DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 6/30/2026 wherein claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12 and 13 have been amended and claims 14-16 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: current claims status as ‘withdrawn’ but appear cancelled as the claims have been stricken in their entirety from the set. See MPEP 714. If the claims have in fact been cancelled, then appropriate correction is required.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 6/30/2026 overcomes the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7 and 12 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s amendments filed 6/30/2026 overcomes the rejection of claim 4 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uhlman et al. (US 2012/0301533). This rejection is withdrawn as claim 4 now requires the copper course to be CuSO4 which Uhlman fails to disclose.
Applicant’s amendments filed 6/30/2026 overcomes the rejection of claim 4 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (US 2016/0220728). This rejection is withdrawn as claim 4 now requires the copper course to be CuSO4 which Adams fails to disclose.
Applicant’s amendments filed 6/30/2026 overcomes the rejection of claim 4 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Adams et al. (US 2016/0220728) in view of Riesinger et al. (US 2011/0213286). This rejection is withdrawn as claim 4 now requires the copper course to be CuSO4 which Adams fails to teach.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 made by the examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uhlman et al. (US 2012/0301533) is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 4/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 made by the examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. (US 2020/0102673) is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 4/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-13 made by the examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Adams et al. (US 2016/0220728) is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 4/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-13 made by the examiner under 35 USC 103 over Adams et al. (US 2016/0220728) in view of Riesinger et al. (US 2011/0213286) is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 4/16/2026.
In regards to the 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections, Applicant asserts the following:
A) The references to Uhlman, Dong and Adams all fail to teach that a medical device comprising a copper component that comprises a positively charged copper-based salt.
In regards A, the Examiner is not persuaded as each of the teaching teach nanoparticles comprising copper salts where the copper is in the form of CuI (see Uhlman and Adams), Cu2O (see Uhlman) and copper salts generally (see Dong). Copper in each of these copper salts would have copper present as a positively charge ion (a cation). CuI and Cu2O both possess a Cu+ cation and ‘copper salts’ would have a copper cation in one of its oxidation states (e.g. Cu+, Cu2+). Thus, the nanoparticles of the prior art composition comprising these copper salts would have a positively charged copper based salt. Applicant points to some of the copper salts described by the prior art as having low water solubility, however, this is not mitigating because low water solubility does not mean no water solubility and the ability to some degree dissociate when in water. The present claims do not stipulate any requirement that the copper salts be fully water soluble.
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uhlman et al. (US 2012/0301533).
Uhlman describes metallic antimicrobial compositions comprising metallic nanoparticles. The nanoparticle is to comprise a copper salt (e.g. copper iodide (CuI), copper oxide (Cu2O); ionic copper), a silver halide (e.g. AgI) (ionic silver), a silver metal and a copper metal (see [0026, 0086]) (see instant claim 1). The copper salts would have the property of having a positively charged copper cation. The nanoparticles are to include a functionalizing agent such as cationic surfactants like cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (a quaternary ammonium) (see [0067, 0094]) (see instant claims 1 and 3). The metallic antimicrobial composition may be incorporated into fibers and/or be provided to medical devices such as bandages and masks (see Table 1 and [0127, 0128]) (see instant claim 6) wherein the composition is present on the surface of the device so as inhibit microbe growth (see [0015, 0031]).
Regarding instant claim 5, the coefficient of antimicrobial synergy according to:
PNG
media_image1.png
57
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a limitation which cannot be assessed by the Examiner as the USPTO is not a laboratory. However, because the prior art describes a composition identical in composition to that claimed, any properties (e.g. coefficient of synergy) possessed by the claimed invention must be possessed by the prior art, albeit unrecognized. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding instant claim 10, this is an intended use limitation. This claim does not limit the structure of the composition but instead describes an outcome of the product when used in a specific way (‘applied on wound or inflamed tissue’). See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding instant claim 11, Dong states that the presence of zinc in their fibers inhibit the growth of viruses (see [0009]). And, because the Dong describes an identical composition to that claimed (a mask made from fibers comprising nanoparticles of silver metal, copper metal, ionic silver and ionic copper functionalized with cationic surfactants), the composition of Dong must similarly be capable of reducing activity/viability or inactivating SARS-CoV-2 and/or H1N1.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. (US 2020/0102673).
Dong is directed to antimicrobial fibers. The fibers are to include antimicrobial metallic nanoparticles dispersed uniformly therein (see [0013]). Exemplified nanoparticle metals include copper metal, silver metal, silver salts (ionic silver) and copper salts (ionic copper) (see [0017]) (see instant claims 1). The copper salts would have the property of having a positively charged copper cation. The nanoparticles may be modified with a surfactant so as to facilitate uniform dispersion in the fiber mixture (see [0021]). Surfactants may be cationic and include quaternary ammonium surfactants (see [0022, 0041] and claims 1, 3 and 9). The presence of the cationic surfactant on the copper-based nanoparticle would render it positively charged as required by instant claim 1. The antimicrobial fibers are to be shaped into a textile such as mask and bandages (see claim 13) (see instant claim 6) so as to destroy unwanted microbes that may be inhaled or contact the skin. It is noted that the antimicrobial fiber is intended to contact the skin (see [0025]). Regarding instant claim 8, this is a product-by-process limitation. See MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding instant claim 5, the coefficient of antimicrobial synergy according to:
PNG
media_image1.png
57
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a limitation which cannot be assessed by the Examiner as the USPTO is not a laboratory. However, because the prior art describes a composition identical in composition to that claimed, any properties (e.g. coefficient of synergy) possessed by the claimed invention must be possessed by the prior art, albeit unrecognized. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding instant claim 10, this is an intended use limitation. This claim does not limit the structure of the composition but instead describes an outcome of the product when used in a specific way (‘applied on wound or inflamed tissue’). See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding instant claim 11, Dong states that the presence of zinc in their fibers inhibit the growth of viruses (see [0009]). And, because the Dong describes an identical composition to that claimed (a mask made from fibers comprising nanoparticles of silver metal, copper metal, ionic silver and ionic copper functionalized with cationic surfactants), the composition of Dong must similarly be capable of reducing activity/viability or inactivating SARS-CoV-2 and/or H1N1.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (US 2016/0220728).
Adams discloses an antimicrobial composition for use in wound care, e.g. a bandage, dressing, fibers (see [0012, 0069, 0115], Table 2 and claim 2) (see instant claim 6) and possess the ability to absorb exudate when applied to wounds (see [0115]) (see instant claim 9). The antimicrobial bandages/dressing are to contact the skin with the antimicrobial components contained therein (see [0124]) (see instant claim 9) so as to kill unwanted bacteria, viruses and fungi (see [0028]). The antimicrobial composition is to comprise metal nanoparticles including a copper salt (e.g. CuI; see abstract Table 5) and silver (e.g. AgBr and/or Ag; see Table 5) (see instant claims 1 and 3) wherein the antimicrobial metal (e.g. CuI, AgI) is present in a concentration of between 5-200 mg/100cm2 (see [0124]). 5 mg/100 cm2 lies within the concentration range of instant claim 7. Formulation R12 provides a Cu/Ag ratio of 6 (12:2) and formulation R14 provides a Cu/Ag ratio of about 5.9:1 (59:10) (see Table 5) (see instant claims 2 and 12). See MPEP 2131.03 regarding anticipation of ranges. Adams’ nanoparticles are to be functionalized with a cationic surfactant such as benzalkonium, dimethyldialkylonium, alkylpyridinium and alkyltrimethylammonium (‘quaternary ammonium’) (see abstract, [0059]) so as to form a bridge or link between the particles and surfaces/media (see instant claim 3). Such functionalization would render the resulting nanoparticle positively charged.
Regarding instant claim 8, Adams states that their antimicrobial metallic nanoparticles may be provided as fibers. The method by which the nanoparticles are embedded into the fibers is not relevant to the end product because the prior art results in a fiber having the metal nanoparticles embedded therein (‘antimicrobial agent is in fibers’, see Table 2). Accordingly, this is a product-by-process limitation. See MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding instant claims 5 and 12, the coefficient of antimicrobial synergy according to:
PNG
media_image1.png
57
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a limitation which cannot be assessed by the Examiner as the USPTO is not a laboratory. However, because the prior art describes a composition identical in composition to that claimed any properties (e.g. coefficient of synergy) possessed by the claimed invention must be possessed by the prior art, albeit unrecognized. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding instant claim 10, this is an intended use limitation. This claim does not limit the structure of the composition but instead describes an outcome of the product when used in a specific way (‘applied on wound or inflamed tissue’). See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 13, Adams states that their antimicrobial composition inhibit the growth of bacteria, viruses and fungi (see [0028] and Examples). And, because the Adams describes an identical composition to that claimed (a wound care device comprising nanoparticles of silver metal, ionic silver and ionic copper functionalized with cationic surfactants), the composition of Adams must similarly be capable of reducing activity/viability or inactivating SARS-CoV-2 and/or H1N1.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 2016/0220728) in view of Riesinger et al. (US 2011/0213286).
Adams is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As stated above, Adams teaches that their wound device is to have the property of absorbing wound exudate (see [0115]).
Adams fails to teach the absorbent layer of the bandage/dressing as comprising a natural or synthetic polymer.
Riesinger, like Adams, describes a wound care device (e.g. dressing, bandage; see [0185]) that has the ability to absorb wound exudate. Materials for absorbing wound exudate include copolymers of acrylic acid and sodium acrylate (‘synthetic polymer’) (see [0064]). It would have been obvious to modify Adams’ device so as to include a synthetic polymer like those described by Riesinger with a reasonable expectation in producing a bandage which absorbs wound exudate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2144.07.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 2016/0220728) in view of Riesinger et al. (US 2011/0213286) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-13 above, and further in view of Sabesan (US 2003/0091612).
Adams and Riesinger fail to teach the positively charged copper based salt as being CuSO4.
Sabesan is directed to antibacterial polyolefin articles. The antibacterial properties are taught to be improved by the inclusion of a metal salt such as zinc sulfate, copper sulfate, silver nitrate and copper and silver salts broadly (see [0026]). It would have been obvious to modify Adams and Riesinger to include additional antimicrobial metal salts, such as copper sulfate (CuSO4), so as to impart additional antibacterial action to the wound care device of the prior art. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) which states that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is supportive of obviousness.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. 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).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights