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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/25/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments have introduced new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Ren (CN 110373709) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Flick (US 2006/0264796) in view of Dumas is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites: “the first configuration consists of a member formed of a metal or an alloy”. Claim 1 later specifies: “the metal consists of one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, magnesium, silver, copper, iron, and the alloy”. This language includes superfluous recitations because the claim first recites the member is formed of a metal or an alloy and then later recites the metal consists of various metal elements or the same previously recited alloy. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 6-10, and 12-13 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.
Claim 1 recites: “wherein the alloy consists of one selected from the group consisting of…” This limitation is indefinite. The plain and ordinary meaning of an alloy is a solid solution comprising at least one metal, and at least one other element. Claim 1 improperly defines an alloy as something consisting of a single metal. This is clearly a pure elemental metal, which is not an alloy. For purposes of examination, it is presumed that the claimed alloy consists of at least two metals selected from the recited group.
Claim 1 recites “the first configuration consists of a member formed of a metal or an alloy…the metal consists of one selected from the group consisting of…”. This limitation is indefinite, as it is unclear whether the member of the first configuration consists of a metal selected from the recited group, or whether the member may comprise additional elements (i.e., formed of materials other than the recited “a metal or an alloy”). For purposes of examination, it is presumed that the member consists of “a metal or an alloy” as specified by the claim, as this is consistent with Applicant’s arguments and this interpretation appears to have been Applicant’s intention (see Remarks, p. 6).
Dependent claims not addressed are indefinite by virtue of dependence from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed antibacterial metal material having the claimed surface roughness index, composition, and surface roughness characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights