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 .
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed July 14, 2026, claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 through 12, 14 have been amended and claims 19 and 20 are new. Claims 15 through 18 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1 through 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that oxygen and/or OH radical fluence is a variable for wetting a hydrophobic polymer textile with diluted virucidal solution) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument that claimed fluence range is not merely a concentration or temperature but is a dose of “reactive neutral species” reaching the surface is not persuasive because applicant has not provided any objective evidence that the claimed fluence of reactive particle range was critical to achieving unexpected and superior results over the prior art. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP section 716.02(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 14, 2026, fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the document lists two non-patent literature documents without publication dates and therefore have not been considered. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biedermann (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0320849) in view of Drake et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0166479) and Komvopoulos et al (U.S. Patent # 8,168,074).
In the case of claim 1, Biedermann teaches a method for preparation of virucidal polymer textile materials by preparing a fibrous substrate of polymeric material with anti-viral agents (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0001). The method of Biederman comprised treating the substrate with a diluted solution of a virucidal substance in the form of an aqueous solution comprising an acidic polymer and a surfactant followed by drying the treated substrate at a temperature below 100 ℃ (Page 5 Paragraphs 0071-0074). Biederman further teaches that the surfactant comprised anti-viral properties and included Tween compounds (Page 4 Paragraph 0048) and was present in the solution in the amount of 1-2 wt% (Page 5 Paragraph 0076) which was within the claimed range of 0.05 to 15 wt%.
Biedermann does not teach having pre-treated the material prior to applying the solution using non-equilibrium gaseous plasma. However, as was discussed previously, Biedermann was directed toward a process of depositing a liquid coating onto a polymer substrate and that the polymer substrates comprised polypropylene or polyester (Abstract and Page 2 Paragraph 0014).
Drake teaches a method for forming a thin film on a substrate by plasma treating the substrate prior to applying a liquid coating (Abstract). Drake teaches that adhesion between the liquid coating and the substrate was increased by plasma treatment (Page 1 Paragraph 0002) and that the substrates treated included polymers including polypropylene and polyester (Page 3 Paragraph 0026). Drake teaches that the plasma treatment included a non-equilibrium gaseous plasma (Page 2 Paragraph 0016) wherein the plasma included oxygen or water in the amount of 1 to 10% or comprised pure oxygen (Page 3 Paragraphs 0021 and 0024). Furthermore, Drake teaches a low pressure plasma treatment wherein the plasma treatment was conducted at a pressure of 0.1 to 10 Pa (Page 3 Paragraph 0022), which was within the claimed range of below 1000 Pa.
Based on the teachings of Drake, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have conducted the plasma pre-treatment of Drake on the polymer substrate of Biedermann prior to applying the liquid solution in order to increase the adhesion between the substrate and the applied liquid coating.
Neither Biedermann nor Drake teach that the plasma comprised a fluence of reactive particles between 3x1022 m-2 and 3x1025 m-2. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Furthermore, Komvopoulos teaches a method for modifying the surface of a polymer with plasma (Abstract) wherein the plasma included energetic particles of reactive particles and VUV photons which broke apart the C-H bonds on the polymer surface (Column 4 Line 65 through Column 5 Line 11). Komvopoulos further teaches that the fluence of the energetic particles affected the surface roughness and wettability of the polymer thereby affecting the adhesion strength properties (Column 17 Lines 25-49).
Based on the teachings of Komvopoulos, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal fluence range for the reactive particles of the plasma of Biedermann in view of Drake through routine experimentation because the fluence of the particles affected the surface roughness and wettability properties of the plasma polymer surface.
As for claim 2, Biedermann teaches that prior to drying the substrate was drained or excess liquid (Page 7 Paragraph 0112).
As for claims 3 and 6, Biedermann does not specifically teach that the final amount of active substance was 0.05 to 3% by weight of the material nor that the mass of the virucidal substance on the textile was about 10 grams of virucidal substance per kilogram of dry textile. However, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for relevant process parameters through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, Biedermann teaches that the loading amount of active substance onto the textile was a relevant process parameters affecting the resistance to pathogens and the air permeability of the textile (Page 4 Paragraph 0050).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal loading amount for the active/virucidal substance of Biedermann in view of Drake and Komvopoulos through routine experimentation because the amount of substance on deposited onto the textile affected the pathogen resistance of the textile and the air permeability of the textile.
As for claim 4, as was discussed previously, the plasma of Biedermann in view of Drake and Komvopoulos comprised reactive oxygen particles and VUV photons and that it would have been obvious to have determined optimal fluence ranges for these particles through routine experimentation.
As for claim 5, Biedermann teaches that the substances incorporated into the textile further included quaternary ammonium (Page 4 Paragraph 0053).
As for claim 8, Biedermann teaches that the textile material included woven or non-woven polymers including polyethylene, polypropylene and polyester (Page 2 Paragraph 0014).
In the case of claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 1 and 4.
As for claim 10, Biedermann teaches that the material/solution was applied by either dipping or spraying (Page 5 Paragraph 0074).
As for claims 11, 12 and 14, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 5, 6 and 8, respectively.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biedermann in view of Drake et al and Komvopoulos et al as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Angres et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0400979).
The teachings of Biedermann in view of Drake and Komvopoulos as they apply to claims 1 and 9 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 7 and 13, through Biedermann teaches having dried the textile treated with the solution Biedermann does not specifically teach that the drying was conducted by any of the processes disclosed in claims 7 and 13.
Angres teaches a method for forming textiles/fabrics for anti-viral masks (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0002). Angres teach an embodiment where a roll of non-woven polypropylene was treated with a solution of active material and then dried in an infrared dryer, microwave dryer or an air blower (Page 22 Paragraphs 0264-0265).
Based on the teachings of Angres, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have dried the treated textile of Biedermann in view of Drake and Komvopoulos by either IR, microwave or air blow drying because these were known drying processes in the art.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biedermann in view of Drake et al and Komvopoulos et al as applied to claims 5 and 11 above, and further in view of Akilavasan et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0220664).
The teachings of Biedermann in view of Drake and Komvopoulos as they apply to claims 5 and 11 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 19 and 20, as was discussed previously, the solution of virucidal substance of Biedermann comprised as the virucidal substance a surfactant, specifically Tween, in the range of 1-2 wt%, which was within the claimed range of 0.3 to 3% (w/w). However, none of the references teach that the virucidal substance/surfactant was sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS).
Akilavasan teaches an aqueous formulation containing antimicrobial materials which was coated onto a textile/fabric mask (Abstract). Akilavasan teaches that the aqueous formulation comprised a surfactant (Page 8 Paragraphs 0059-0061) wherein the surfactant included Tween and SDS (Page 5 Paragraph 0038).
Based on the teachings of Akilavasan, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have subsisted the Tween compounds of Biedermann in view of Drake and Komvopoulos with SDS because both SDS and Tween were known surfactants in the art used in antimicrobial formulations.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 14, 19 and 20 have been rejected. Claims 15 through 18 have been withdrawn. No claims were 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 MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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 Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights