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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/29/2026.
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 5, 12 and 13 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 claims 5, 12 and 13 the phrase "such as" 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).
Claims 14 and 15 are also rejected as being dependent on the rejected claim 13. Such claims have all the limitations of the rejected claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 20150342984 submitted by the applicant) in view of Wong et al. (Bactericidal and Virucidal ultrathin films assembled layer by layer polycationic N-alkylated polyethyleneimines and polyanions (submitted
by the applicant) and further in view of Onis et al. (WO 2014174237 submitted by the applicant).
The claims are drawn to An anti-microbial coating comprising an alkyl urea polyalkylene imine
polymer and an anionic polymer, the alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer being a
polyalkylene imine polymer having at least one alkyl group attached to the polyalkylene imine
polymer backbone by way of at least one urea linkage that includes a nitrogen heteroatom on the
polyalkylene imine polymer backbone; which anti-microbial coating does not comprise heparin
or a polymer comprising heparin.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches antimicrobial cationic polyamines, and more specifically, the cationic
modified polyethylene imines for antimicrobial applications. See para [0002]. The use of alkyl urea
polyalkylene imine is taught in Paras [0062],[0065] and claims 5-6. Cheng teaches a base polyamine
selected from the group consisting of polyethylene imines, partially N-acylated polyethylene imines, and combinations thereof, and ii) a solvent. See Para [0023] and [0127]. The use of an organic solvent, such as, menthol is taught in Para [0089]. Cheng teaches the low average mass, high antimicrobial activity, and low hemolytic tendencies of the cationic polyamines makes these materials attractive as broad spectrum antimicrobial agents for a wide range of medical and household uses, including wound treatments, treatment of infections, antibiotic drugs, treatment of tuberculosis, and disinfectants for household and hospital surfaces and medical instruments. See Para [0144]. Cheng teaches that the film forming compositions can be applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g., dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and "ink jet" coating). See Para [0129]. Cheng teaches that cationic polyamines are soluble in water and are not crosslinked, making them attractive as injectable and aerosol delivered agents. See Para [0287]. Cheng makes clear that the claimed alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer has been used as an antimicrobial coating agent, which can be used as a drug or applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g., dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and "ink jet" coating.
Cheng does not teach the addition of an anionic polymer.
However, Wong teaches contact-killing ionically cross-linked polymeric thin films using Layer-by-Layer technology. A polycation, N,N-dodecylmethyl-polyethylene imine, with microbicidal activity was layered with a polyanion, such as poly(acrylic acid), to create films highly effective against both airborne
and waterborne Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram negative and positive bacteria,
respectively), as well as influenza A/WSN (H1N1) virus. See the Abstract and conclusion.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add an anionic polymer to the composition
of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the addition of polyanions and
polycations in a film form as a coating was lethal to both airborne and waterborne Gram negative
bacteria and gram positive bacteria. To combine ingredients being used for the same purpose would
have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626
F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), wherein the court states "It is prima facie obvious to
combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in
order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose... [T]he idea of combining them
flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". Therefore, it would have
been obvious to combine the cationic antimicrobial coating taught by Cheng and anionic antimicrobial
coating taught by Wong, since each is individually is used for the same purpose as antimicrobial coating
agent.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches the cationic polyamines comprise one or more polymer chains (branches) comprising ethylenimine units. A linear cationic polyamine comprises i) one branch comprising a plurality of ethylenimine units and ii) two polymer chain end groups (also referred to as peripheral end groups). See Para [0059].
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches that in formula (6) R2 group on urea is can be alkyl groups of 1-30 carbons. See Para [0074]. The butyl urea falls within the scope of alkylurea taught by Cheng.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng does not teach the use of an anionic polymer. However, Wong teaches contact-killing ionically cross-linked polymeric thin films using Layer-by-Layer (LbL) technology. A polycation, N,N-dodecylmethyl-polyethylene imine, with microbicidal activity was layered with a polyanion, such as poly(acrylic acid), to create films highly effective against both airborne
and waterborne Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram negative and positive bacteria,
respectively), as well as influenza virus. See the Abstract and conclusion.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine an anionic and a cationic polymer
to the composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the addition of
polyanions and polycations in a film form as a coating was lethal to both airborne and waterborne Gram negative bacteria and gram positive bacteria.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng does not teach the addition of a cationic polymer, such as an unsubstituted
polyalkylene imine polymer or alkylated polyalkylene imine polymer. However, Wong teaches a
polycation, N,N-dodecylmethyl-polyethylene imine, with microbicidal activity was layered with a
polyanion, such as poly(acrylic acid), to create films highly effective against both airborne and
waterborne Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram negative and positive bacteria, respectively), as well as influenza A/WSN (H1N1) virus. It would have been obvious to add another
polyalkylene imine polymer having antibacterial activity and being used as a coating agent to the
composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the use of polyalkylene imine
polymer as a cationic antimicrobial coating agent The combination of ingredients being used for the
same purpose would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art in the absence of evidence to the
contrary. Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072
(CCPA 1980), wherein the court states "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of
which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition
to be used for the very same purpose [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having
been individually taught in the prior art".
Regarding claim 6, Cheng does not teach the use of a guanidine compound. However, Onis teaches
antimicrobial and antithrombogenic polymer or polymeric blend, compounds, which can be used as
coating agents. See the abstract. Onis teaches that In some embodiments, the antimicrobial agent may comprise a guanidine group or a quaternary ammonium salt. Preferred guanidine groups may comprise a guanidine derivative, a biguanide group, a biguanide derivative, a polyamino propyl biguanide group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) derivative group, a chlorhexidine group, or a chlorhexidine derivative group. See claim 10. Onis teaches that In some embodiments, it may be desirable to polymerize the polymer compounds described herein with the material of the medical device directly. In other embodiments, the copolymers can be dissolved in solution to be coated onto medical devices using any suitable solution coating method, including dip-coating, spray coating (ultrasonic, electrostatic, thermal), dip-coating with UV cure, or dip-coated and cross-linked with a polyfunctional cross-linker (e.g. polyaziridines, polyisocyanates). See Page 16, lines 20-30. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add guanidine to the composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Onis, which teaches the use of quinidine having antimicrobial activity in a coating composition. Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,
205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), wherein the court states "It is prima facie obvious to combine two
compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form
a third composition to be used for the very same purpose [T]he idea of combining them flows logically
from their having been individually taught in the prior art".
Regarding claim 7, Onis teaches antimicrobial and antithrombogenic polymer or polymeric blend, compounds, which can be used as coating agents. See the abstract. Onis teaches that In some embodiments, the antimicrobial agent may comprise a guanidine group or a quaternary ammonium salt. Preferred guanidine groups may comprise a guanidine derivative, a biguanide group, a biguanide derivative, a polyamino propyl biguanide group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) derivative group, a chlorhexidine group, or a chlorhexidine derivative group. See claim 10. Onis teaches that the antimicrobial agent comprises a guanidine group or a quaternary ammonium salt, which are bound to a polymer. Wherein the polymer comprises polymerized vinylic groups, allylic groups, methacrylate groups, acrylate groups, or combinations thereof. See claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Onis teaches polymerize the polymer compounds described herein with the material of the medical device directly. I n other embodiments, the copolymers can be dissolved in solution to be coated onto medical devices using any suitable solution coating method, including dip-coating, spray coating (ultrasonic, electrostatic, thermal), dip-coating with UV cure, or dip-coated and cross-linked with a polyfunctional cross-linker (e.g. polyaziridines, polyisocyanates). See Page 16, lines 20-30.
Regarding claim 9, Onis teaches the guanidine group comprises a guanide derivative, a guanidine derivative, a biguanide group, a biguanide derivative, a polyamino propyl biguanide group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) derivative group, a chlorhexidine group, or a chlorhexidine derivative group. See claim 10.
Regarding claim 10, the determination of optimum proportions or amounts of an alkyl urea polyalkylene imine and cationic polymers is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,
105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein the court states "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".
Regarding claim 11, Cheng teaches antimicrobial cationic polyamines, and more specifically, to cationic modified polyethylene imines for antimicrobial applications. See para [0002]. The use of alkyl urea polyalkylene imine is taught in Paras [0062],[0065] and claims 5-6. Cheng on page 5, formula (6) teaches at least one alkyl group of urea polyalkylene imine polymer is attached to imine polymer backbone by the way of a urea linkage. The use of an anionic polymer in a coating composition is taught by Wong. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add an anionic polymer to the composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the addition of polyanions and polycations in a film form as a coating was lethal to both airborne and waterborne Gram negative bacteria and gram positive bacteria. To combine ingredients being used for the same purpose would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Cheng teaches a base polyamine selected from the group consisting of polyethylene imines, partially N-acylated polyethylene imines, and combinations thereof, and ii) a solvent. See Para [0023] and [0127]. The use of an organic solvent, such as, menthol is taught in Para [0089]. Cheng teaches that the film forming compositions can be applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g., dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and "ink jet" coating). See Para[0129].
Regarding claim 13, Cheng does not teach the addition of a cationic polymer, such as an unsubstituted
polyalkylene imine polymer or alkylated polyalkylene imine polymer. However, Wong teaches a
polycation, N,N-dodecylmethyl-polyethylene imine, with microbicidal activity was layered with a
polyanion, such as poly(acrylic acid), to create films highly effective against both airborne and
waterborne Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram negative and positive bacteria, respectively), as well as influenza A/WSN (H1N1) virus. It would have been obvious to add another
polyalkylene imine polymer having antibacterial activity and being used as a coating agent to the
composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the use of polyalkylene imine polymer as a cationic antimicrobial coating agent The combination of ingredients being used for the same purpose would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072
(CCPA 1980), wherein the court states "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of
which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition
to be used for the very same purpose [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having
been individually taught in the prior art".
Regarding claim 14, Cheng does not teach the use of a guanidine compound. However, Onis teaches polymerize the polymer compounds described herein with the material of the medical device directly. In other embodiments, the copolymers can be dissolved in solution to be coated onto medical devices using any suitable solution coating method, including dip-coating, spray coating (ultrasonic, electrostatic, thermal), dip-coating with UV cure, or dip-coated and cross-linked with a polyfunctional cross-linker (e.g. polyaziridines, polyisocyanates). See Page 16, lines 20-30.
Regarding claim 15, Onis teaches the claimed cross-linkable polymer, which is a guanidine compound.
Ornis teaches a polyfunctional cross-linker (e.g. polyaziridines, polyisocyanates). Polyazaridine has
more than one carboxylic acid group. See page 16, lines 20-30.
Regarding claims 16-19, the determination of optimum proportions or amounts of alkyl urea polyalkylene imine and a cationic polymer comprising alkyl urea polyalkylene imine is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein the court states "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"
Regarding claim 20, the determination of optimum amounts or proportions of alkyl urea polyalkylene
imine and anionic polymer is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to
the contrary.
Regarding claim 21, the determination optimum proportion of alkyl urea polyalkylene imine, cationic
and anionic polymer is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the
contrary.
Regarding claim 22, Cheng teaches antimicrobial cationic polyamines, and more specifically, cationic
modified polyethylene imines for antimicrobial applications. See para [0002]. The use of alkyl urea polyalkyllene imine is taught in Paras [0062],[0065] and claims 5-6. Cheng teaches a base polyamine
selected from the group consisting of polyethylene imines, partially N-acylated polyethylene imines, and
combinations thereof, and ii) a solvent. See Para [0023] and [0127]. The use of an organic solvent, such
as, menthol is taught in Para [0089]. Cheng teaches the low average mass, high antimicrobial activity,
and low hemolytic tendencies of the cationic polyimines makes these materials attractive as broad
spectrum antimicrobial agents for a wide range of medical and household uses, including wound
treatments, treatment of infections, antibiotic drugs, treatment of tuberculosis, and disinfectants for
household and hospital surfaces and medical instruments. See Para [0144]. Cheng teaches that the film
forming compositions can be applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g.,
dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and "ink jet" coating). See Para
[0129]. Cheng teaches that cationic polyimines are soluble in water and are not crosslinked, making
them attractive as injectable and aerosol delivered agents. See Para [0287]. Cheng makes clear that the
claimed alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer has been used as an antimicrobial coating agent, which
can be used as a drug or applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g., dip
coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and "ink jet" coating.
Cheng does not teach the addition of an anionic and cationic polymer.
However, Wong teaches contact-killing ionically cross-linked polymeric thin films using Layer-by-Layer
(LbL) technology. A polycation, N,N-dodecylmethyl-polyethylene imine, with microbicidal activity was
layered with a polyanion, such as poly(acrylic acid), to create films highly effective against both airborne
and waterborne Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram negative and positive bacteria,
respectively), as well as influenza virus. See the Abstract and conclusion.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine an anionic and a cationic polymer
to the composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the addition of
polyanions and polycations in a film form as a coating was lethal to both airborne and waterborne Gram negative bacteria and gram positive bacteria. Furthermore, Onis teaches that In some embodiments,
the antimicrobial agent may comprise a guanidine group or a quaternary ammonium salt. Preferred
guanidine groups may comprise a guanide derivative, a guanidine derivative, a biguanide group, a
biguanide derivative, a polyamino propyl biguanide group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) group, a
poly(hexamethylene biguanide) derivative group, a chlorhexidine group, or a chlorhexidine derivative
group. See claim 10. Onis teaches that In some embodiments, it may be desirable to polymerize the
polymer compounds described herein with the material of the medical device directly. In other
embodiments, the copolymers can be dissolved in solution to be coated onto medical devices using any
suitable solution coating method, including dip-coating, spray coating (ultrasonic, electrostatic, thermal),
dip-coating with UV cure, or dip-coated and cross-linked with a polyfunctional cross-linker (e.g.
polyaziridines, polyisocyanates). See Page 16, lines 20-30. It would have been obvious to a person
skilled in the art to add guanidine to composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Onis, which
teaches the use of guanidine having antimicrobial activity in a coating composition. The combination of
ingredients being used for the same purpose would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980),
wherein the court states "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught
by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for
the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been
individually taught in the prior art". The relied upon references, teach all the components of claim 75
being used individually as antimicrobial coating agents. The determination of optimum proportions or
amounts are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 22 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 75 of copending Application No. 18/579,412 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 64-73 of copending application No. 18/579,412 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap.
The claims of the instant application are drawn to an anti-microbial coating comprising an alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer and an anionic polymer, the alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer being a
polyalkylene imine polymer having at least one alkyl group attached to the polyalkylene imine
polymer backbone by way of at least one urea linkage that includes a nitrogen heteroatom on the
polyalkylene imine polymer backbone; which anti-microbial coating does not comprise heparin or a polymer comprising heparin. The claims of the copending application are drawn to a liquid coating composition comprising an alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer and an anionic polymer; wherein the liquid coating composition is suitable for forming an anti-microbial coating. The alkyl urea polyalkylene imine of the instant application having at least one alkyl group attached to the polyalkylene imine
polymer backbone by way of at least one urea linkage that includes a nitrogen heteroatom on the
polyalkylene imine polymer backbone is within the scope of the alkyl urea polyalkylene imine of the copending application. The dependent claims of the instant application and the copending application are drawn to a cationic compound, a biguanide and a cross-linking agent
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539 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.
/ZOHREH A FAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights