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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 9-15) in the reply filed on 2/26/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/26/26.
In Applicant’s 2/26/26 response, claims 1-8 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Borowiak et al (US 2021/0324140; hereafter Borowiak). {webcapture of https://www.armandhammer.com/en/articles/baking-soda-shoe-cleaning, (published 9/10/2019) provided solely as evidence; hereafter A&H}.
As Anticipated:
Claim 9: Borowiak teaches a method for preparing a modified acid neutralizing polymer material (mANPM), (See, for example, abstract, [0005], [0011], [0029]) comprising:
a) receiving a substrate comprising an acid neutralizing polymer material (ANPM) (See, for example abstract, [0005], [0011], examples);
b) applying a basic salt solution (buffer wash, further sodium bicarbonate / water wash) to the substrate wherein a modified substrate is created through a reaction product between the basic salt solution and the ANPM to form the mANPM (see, for example, abstract, [0005], [0011], [0029]);
c) allowing the basic salt solution to evaporate from the modified substrate (see, for example, for example, abstract, [0005], [0011-12], [0029]; inherently water evaporates under standard conditions, further from applied mixtures with sodium bicarbonate {as evidenced by {A&H} pg 1)}, thus any passage of time following application would read on allowing the solution to evaporate).
Alternatively As Obviated:
Claim 9: Refer to the rejection of claim 9 above. Although no singular exemplary embodiment explicitly states allowing to evaporate for a particular time, Borowiak has explicitly taught wherein the purpose of salt solution wash is to treat the surface with the bicarbonate to allow for regeneration of the acid neutralization function, and further teaches wherein supporting articles include worn fabrics / clothing such as lab coats and diapers (see, for example, [0011-0013]). If not already inherent that the applied salt solution would have been allowed to evaporate thereon, such a periods of time between application and handling, storing, packing, shipping, etc, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated allowing the basic salt solution to evaporate from the modified substrate since garments such as lab coats and diapers are conventionally desired to be dry upon wearing for improved comfort and to serve its intended purposes.
Claim 10: Borowiak further teaches wherein the substrate comprises a fabric, support structure or a particle (see, for example, [0074]).
Claim 11: Borowiak further teaches wherein the ANPM comprises a polyamide backbone functionalized by addition of one or more a halogenated-dialkylalkylamine, a haloalkyl heterocyclic aromatic amine, and a halogenated tertiary amine (See, for example, [0005-6], [0011-12], and examples).
Claim 13-14: Borowiak further teaches 13 wherein the basic salt solution comprises sodium bicarbonate (See, for example, [0011-0012] and [0029]).
Claim 15: Borowiak further teaches e) regenerating the mANPM after exposure to an acid by reapplication of the basic salt solution in accordance with steps (b) through (d) (See, for example, [0011-0012]). Alternatively, although no singular exemplary embodiment is described wherein a previously buffer washed sample undergoes an additional reapplication of the salt solution per (b) through (d), based upon the explicit guidance that reapplication of the basic salt solution to the fabric / garment, such as for lab coats, wherein one of ordinary skill would readily understand that more than singular instances of acid exposure are a commonality, can regenerate its acid neutralization function, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an reapplication of the salt solution per (b) through (d) anytime additional acid exposure occurs since such a buffer treatment would predictably provide a means to regenerate the intended acid neutralization function, and avoid waste and money associated with instead disposing of the acid exposed garment and buying a replacement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borowiak in view of Hopmann et al (Chapter 1 “Introduction to Reactive Extrusion” in Reactive Extrusion: Principles and Applications, 1st Ed. Beyer & Hopmann © 2018, pg 3-10; Hereafter Hopmann).
Claim 12: Borowiak teaches the method of claim 11 (above), but does not explicitly teach wherein the ANPM is produced via reactive extrusion. Hopmann teaches an introduction to reactive extrusion (See, entirety). Hopmann further teaches wherein: “the supply chain of plastics processing usually consists of three steps: polymerization, compounding, and further processing. In industrial applications, these three steps are separated in time and space, as each process step is usually performed by a different company with clearly defined areas of responsibilities… raw material manufacturers produce only few variations in large quantities. This restriction at the beginning of the process chain hinders use in plastics applications that demand more specific characteristics profiles than are currently available. A higher flexibility during polymer synthesis could therefore create a wider range of scope of plastics applications.” (pg 4). Hopmann teaches wherein such issues can be overcome by incorporating reactive extrusion as it “offers flexible alternative to polymerization in the presence of a solution, suspension, or emulsion and subsequent compounding.”, it allows for the absence of solvents as a reaction medium, and enhanced flexibility (see, for example, pg 4-5, and entirety). Hopmann further teaches the suitability of reaction extrusion for use with polyamides (See, for example, Table 1.1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated producing the ANPM via reactive extrusion since such a method would predictably overcome a number of issues associated with conventional plastics processing allowing for higher flexibility during polymer synthesis to create a wider range of scope of plastics application, offers flexible alternative to polymerization in the presence of a solution, suspension, or emulsion and subsequent compounding, and allows for the absence of solvents as a reaction medium further avoiding exposure, disposal, and waste of such materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights