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 10, 11, 14-16, and 18-24 are pending and are currently under consideration.
Claims 12, 13, and 17 are newly cancelled.
Claims 10, 16, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murray-Smith (GB 2526591) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 10 to incorporate the limitations of claim 13.
The rejection of claim(s) 10, 11, 14-16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzi et al (WO 2019/202028) and Murray-Smith (GB 2526591) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 10 to incorporate the limitations of claim 13.
The rejection of claim(s) 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzi et al (WO 2019/202028) and Murray-Smith (GB 2526591) in view of Chen et al (CA 3097636) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Rejections Maintained and Made Again in view of Applicant’s Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 14-16, 18-24 (all claims currently under consideration) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzi et al (WO 2019/202028)(IDS Reference), Murray-Smith (GB 2526591)(IDS Reference), and Biersack et al (DE 102019002106)(Machine Translation) as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich (Alginic acid sodium salt).
Rizzi teaches an aqueous composition comprising 2-15% graphene wherein at least 90% has a lateral size (x,y) from 100 to 10,000 nm and a thickness (z) from 0.34 to 10 nm, and wherein the C/O ratio is ≥ 100:1 and 2-5% thickener (see entire document for instance, page 11). The thickener is taught as being a polysaccharide, and specifically, alginates (see entire document for instance, page 12). Rizzi further teaches a textile with said composition applied in an amount of 40 g/m2, and specifically that the graphene is deposited in an amount of 1.44 g/m2 (see entire document, for instance, page 17). It is noted that based on 2-5% thickener, with an amount of 40 g/m2 for the composition, the amount of thickener would be 0.8-2 g/m2. The material of the textile article is taught as being selected from the group including cellulose acetate (see entire document, for instance, page 6, fourth and fifth paragraphs).
Rizzi, while teaching the instantly claimed composition and their instantly claimed amounts and that the thickener is an alginate, does not expressly teach that it is a salt of said alginate. Further, Rizzi does not expressly teach the presence of a phytotherapeutic substance.
Murray-Smith teaches ink composition comprising polysaccharides, and specifically sodium alginate (see entire document, for instance, page 2, third paragraph). Murray-Smith further exemplifies an embodiments with 1% sodium alginate as well as 5% graphene (see entire document, for instance, page 5, Example 3). It is noted that sodium alginate is also known as alginic acid sodium salt (see as evidence Sigma Aldrich, Alginic acid sodium salt).
Biersack teaches cellulose acetate materials can be used in combination with the germicidal actives thymoquinone and curcumin (see entire document, page 2, first full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to utilize sodium alginate as taught by Murray-Smith as the alginate of Rizzi. One would have been motivated to do so since Rizzi teaches the presence of alginates, wherein Murray-Smith teaches similar compositions and teach that sodium alginate is particularly useful. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since both Rizzi and Murray-Smith are directed to compositions comprising graphene and alginates.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to utilize curcumin or thymoquinone as taught in Biersack in the composition of Rizzi. One would have been motivated to do so to add germicidal activity to the cellulose acetate material of Rizzi. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since Rizzi and Biersack are directed to compositions wherein the base material is cellulose acetate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive against the grounds of rejection set forth above. It is note that the grounds of rejection set forth above are different from the grounds in the previous Office Action, and as such, Applicant’s arguments are considered moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TREVOR M LOVE whose telephone number is (571)270-5259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F typically 6:30-3.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 5712726175. 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.
/TREVOR LOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611