DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 05/28/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 25 depends from a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Maintained)
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 1, 3, 31, 36, 43, 77, 117-119, and 130 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Severich et al. (US 2012/0015574 A1) in view of Jin et al. (CN 111849328 A).
Examiner’s note: The following figure is newly included in this rejection (from paragraph [0255] cited in the non-final) for sake of clarity of the rejection and to demonstrate how the previously cited reference reads on the instant claims. The ground of rejection remains the same.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 77, 117-119, and 130, paragraph [0255] of Severich discloses an adduct of a first multifunctional crosslinker and a first quaternary ammonium salt, wherein the quaternary ammonium salt has a reactive linking group (-OH) to react with the first multifunctional crosslinker. The crosslinker is a polyisocyanate with a functionality of 3. Here, the triisocyanate is reacted with the antimicrobial agent (the quaternary ammonium compound) [0254]-[0255] [claims 40-41] [0053] which Severich discloses is added to the prepolymers (which includes polyols) to bring about crosslinking of the prepolymers (claim 33) (abstract) [0112]-[0120]. Severich teaches that the emulsion of the disclosure is a composition used to coat textile fabrics [abstract].
Severich does not disclose a water-soluble polymer.
Jin teaches a coating for fabrics (English translation, pg. 2) with isocyanate crosslinked with hydroxyethyl cellulose (English translation, pg. 3, paragraph 10). Jin teaches that the aqueous polymer, such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, is easy to dissolve in water, and its crosslinking with isocyanate improves the stability of the material long-term maintaining high moisture permeability (English translation, pg. 3, paragraph 10).
Since Severich generally teaches a coating for fabrics with isocyanate, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include hydroxyethyl cellulose in water, within the teachings of Severich, because Jin teaches aqueous hydroxyethyl cellulose crosslinked with isocyanate in a coating for fabrics. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use hydroxyethyl cellulose, within the teachings of Severich to crosslink with the isocyanate to improve the stability of the material long-term and allow for high moisture permeability of the material (English translation, pg. 3, paragraph 10).
Regarding the limitations of “an oil-in-water emulsion”, “an oil phase”, and “an aqueous phase”, while Severich does not explicitly disclose these limitations, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the combined teachings of the prior art disclose an emulsion with the same components (quaternary ammonium-isocyanate added to fatty polyols; hydroxyethyl cellulose in water), the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims (“oil phase” and “aqueous phase”) are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
Further regarding claims 1 and 77, the polymer network being produced from “random polymerization” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Even though the product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, the polymer network of the combined teachings of Severich (containing the adduct crosslinked to the prepolymers with polyols) and Jin (teaches hydroxyethyl cellulose crosslinked to isocyanate), reads on the claimed polymer network. As such, the patentability of the instant claim does not depend on its method of production, and the Applicant' s limitation regarding the polymer network being produced from random polymerization is not patentable in view of Severich and Jin. Even so, Severich teaches that the -OH group of the quaternary ammonium compound is capable of addition to isocyanate [0053] [0255], the addition of the triisocyanate brings about crosslinking of the prepolymers (abstract; claim 33), and Jin teaches that the aqueous polymer (i.e., hydroxyethyl cellulose) is crosslinked by isocyanate (pg. 3, paragraph 10), therefore, it would be reasonably expected that the polymer network of the combined teachings of the prior art would be brought about by random polymerization.
Claim 3 is rendered prima facie obvious because Severich discloses the antimicrobial agent is preferably a quaternary ammonium compound with at least one alkyl radical having a length equal to or greater than ten carbon atoms as well as a functional group that is capable of addition to isocyanate, preferably an OH group [0053]. The following quaternary ammonium salt is disclosed [0254].
PNG
media_image2.png
103
237
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While this quaternary ammonium salt differs from the elected compound (C18DMDEG) in that it does not contain an ether functional group and has a chloride instead of a bromide counter ion, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09. In the instant case, the compounds have close structural similarities (quaternary ammonium salt with same hydrophobic chain length and differ only in the ether functional group and counter anion) and have the same utility as an antimicrobial agent.
Claim 31 is rendered prima facie obvious because Severich discloses the prepolymers (in the oil phase) are diluted with a diluent (water) [0253].
Claim 36 is rendered prima facie obvious because Severich discloses polyols such as polyether polyols [0120].
Claim 43 is rendered prima facie obvious because it would have been prima facie obvious to include hydroxyethyl cellulose, as taught by Jin, within the teachings of Severich, as previously discussed.
Further regarding claim 130, the preparation method of the polymer network is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation, as previously discussed. In the instant case, the polymer network of the combined teachings of Severich and Jin, containing a quaternary ammonium salt, isocyanate with a functionality of 3, polyols, and hydroxyethyl cellulose, reads on the claimed polymer network. As such, the patentability of the instant claim does not depend on its method of production and the Applicant' s limitation regarding the process of preparation is not patentable, in view of Severich and Jin. Even so, Severich discloses a quaternary ammonium-isocyanate adduct is formed [0254]-[0255] and is added to the prepolymers (which includes polyols) to bring about crosslinking of the prepolymers (claim 33) (abstract) [0112]-[0120]. It would have been prima facie obvious to include hydroxyethyl cellulose as previously discussed, which Jin discloses is dissolved in water (pg. 3, paragraph 10). Severich discloses the emulsion is applied to surfaces [0058]-[0059] and dried by heating (i.e., cured) to form a polymer network [0021].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pg. 11 that the methods taught by Severich specifically require the use of diisocyanates in the production of the prepolymer, which contrasts with the instantly claimed polyisocyanate which has an average functionality of 3 to 4.
The Examiner disagrees. The polyisocyanate taught by Severich at paragraph [0255] has a functionality of 3.
Applicant argues at pg. 11-12 that the claimed first quaternary ammonium salt has a reactive linking group to react with the first polyisocyanate, which is not present in the methods taught by Severich.
The Examiner disagrees. The first quaternary ammonium taught by Severich at paragraph [0255] has a reactive linking group (-OH functionality) to react with the polyisocyanate.
Applicant argues at pg. 13 that one of ordinary skill has no particular guidance to select any of the aqueous polymers, let alone hydroxyethyl cellulose, described in Jin to modify Severich’s compositions, especially since Jin teaches that their aqueous polymer is not covalently bound to, but merely blended with the antiviral component.
The Examiner disagrees. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use hydroxyethyl cellulose, within the teachings of Severich to crosslink with the isocyanate to improve the stability of the material long-term allowing for high moisture permeability of the material (pg. 3, paragraph 10). While Jin does not teach hydroxyethyl cellulose covalently bound to the antiviral compound, Jin does teach hydroxyethyl cellulose crosslinked with isocyanate, which is a component of the composition of Severich.
Claims 3 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Severich et al. (US 2012/0015574 A1) in view of Jin et al. (CN 111849328 A) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2011/0124772 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Severich in view of Jin was previously discussed.
While claim 3 is prima facie obvious over Severich in view of Jin, as discussed above due to the close structural similarities between the quaternary ammonium salt taught by Severich and the elected compound C18DMDEG, in the interest of completeness of prosecution, purely arguendo, and for the purposes of this ground of rejection only, the claim will be interpreted as not being obvious because Severich does disclose the elected compound C18DMDEG.
Wang teaches an antimicrobial coating composition with a polymeric backbone and an antimicrobial active moiety [abstract] [0029]. The following is disclosed as an exemplary quaternary ammonium halide with antimicrobial activity where it is disclosed that m = 1-3, n=17, and X- is a bromide ion [0064] [0033].
PNG
media_image3.png
95
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, since Severich generally taught antimicrobial quaternary ammonium salts, it is prima facie obvious to select that taught by Wang at [0064] for incorporation into the composition based on its recognized suitability for the intended use as an exemplary quaternary ammonium halide with antimicrobial activity, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 72, Severich does not disclose that the polymer network includes the claimed chain extenders.
Wang teaches that the polymer backbone includes polyols as chain extenders such as 1, 4-butanediol and ethylene glycol [0041].
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, since Severich generally taught an antimicrobial coating composition with polyols, it is prima facie obvious to include polyols such as 1, 4-butanediol and ethylene glycol based on their recognized suitability for the intended use as polyols in an antimicrobial coating composition as taught by Wang.
Further regarding claims 3 and 72, it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, to yield predictable results. In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., quaternary ammonium salt; 1, 4-butanediol and ethylene glycol) were known in the prior art (e.g., Wang) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed (within the teachings of Severich and Jin) by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results (e.g., an antimicrobial coating composition) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Severich in view of Jin and further in view of Wang rests on the assumption that the combination of Severich and Jin renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1, which it does not and that Wang does not cure the deficiencies of the primary rejection.
The Examiner disagrees because the subject matter of claim 1 is obvious over Severich and Jin, as discussed above. Furthermore, Severich and Jin are not deficient expect where Wang teaches the claimed chain extenders.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Severich et al. (US 2012/0015574 A1) in view of Jin et al. (CN 111849328 A) and further in view of Jana et al. (Polymers 2021, 13, 2875. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13172875).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Severich in view of Jin was previously discussed.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Severich does not disclose that the reactive isocyanate functionality on the first adduct is protected with a blocking agent, where the blocking agent is selected from those recited in claim 26.
Jana teaches that blocking agents, such as phenyls, oximes, alcohols, and lactams, can be used in the preparation of polyurethanes from isocyanates (abstract; pg. 2, first paragraph). Jana teaches that the blocking agents are used to reduce the hazards of isocyanates and for operational simplicity (abstract; pg. 1-2).
Since Severich generally teaches reactions with isocyanates, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a blocking agent, such as a phenyl, oxime, alcohol, or lactam, within the teachings of Severich, because Jana teaches that these blocking agents are used to reduce the hazards of isocyanates and for operational simplicity (abstract; pg. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Severich in view of Jin and further in view of Jana rests on the assumption that the combination of Severich and Jin renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1, which it does not and that Jana does not cure the deficiencies of the primary rejection.
The Examiner disagrees because the subject matter of claim 1 is obvious over Severich and Jin, as discussed above. Furthermore, Severich and Jin are not deficient expect where Jana teaches the claimed blocking agents.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/28/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/373,683 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights