DETAILED ACTION
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 included in the prosecution are claims 1-7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 37, 42, 46, 47 and 49.
Applicants' arguments, filed 03/13/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
1. Claims 1-7, 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 37, 42, 46, 47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonke et al. (WO 0168793 A1, Sep. 20, 2001) (hereinafter Jonke) in view of Nehra et al. (Antibacterial and antifungal activity of chitosan coated iron oxide nanoparticles, 2018) (hereinafter Nehra), Oliveira et al. (The importance of the cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale L.) coat: a review, Jun. 20, 2015) (IDS reference) (hereinafter Oliveira), and Yang et al. (CN 111670913 A, Sep. 18, 2020) (hereinafter Yang).
Jonke discloses a cleaning agent for cleaning hard surfaces (page 1, first paragraph of translation). The agent may comprise nanoparticulate metal oxides, such as iron oxide (page 3, last paragraph of translation). The agent has a pH of preferably 2 to 5 (page 10, fourth paragraph of translation). The agent can contain one or more fragrances in an amount of 0.01 to 1 wt. % (page 12, second paragraph of translation). The cleaning agent preferably contains one or more antimicrobial ingredients such as lactic acid (i.e., claimed permeabilizer) and glycerol (i.e., claimed humectant) (page 11, third paragraph of translation). The cleaning agent contains one or more antimicrobial active ingredients in an amount of 0.01 to 1 wt. % (i.e., meeting about 2 wt. %) (page 10, penultimate paragraph of translation). The cleaning agent comprises one or more surfactants selected from the group of anionic, nonionic, amphoteric, and cationic surfactants (page 5, third paragraph of translation). The cleaning agent contains one or more surfactants in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt. % (page 7, second paragraph of translation). Suitable surfactants include alkyl polyglycosides, wherein the fatty alcohols have C8 to C18 alkyl chains (i.e., teaching decyl glucoside, which is a C10 fatty alcohol polyglucoside) (page 6, second paragraph of translation). The agent may comprise alkylamidoalkylamines as amphoteric surfactants (page 7, fourth paragraph of translation). Suitable alkylamidoalkylamines include sodium cocoamphoacetate (i.e., claimed cocoamphoacetate salt) (page 8, first paragraph of translation). The cleaning agent contains water as a liquid carrier (page 9, antepenultimate paragraph of translation). The cleaning agent contains 50 to 97 wt. % of the liquid carrier (page 9, tenth paragraph of translation). The cleaning agent may contain starches as a thickener (page 2, last paragraph of translation).
Jonke differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the cleaning agent comprises iron oxide particles coated with chitosan.
However, Nehra discloses wherein there is an increase in antimicrobial activity of chitosan coated Fe3O4 NPs compared to bare Fe3O4 NPs (page 16, fourth paragraph of right column).
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. Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agent comprises iron oxide and one or more antimicrobial ingredients. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated chitosan coated Fe3O4 NPs into the cleaning agent of Jonke since it is known and effective an iron oxide and has the benefit of improved antimicrobial activity compared to bare iron oxide as taught by Nehra.
The combined teachings of Jonke and Nehra do not disclose wherein the composition comprises cashew testa extract.
However, Oliveira discloses wherein different parts of Anacardium occidentale L. (i.e., cashew) may present activities against some bacteria and fungi. The shell extract (i.e. testa) on Streptococcus species presented activities for the S. mitis, S. mutans, and S. sanguis (page 16 of 34, second paragraph right column).
Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agents comprises one or more antimicrobial ingredients. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporated cashew testa extract into the cleaning agent of Jonke since it is a known and effective antimicrobial ingredient as taught by Oliveira.
The combined teachings of Jonke, Nehra, and Oliveira do not disclose wherein the cashew testa extract is at least partially physically contacted with the iron oxide particle.
However, Yang discloses Ag particles distributed on the surface and in the holes of mesoporous iron oxide. This material can be used in photocatalytic antibacterial and virus killing (abstract). Proper amount of Ag can enhance the optical catalytic activity associated with antibacterial activity. Compared with pure α-Fe2O3, the load Ag NPs of the α-Fe2O3 exhibits enhanced antibacterial activity and killing effect of virus (Background Section). A preparation method of mesoporous iron oxide single crystal material loaded with Ag nano-particle comprises the following steps: (1) step one, preparation of mesoporous ferric oxide single crystal with ferric chloride hexahydrate (i.e., iron precursor) and (2) step two, preparation of mesoporous ferric oxide single crystal loaded with Ag nano-particle by dispersing the mesoporous ferric oxide single crystal powder in a silver nitrate solution (pages 2-3 of translation).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated cashew testa extract to be in the iron oxide particle since this is a known and effective method of delivering two antimicrobial agents as taught by Yang.
In regards to instant claim 1 reciting wherein a weight ratio of the cashew testa to the iron oxide particle is about 100:1 to about 1:200, as discussed above, both compounds are antimicrobial ingredients. Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agent contains 0.05 to 0.5 wt. % one or more antimicrobial ingredient. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected an amount of cashew testa and an amount of iron oxide particle from this range and arrived at a ratio between them that overlaps with the claimed ratio. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A.
In regards to instant claim 3 reciting about 1 wt. % to about 15 wt. % carbohydrate, Nehra discloses wherein chitosan (i.e., carbohydrate) increases antimicrobial activity for iron oxide. Accordingly, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed amount of chitosan depending on the level of improvement of antimicrobial activity desired. Where 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 MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to instant claims 1 and 2 reciting wherein a weight ratio of the carbohydrate (c) to the cashew testa extract and iron oxide particle (a and b) is about 8:1 to about 1:300, as discussed above, Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agent contains 0.05 to 0.5 wt. % one or more antimicrobial ingredient. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected an amount of cashew testa and an amount of iron oxide particle from this range. Nehra discloses wherein chitosan (i.e., carbohydrate) increases antimicrobial activity for iron oxide. Accordingly, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed amount of chitosan depending on the level of improvement of antimicrobial activity desired. As such, the claimed ratio would have been obvious after one of ordinary skill in the art determined an amount for each of components (a), (b), and (c).
In regards to instant claim 5 reciting wherein the weight ratio of the cashew teata extract and iron oxide particle (a and b) is about 0.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. %, Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agent contains 0.05 to 0.5 wt. % one or more antimicrobial ingredient. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected an amount of cashew testa and an amount of iron oxide particle from this range and arrived at a ratio between them that overlaps with the claimed ratio.
In regards to instant claim 37 reciting wherein the formulation is applied on at least a surface of a fabric for use as a wet wipe, this is merely a recitation of the intended use of the claimed formulation. The cleaning agent of Jonke may be a solution since it may comprise up to 97% water. As such, the cleaning agent of Jonke is capable of being applied on a surface of fabric for use as a wet wipe, whether Jonke discloses such use or not.
In regards to instant claims 46, 47, and 49, the prior art discloses all the components claimed but do not disclose the order of reacting/mixing/adding. However, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonke et al. (WO 0168793 A1, Sep. 20, 2001) (hereinafter Jonke) in view of Nehra et al. (Antibacterial and antifungal activity of chitosan coated iron oxide nanoparticles, 2018) (hereinafter Nehra), Oliveira et al. (The importance of the cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale L.) coat: a review, Jun. 20, 2015) (IDS reference) (hereinafter Oliveira), Yang et al. (CN 111670913 A, Sep. 18, 2020) (hereinafter Yang), and further in view of Popplewell et al. (US 2006/0258557, Nov. 16, 2006) (hereinafter Popplewell).
The teachings of Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang are discussed above. Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang do not teach wherein the cleaning agent comprises an essential oil.
However, Popplewell discloses a hard surface cleaning composition (abstract). Fragrances suitable for the composition include essential oils (¶ [0022]).
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. Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agent comprises fragrances. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated essential oils into the cleaning agent of Jonke since it is a known and effective fragrance for cleaning compositions as taught by Popplewell.
3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonke et al. (WO 0168793 A1, Sep. 20, 2001) (hereinafter Jonke) in view of Nehra et al. (Antibacterial and antifungal activity of chitosan coated iron oxide nanoparticles, 2018) (hereinafter Nehra), Oliveira et al. (The importance of the cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale L.) coat: a review, Jun. 20, 2015) (IDS reference) (hereinafter Oliveira), Yang et al. (CN 111670913 A, Sep. 18, 2020) (hereinafter Yang), and further in view of Kido et al. (US 20120276038, Nov. 1, 2012) (hereinafter Kido).
The teachings of Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang are discussed above. Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang do not teach wherein the cleaning agent comprises a film forming agent.
However, Kido discloses a deterioration smell inhibitor and antimicrobial (¶ [0036]). The deterioration smell inhibitor may be used as a shape exerting an extended-releasability. For example, a water-soluble film-forming agent such as gelatin is dissolved and/or dispersed into water thereafter the deterioration smell inhibitor is emulsifying-treated therewith, and the obtained emulsified liquid is spray-dried to form powders so that a hygroscopic capsule particle enclosing the deterioration smell inhibitor is produced and it can release the deterioration smell inhibitor under a prescribed humidity or more (¶ [0038]).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated a film-forming agent, such as gelatin into the cleaning agent of Jonke motivated by the desire to control the release of active agents in the cleaning agent as taught by Kido.
In regards to the amount of gelatin recited in the instant claim, since gelatin is used as a controlled release agent, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed amount of gelatin based on the release rate desired. Where 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 MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
4. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonke et al. (WO 0168793 A1, Sep. 20, 2001) (hereinafter Jonke) in view of Nehra et al. (Antibacterial and antifungal activity of chitosan coated iron oxide nanoparticles, 2018) (hereinafter Nehra), Oliveira et al. (The importance of the cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale L.) coat: a review, Jun. 20, 2015) (IDS reference) (hereinafter Oliveira), Yang et al. (CN 111670913 A, Sep. 18, 2020) (hereinafter Yang), and further in view of Boyd et al. (US 2007/0140985, Jun. 21, 2007) (hereinafter Boyd).
The teachings of Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang are discussed above. Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang do not teach wherein the cleaning agent comprises maltodextrin.
However, Boyd discloses composition for cleaning (abstract). The composition may comprise starches such as maltodextrin (¶ [0055]).
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. Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agent comprises starches. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated maltodextrin into the cleaning agent of Jonke since it is a known and effecting starch for cleaning compositions as taught by Boyd.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of elements in the formulation of embodiments of the disclosure unexpectedly provides the advantages of an environmentally friendly antimicrobial formulation that is formed by upcycling cashew testa, the cashew testa extract provides greater stability of the composition, the formulation provides an antimicrobial persistence effect, and the carbohydrate improves the retention time of the radicals produced by the cashew testa extract and iron particle and/or iron oxide particle on the applied surface, which improves the anti-microbial effect of the formulation.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. These statements are conclusory statements in the specification. Mere conclusory statements in the specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are entitled to little weight when the PTO questions the efficacy of those statements. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 U.S.P.Q. 227, 229 (C.C.P.A. 1978). As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that surfaces treated with the formation show a >5 log reduction of bacterial cells after 24h, and further over 190 days period. This is further demonstrated on different surfaces over 30 days.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Applicant compared the claimed formulation with a formation without chitosan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected for the claimed formulation comprising chitosan and cashew testa extract to reduce more bacterial cells than a formulation without chitosan since Nehra discloses wherein there is an increase in antimicrobial activity of chitosan coated Fe3O4 NPs compared to bare Fe3O4 NPs. Also, Oliveira discloses wherein cashew testa extract is antibacterial. As such, Applicant’s showing does not appear to be unexpected.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Jonke when formulation compositions of the present disclosure as it is not an antimicrobial formulation with a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The instant claims as currently recited to do require a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity. Therefore, the prior art does not need to teach this. Also, even if it was recited, rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible. See MPEP 2144(IV). As such, the prior art is not required to teach the same purpose as Applicant and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Jonke merely suggests that anti-microbial ingredients and nanoparticles may be added, but does not demonstrate in its examples thereof such addition, nor its relative amount.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. A prior art reference is evaluated for all that it reasonable suggests and is not limited to working examples.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Jonke of any one of the following: i) a cashew testa extact, ii) an iron particle and/or iron oxide particle, iii) the weight ratio of cashew testa extract to iron particle and/or iron oxide particle, iv) weight ratio of carbohydrate to cashew testa extract and iron particle and/or iron oxide particle, and v) the cashew testa extract is at least partially physically contacted with the iron particle and/or iron oxide particle.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As this is a 103 obviousness rejection, no one piece of prior art is required to teach each and every claim limitation. The claimed invention is taught by the combination of Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Nehra when formulation compositions of the present disclosure as it is not an antimicrobial formulation with a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The instant claims as currently recited to do require a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity. Therefore, the prior art does not need to teach this. Also, even if it was recited, rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible. See MPEP 2144(IV). As such, the prior art is not required to teach the same purpose as Applicant and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Nehra does not teach or suggest a cashew testa extract, nor that the cashew testa extract is at least partially physically contacted with the iron particle and/or iron oxide particle.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As this is a 103 obviousness rejection, no one piece of prior art is required to teach each and every claim limitation. Oliveira teaches the cashew testa extract and Yang teaches physically contacting with the iron oxide particle. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Nehra leads one of ordinary skill in the art away from the presently claimed invention by stating that direct contact of the iron oxide particles with chitosan is advantageous.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Nehra does not teach away. The rejection states to incorporate cashew testa extract IN the iron oxide particle. Yang teaches wherein particles may be distributed on the surface and in the holes of mesoporous iron oxide. As such, iron oxide may have a coating of chitosan and have cashew testa extract in it. Thus, Nehra does not teach away and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Nehra does not teach or suggest any one of the following: i) the weight ratio of cashew testa extract to iron particle and/or iron oxide particle, ii) weight ratio of carbohydrate to cashew testa extract and iron particle and/or iron oxide particle.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As this is a 103 obviousness rejection, no one piece of prior art is required to teach each and every claim limitation. The claimed invention is taught by the combination of Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that there is not teaching or suggestion that firstly coating the iron oxide particles with cashew testa extract, then secondly with carbohydrate is advantageous for a persistent surface-retentive coating with sustained anti-microbial activity.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The rejection does not state wherein cashew testa extract would be coated on the iron oxide particles. The rejection states to incorporate cashew testa extract in the iron oxide particles. Also, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV). Thus, it is not necessary for the prior art to teach persistent surface-retentive coating with sustained anti-microbial activity. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Jonke and Nehra as there is no motivation to do so. In fact, there is no common feature between Jonke and Nehra, nor do they reference each other.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would combine Jonke and Nehra. Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agent comprises iron oxide and one or more antimicrobial ingredients. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated chitosan coated Fe3O4 NPs into the cleaning agent of Jonke since it is known and effective an iron oxide and has the benefit of improved antimicrobial activity compared to bare iron oxide as taught by Nehra. Furthermore, there is a common feature between Jonke and Nehra since both disclose antimicrobials. Moreover, references are not required to reference one another for it to have been obvious to combine their teachings. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to specifically throw away the advantage taught by Nehra so as to obtain the cashew testa extract that is at least partially physically contacted with the iron particle and/or iron oxide particle.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As discussed above, the rejection states to incorporate cashew testa extract IN the iron oxide particle. Yang teaches wherein particles may be distributed on the surface and in the holes of mesoporous iron oxide. As such, the chitosan coating of Nehra would not teach away from cashew testa extract being in the iron oxide particle. Thus, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Oliveira as it is not an antimicrobial formulation with a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The instant claims as currently recited to do require a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity. Therefore, the prior art does not need to teach this. Also, even if it was recited, rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible. See MPEP 2144(IV). As such, the prior art is not required to teach the same purpose as Applicant and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Oliveira suggests that the cashew testa extract is rich in polyphenols but does not teach or suggest any one of the following: i) an iron particle and/or iron oxide particle, ii) the weight ratio of cashew testa extract to iron particle and/or iron oxide particle, iii) weight ratio of carbohydrate to cashew testa extract and iron particle and/or iron oxide particle, and iv) the cashew testa extract is at least partially physically contacted with the iron particle and/or iron oxide particle.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As this is a 103 obviousness rejection, no one piece of prior art is required to teach each and every claim limitation. The claimed invention is taught by the combination of Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Jonke, Nehra, and Oliveira as there is no motivation to do so. In fact, there is no common feature between these documents, nor do they reference each other.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would combine Jonke, Nehra, and Oliverira. Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agent comprises iron oxide and one or more antimicrobial ingredients. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated chitosan coated Fe3O4 NPs into the cleaning agent of Jonke since it is known and effective an iron oxide and has the benefit of improved antimicrobial activity compared to bare iron oxide as taught by Nehra. Jonke discloses wherein the cleaning agents comprises one or more antimicrobial ingredients. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporated cashew testa extract into the cleaning agent of Jonke since it is a known and effective antimicrobial ingredient as taught by Oliveira. Furthermore, there is a common feature between Jonke, Nehra and Oliveira since each of the references disclose antimicrobials. Moreover, references are not required to reference one another for it to have been obvious to combine their teachings. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would only be motivated to formulate a formulation using chitosan iron oxide particles and cashew testa as separate components.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Yang teaches wherein particles may be distributed on the surface and in the holes of mesoporous iron oxide. Thus, iron oxide particles may have cashew testa in it and chitosan coating the iron oxide particles. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Yang as it is not an antimicrobial formulation with a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The instant claims as currently recited to do require a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity. Therefore, the prior art does not need to teach this. Also, even if it was recited, rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible. See MPEP 2144(IV). As such, the prior art is not required to teach the same purpose as Applicant and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Yang provides no teaching or suggestion of the cashew testa extract at least partially contacted with iron particles and/or iron oxide particles, nor the respective weight ratios.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As this is a 103 obviousness rejection, no one piece of prior art is required to teach each and every claim limitation. The claimed invention is taught by the combination of Jonke, Nehra, Oliveira, and Yang. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that nanoparticle synthesis has different constraints, and its synthesis process must be carefully calibrated in order for the synthesis to be successful. Thus, without any teaching or suggestion in Nehra that the iron oxide particles may be modified, or in Yang that the Ag nanoparticles may be replaced by another nanoparticle or further an organic compound, there is no motivation for one to do so as there is no reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Yang discloses on page 5 wherein it should be understood that those skilled in the art can reasonably change the embodiments. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the iron oxide of Yang may be modified. Also, Yang teaches how to load the iron oxide particles and discloses wherein iron oxide may be loaded and have particles distributed on the surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that after loading iron oxide particles, the iron oxide particles may be coated. Applicant has not shown wherein this would not be successful. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Nehra and Yang teach away from each other.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Loading iron oxide particles with cashew testa extract is having cashew testa extract at least partially physically contacted with iron oxide particles. Yang discloses wherein iron oxide particles may be loaded and coated. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be taught away from coating the iron oxide particles with chitosan as taught by Nehra. Thus, Nehra and Yang do not teach away and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make numerous non-obvious modifications with extensive trial and error and without any clear suggestion in order to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. It is not clear what would be subjected to trial and error. The prior art teachings provide direct motivation. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of these documents merely teaches standalone elements without any indication that the specific combination as presently claimed may form a persistent surface-retentive coating with sustained anti=microbial activity when applied to a surface.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The instant claims as currently recited to do require a persistent surface-retentive coating for sustained anti-microbial activity. Therefore, the prior art does not need to teach this. Also, even if it was recited, rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible. See MPEP 2144(IV). As such, the prior art is not required to teach the same purpose as Applicant and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination ignores Nehra’s teaching that chitosan must directly coat iron oxide, and further ignore Yang’s requirement for direct Ag-iron oxide contact.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. The rejection does not state wherein the iron oxide of Yang is modified. Thus, Ag would not be present. Also, as discussed above, Applicant has not explained why one would not have been successful with incorporating cashew testa extract in iron oxide and then further coating the iron oxide with chitosan. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 37, 42, 46, 47 and 49 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/TRACY LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
