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
Claims 1 and 20 amended
Claims 16-19 cancelled
Claims 1-15 and 20 pending
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/11/2026 has been entered.
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 1-15 and 20 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.
Claims 1 and 20 states “a water-soluble salt comprising a metal cation to a surface of a substrate to form a treated substrate, wherein the water-soluble salt is selected from the group consisting of calcium chloride, calcium bromide, calcium nitrate, calcium acetate, calcium propionate, calcium lactate, calcium gluconate, magnesium chloride, magnesium bromide, magnesium nitrate, magnesium acetate, and any combination thereof”.
However, it is unclear if the “water-soluble salt”; (a) comprises one material that is “metal cation” and where this compound (that comprise “metal cation”) is “selected from the group consisting of…”; or (b) comprises two material, where the first material is compound that has a “metal cation” and the second material is “selected from the group consisting of…”.
However, per the instant specification in more than one place, the specification support the “water-soluble salt that comprises a metal cation is selected from the group consisting of…”.
For the sake of expedite prosecution the examiner interprets this as “wherein the water-soluble salt that comprises a metal cation is selected from the group consisting of…”.
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 14 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.
Claim 14 state; “The method of claim 1, wherein the metal cation is selected from the group consisting of calcium, magnesium, zinc, barium, copper, strontium, manganese, iron, nickel, cobalt, tin, cadmium, lead, and any combination thereof”.
However, Claim 1 disclose that the “water-soluble salt comprises a metal cation … is selected from the group consisting of calcium chloride, calcium bromide, calcium nitrate, calcium acetate, calcium propionate, calcium lactate, calcium gluconate, magnesium chloride, magnesium bromide, magnesium nitrate, magnesium acetate, and any combination thereof”
Therefore, the “metal cation” of claim 1 includes only calcium and magnesium, where claim 14 include more that those two metals, such as “zinc, barium, copper, strontium, manganese, iron, nickel, cobalt, tin, cadmium, lead, and any combination thereof”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (PG Pub 2013/0344131 A1).
Consider Claims 1 and 20, Lo teaches the process of coating (hemostatic materials) a substrate [0009], by applying a formulation having biopolymer/binder such as alginate to react/cross-licked with salt (water soluble salt/metal cation) such as calcium chloride [0009], where the metal cation/calcium chloride weight percent is from 1-8% [0118]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05). Lo does not explicitly teach the order of applying the materials onto the substrate; however, it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art to apply the ingredient in the claimed sequence. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Lo does not explicitly teach the resulted “coated substrate has a kit value of at least about 5”.
However, the prior art of Lo teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “list of steps taught/taken by references”. Since the “coated substrate has a kit value of at least about 5” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “list of steps taught/taken by references”, and the prior art of Lo teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Lo would have naturally flow or inherently produced “coated substrate has a kit value of at least about 5” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claims 2-5, Lo teaches the substrate is optionally has fiber [0052], and the substrate is made from Kraft paper [0126]. Lo does not teach substrate to include filler, encompassing 0%. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 6-7, Lo teaches the forming of a layer/first layer of the formulated solution onto the substrate [0009] forming a surface treated substrate, where it would be obvious that the treated surface has the entire surface (of the coated area) is 100% coated.
Consider Claim 8, Lo teaches the additional usage of starch [0078].
Consider Claim 9, Lo teaches the drying process of the treated substrate [0080].
Consider Claim 10, Lo teaches the application using spraying process [0090]-[0091].
Consider Claims 11-12, Lo teaches the size pressing/pressure process [0064].
Consider Claims 13 and 15, Lo teaches the biopolymer is alginate [0009].
Consider Claim 14, Lo teaches the metal cation is calcium [0009].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15, 20 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lo.
In light of the applicant amendment, a new rejection with new prior art is used. Therefore, the applicant arguments are moot.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
