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 remain pending and are currently under consideration.
Claims 10 and 16 are currently amended.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claim(s) 10, 11, 14-16, 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzi et al (WO 2019/202028), Murray-Smith (GB 2526591), and Biersack et al (DE 102019002106) as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich (Alginic acid sodium salt) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim.
New Grounds of Rejection – Necessitated by 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 Murray-Smith (GB 2526591)(IDS Reference), Adamczak et al (2020, Pharmaceuticals), and Rizzi et al (WO 2019/202028)(IDS Reference).
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 aqueous embodiment 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). Murray-Smith further teaches that preservatives are to be utilized in the composition, and specifically asserts that the preservatives can be antimicrobial preservatives, and preferably, class I preservatives, namely those which are naturally occurring, such as rosemary extract (see entire document, for instance, page 2, paragraphs 5-7).
Murray-Smith, while teaching the presence of a preservative, does not expressly teach the instantly claimed preservative, such as curcumin. Further, Murray-Smith, while teaching the concept of inks that are applied to surfaces, does not expressly articulate that the surface is a textile or the specific properties of the graphene.
Adamczak teaches that curcumin has preservative properties and has antimicrobial activity (see entire document, for instance, Title and page 8, last paragraph).
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).
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 the curcumin of Adamczak as the preservative of Murray-Smith. One would have been motivated to do so since Murray-Smith teaches that preferable preservatives are naturally occurring and antimicrobial, wherein Adamczak teaches that naturally curcumin is both a preservative and an antimicrobial agent. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since Murray-Smith teaches the desired function of the preservative, wherein Adamczak teaches that curcumin is a useful preservative that performs the desired function of Murray-Smith.
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 the graphene of Rizzi for the graphene of Murray-Smith. One would have been motivated to do so since Murray-Smith teaches graphene, wherein Rizzi teaches particularly useful graphene for graphene ink. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since both Murray-Smith and Rizzi teach graphene for ink materials.
It additionally would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to apply the composition of Murray-Smith to a textile material as taught by Rizzi. One would have been motivated to do so since Murray-Smith teaches applying the composition to a substrate, wherein Rizzi teaches graphene compositions are able to be applied to textile materials. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since both Murray-Smith and Rizzi are directed to coating materials.
It is noted that with regard to the source material for the components, the instant claims are directed to a product, and not a method, wherein when the products are the same, the method of their sources does not limit the invention unless said method steps would result in a structural difference in the final product. No such evidence has been provided to support that the method step of obtaining from renewable sources changes the structural properties of the final product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/05/2026 are directed to a ground of rejection that has now been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive against the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights