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
Status of claims
The amendment filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7, 13, and 15-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 8-12 and 14 are under examination in the instant office action.
Rejections withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 1204/2025 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 Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.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. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 8-10 and 12 over Velev et al. (US 2014/0256545 A1), of claims 8-12 over Velev et al. (US 2014/0256545 A1) as evidenced by Researchers propose that humidity from masks may lessen severity of COVID-19 (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/researchers-propose-humidity-masks-may-lessen-severity-covid-19, 02/12/2021), and of claims 8-12 and 14 over Zussman (WO 2021/199043 A1, filing date 03/30/2021) 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 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 and 14are 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 Chiattello et al. (US 2018/0028431 A1).
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).
The new limitation of “wherein the chemically modified PEI salt is a sulfobetainized PEI salt or a phosphobetainized PEI salt” in the instant claim 8 is a further limitation of an alternative limitation in the instant claim 8
Zussman does not specify PEI being a citrate salt and the composition being broad spectrum antimicrobial (the instant claim 8).
This deficiency is cured by Chiattello et al. who teach antimicrobial compositions to be applied to disinfect a surface such as a mask (paragraph 160) comprising a cationic polymer for targeting gram-positive and/or gram-negative bacteria and enveloped and non-enveloped viruses (the claimed broad-spectrum antimicrobial) (paragraph 35);
wherein the cationic polymer includes PEI complexed with citrate (the claimed PEI citrate salt) for improved antimicrobial activity (paragraph 36 and 58).
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 Chiattello et al. to specify PEI in the composition taught by Zussman being a citrate salt. complexing PEI with citrate in broad-spectrum antimicrobial compositions for improved antimicrobial activity 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 12/04/2025, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 HONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-1328. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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