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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
The amendment filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 14 has been canceled and claims 1-7, 13, and 15-20. Claims 8-12 are under examination in the instant office action.
Rejections withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 04/09/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claims 8-12 and 14 over Zussman (WO 2021/199043 A1) and Chiattello et al. (US 2018/0028431 A1) from the previous Office Action. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
New ground of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment
The amendments necessitate the following new ground of rejection.
Claim Objection
Claim 8 is objected in the recitation the acronym “PEI”. Use of the full terminology at the first occurrence would obviate this objection.
Claim Rejection - 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zussman (WO 2021/199043 A1, filing date 03/30/2021) in view of Haldar et al. (WO 2008/127416 A2).
Zussman teaches a process for manufacturing the multi-layered article comprising biocidal matrix (the claimed inhibiting microbial activity in the instant claim 8) such as a face mask in figure 3 (the elected species in the instant claims 9-10 and 12 and the feature of a face mask in the instant claim 11) (claims 1 and 28 and figure 3) comprising manufacturing a fibrous mat; and applying a composition comprising at least one agent selected from a biocidal agent, etc., by electro-spraying (the instant claim 12) (claims 30-32);
wherein the biocidal agent includes cationic polymer (cationic, thus is a salt) polyethyleneimine (PEI) (the instant claim 1) (paragraph 56);
wherein the matrix comprises between 0.1 and 1% w/w of a biocidal agent (paragraph 58) and a solution comprising 10% w/w of a biocide (paragraph 138). Thus, 1-10% w/w of biocide solution being applied to the matrix (0.1%/10% = 1% and 1%/10% = 10%) (the instant claim 1).
Zussman does not specify PEI being a sulfobetainized halide salt and the composition being broad spectrum antimicrobial (the instant claim 8).
This deficiency is cured by Haldar et al. who teach linear or branched derivatives of polyethyleneimine
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iodide salt being virucidal (abstract and page 16, line 15 through page 17, line 3 and page 17, line 11 through page 18, line 7) including sultone (page 10, line 27) which results in sulfobetainization of polyethyleneimine.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in Zussman and Haldar et al. to specify PEI in the composition taught by Zussman being a sulfobetainized halide salt. Sulfobetainized halide salt of PEI being virucidal was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for specifying it flows from its having been used in the prior art, and from its being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose.
Response to Applicants’ arguments:
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 04/09/2026, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-1328. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5:30 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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONG YU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights