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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Group I, claims 1-7, 12, 14, 15, 20, in the reply filed on 06/16/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 23-27, 29-30, 36, 42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant of 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. This election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/16/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies (Provisional Application 63/176,393 – filed 04/19/2021) required by 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 10/19/2023 and 05/05/2025 have been certified and made of record.
Specification
The use of the term Saran® (para. [0067]) and ChitoClear® (para. [00146] and [00182]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 4 and 5 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.
As noted in MPEP § 2117, claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" the alternative members. See MPEP § 2111.03, subsection II, for a discussion of the term "consisting of" in the context of Markush groupings. Claims 4 and 5 contain improper Markush grouping due to the present claim language "wherein at least a portion of the hydrophilic fibers comprise” and “wherein the yarn and/or textile comprise”. Thus, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally, claim 5 contains the trademark/trade name Saran®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe polyvinylidene chloride and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 20160347030 A1) (referenced in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a textile packing (laminated sheet – element 30) comprising;
hydrophilic fibers (first fibrous sheet (See annotated FIG. 4, element 2) and a second fibrous sheet (FIG. 4, element 3) – (“air permeability and the moisture permeability” para. [0025])
support structure (with fiber material (FIG. 4, element 4 – (structurally the support structure)) interposed between the first and second fibrous sheet (para. [0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamada teaches that the laminated sheet (element 30) forms a composite layer (element 31) with a three-layer structure (para. [0053]), as this configuration enables liquid (sweat) to be absorbed and diffused efficiently (para. [0117]). Specifically, the fiber layer contains air permeability and liquid diffusibility to enable this absorption and diffusion to occur (para. [0053]). Structurally, this anticipates the support structure ensuring space between the hydrophilic fibers for a gas to pass through. Thus, the claim is anticipated.
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 2-5, 12, 14, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (already referenced) in view of Salmon et al. (US 20200276057 A1) (referenced in IDS).
It is noted that while US 20200276057 A1 has a common inventor with the instant application, the US 20200276057 A1 was filed more than a year before the earliest effective filing date of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 1, but fails to teach that the packing further comprises an active enzyme attached to the hydrophilic fibers. Salmon et al. teaches of a textile packing (abstract) comprising a flexible substrate and coating layer, wherein the coated layer comprises an active enzyme entrapped in the material (para. [0047]). Specifically, flexible substrate (e.g., a fiber, yarn or fabric) can be submerged into the chitosan/enzyme solution or mixture, removed from the solution or mixture, and dried to provide a coated substrate” (para. [0151]). Salmon et al. specifically teaches that the entrapped active enzyme can be used in the applications of biocatalyst systems, specifically by transforming an absorbed enzyme substrate into a product via a catalyzed reaction (para. [0198]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Salmon et al.’s teaching of active enzymes in Yamada’s textile packing because entrapping an active enzyme enables absorbed enzyme substrates to be catalyzed and converted into products. This method of improving Yamada’s textile packing was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Salmon et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Salmon et al. and Yamada to obtain the claimed invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 1, but fails to teach that a filament, a yarn and/or a textile comprises the hydrophilic fibers. Yamada teaches of a textile packing (abstract) using a substrate selected from the group comprising a paper, a fiber, a yarn, a ribbon, a fabric and a textile of a natural or synthetic polymer (para. [0047]), as these substrates are flexible and wettable, and capable of absorbing the enzyme substrate when catalyzing a reaction (para. [0049]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Salmon et al.’s teaching of using yarn or textile in Yamada’s textile packing because yarn or textile is flexible and wettable, enabling absorption of the enzyme substrate. This method of improving Yamada’s textile packing was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Salmon et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Salmon et al. and Yamada to obtain the claimed invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 1, but fails to teach that the hydrophilic fibers comprises cellulosic fiber. Salmon et al. teaches that the flexible substrate comprises cellulose, as cellulose substrates (paper, a cotton fiber, a cotton yarn) are biodegradable (para. [0187]). Furthermore, using cellulose as the flexible substrate would amount to using cellulosic fibers.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Salmon et al.’s teaching of using cellulose in Yamada’s textile packing because the cellulose material provides flexibility with the benefit of being biodegradable. This method of improving Yamada’s textile packing was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Salmon et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Salmon et al. and Yamada to obtain the claimed invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 3, but fails to teach that the yarn or textile comprise hydrophobic fibers, wherein at least a portion of the hydrophobic fibers comprises polyvinylidene chloride. Modified Yamada teaches of a textile packing (Salmon et al., abstract) using a substrate selected from the group comprising a paper, a fiber, a yarn, a ribbon, a fabric and a textile of a natural or synthetic polymer (Salmon et al., para. [0047]). Natural or synthetic polymers would include polyvinylidene chloride, as the combination of the references of claim 3 would encompass a structure with hydrophobic fibers comprising polyvinylidene chloride (a synthetic polymer). Therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 3. Salmon et al. further teaches that nanoparticles can be added to a coating later (including magnetite particles (metal nanoparticles)) (para. [0107]). Salmon et al. further teaches that adding solid particles to the coating layer changes the physical properties of the coating layer upon drying on the textile (para. [0107]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Salmon et al.’s teaching of solid metal particles in Yamada’s textile packing because metal particles change the physical properties of the coating layer on the textile. This method of improving Yamada’s textile packing was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Salmon et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Salmon et al. and Yamada to obtain the claimed invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 2. Furthermore, Salmon et al. teaches that the active enzyme can be selected from the group comprising an oxidoreductase, a transferase, a hydrolase, a lyase, an isomerase, and a ligase” (para. [0048]). Thus, the combination of the references of claim 2 would encompass the active enzymes of claim 14. Thus, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 15, modified Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 14. Furthermore, Salmon et al. teaches “an “additional polyanion” is a polyanion separately added to a solution or mixture comprising chitosan, the one or more enzyme to be entrapped therein, or both, prior to the solidification of the chitosan and the entrapment of the enzyme. In some embodiments, a polyanion can be added to a material of the presently disclosed subject matter after the chitosan is solidified with at least one enzyme stably entrapped therein (para. [0106]). This teaching represents entrapment in a chitosan material coating, as the combination of references used in claim 14 would encompass a structure of active enzyme attachment through entrapment in a chitosan material coating. Thus, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 2. Salmon et al. teaches using Tris Buffer (pH 7.2) specifically with three 5 mL changes in the preparation of chitosan films with entrapped carbonic anhydrase enzyme adsorbed in chitosan particles (para. [0293]). Salmon et al. further teaches that an entrapped enzyme exhibits in some embodiments “at least about 25% (or at least about 30%, 35%, 40%, 45% or more) or the enzymatic activity expected based on the amount of enzyme incorporated into the matrix” (para. [0162]). Salmon et al., however, fails to teach that 10 cycles of washing the textile packing in the Tris Buffer were performed. Nevertheless, changing the cycles of Tris Buffer used would amount to optimization within prior art condition or through routine optimization (MPEP § 2144.05.II), as one of ordinary skill in the art would look to optimizing the wash-dry cycles for retaining enzyme activity.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (already referenced) in view of Saunders et al. (US 20110174156 A1) (referenced in IDS).
It is noted that while US 20110174156 A1 has a common inventor with the instant application, the US 20110174156 A1 was filed more than a year before the earliest effective filing date of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 1, but fails to teach that the support structure comprises a mesh and/or rigid rods, and the textile packing further comprises a spacer attached to the textile. Saunders et al. teaches specifically that spiral wound membrane designs specifically use spacers when separating the flat sheet membranes when around a collection pipe (para. [0034]). Furthermore, Saunders et al. teaches that the matrix used in immobilization of the carbonic anhydrase (enzyme) can be selected from the group beads, fabrics, fibers, hollow fibers, membranes, particulates, porous surfaces, rods.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Saunders et al.’s teaching of rods and spacers in Yamada’s textile packing because rods can be used as a matrix to immobilize enzymes, while spacers can be used in spiral round designs when in a collection pipe. This method of improving Yamada’s textile packing was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Saunders et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Saunders et al. and Yamada to obtain the claimed invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamada teaches the textile packing of claim 6. Saunders et al. teaches specifically that spiral wound membrane designs specifically use spacers when separating the flat sheet membranes when around a collection pipe (para. [0034]). Thus, the combination of the references of claim 6 would encompass a spiral wounded shape formed by layering the textiles, and therefore, the claim is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/J.F.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights