B)nA, (A-B-D)nA, (A-D-B)nX, (A-B-D)nX or mixtures thereof, wherein
n is [[an]] is a positive integer up to 30,
X is a coupling agent residue, each A and D block is a polymer block resistant to sulfonation,
each B block is susceptible to sulfonation,
the A block is polymerized from monomers selected from the group consisting of (i) para-substituted styrene monomers, (ii) ethylene, (iii) alpha olefins of 3 to 18 carbon atoms; (iv) 1,3-cyclodiene monomers, (v) monomers of conjugated dienes having a vinyl content less than 35 mol percent prior to hydrogenation, (vi) acrylic esters, (vii) methacrylic esters, and (viii) mixtures thereof;
the B block comprises segments of one or more polymerized vinyl aromatic monomers
the D block is a hydrogenated polymer or copolymer of a conjugated diene selected from the group consisting of isoprene, 1,3-butadiene, and mixtures thereof; and
wherein the block B is selectively sulfonated to contain from 10 - 100 mol % sulfonic acid or sulfonate salt functional groups based on the number of monomer units, for the coating material to kill at least 99% of microbes within 30 minutes of contact.
5. (Suggested Language) The
6. (Suggested Language) The deposition of the powder is performed of from 1 - 100 grams per square meter (GSM), based on the area of the entangled fibers.
7. (Suggested Language) The deposition of the powder is performed , based on the area of the entangled fibers.
8. (Suggested Language) The deposition of the powder is performed , based on the area of the entangled fibers.
9. (Suggested Language) The deposition of the powder is performed with at least one of: and
10. (Suggested Language) The heating of the deposited powder is performed with at least one : thermal bonding, calendering, hot air, and ultrasonic bonding
11. (Suggested Language) The suitable for use in: a protective garment, gowns, aprons, beddings, covers, coveralls, wraps, pads, curtains, personal care products, gloves, foot covers, diapers, absorbent articles, wipes, and adult incontinence articles.
12. (Suggested Language) The outer layer of the substrate comprises 3-C20 α-olefin, C3-C12 α-olefin, copolymers, and mixtures thereof.
13. (Suggested Language) The antimicrobial substrate of claim 12, wherein the outer of the substrate further comprises at least an additive, selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide, zeolites, kaolin, mica, carbon black, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, aluminum hydroxide, and combinations thereof.
14. (Suggested Language) The antimicrobial substrate of claim 13, wherein the additive is present in an amount of 0.1-10 wt. % of the outer layer.
15. (Suggested Language) A method for forming an antimicrobial coating on a substrate, the method comprising:
providing a substrate having a multilayer comprising entangled 120oC;
providing sulfonated copolymer in powder form having an average particle size of 10-850 micron wherein the sulfonated copolymer is selected from the group consisting of perfluorosulfonic acid polymers, polystyrene sulfonates, sulfonated block copolymers, polysulfones, polyketones, sulfonated poly(arylene ether), and mixtures thereof, and the sulfonated copolymer has an Ion Exchange Capacity of at least 1.0 meq /g to reduce a microbe concentration by at least 1 log10 CFU within about 120 minutes contact with the coating comprising the sulfonated copolymer,
depositing
applying an external energy source on the outer layer for the sulfonated copolymer powder to be fusion bonded into the void spaces, forming the antimicrobial coating layer on the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7, 8, and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd/4th paragraphs, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Hou et al. (US Pat. No. 6,103,122) represents the closest prior art. They disclose a filter sheet having a self-supporting fibrous matrix, which has an immobilized particulate filler aid and an immobilized particulate ion exchange resin uniformly distributed throughout the matrix (see Abstract; see also column 7, lines 14-18 and column 8, lines 11-14). The particulate ion exchange resin includes sulfonated polymers or sulfonated copolymers (see column 6, lines 6-24) and has a particle size of about 2 to about 200 microns (see column 5, line 39 through column 6, line 5). However, the filter sheet of Hou et al. fails to reasonably teach or suggest the instantly claimed substrate/method where the substrate has a multilayer structure and an antimicrobial coating formed from an outer layer of the substate and a sulfonated copolymer in powder form.
In addition, Kawakami et al. (JP 09-301812 A) disclose an antimicrobial resin comprising spherical particles of a sulfonated polymer, wherein the particles have an average particle diameter of 0.3-500 microns (see Abstract; paragraphs 0006-0008). However, the powder of Kawakami et al. fails to reasonably teach or suggest the instantly claimed substrate/method where the substrate has a multilayer structure and an antimicrobial coating formed from an outer layer of the substate and a sulfonated copolymer in powder form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krutzer et al. (WO 2021/212153 A2), Mhetar et al. (WO 2021/212154 A1), and Vachon et al. (US Pat. No. 6,306,419) all disclose related sulfonated polymers having antimicrobial properties.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
December 23, 2025