DETAILED ACTION
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 I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 01/27/26 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please check update the status of applications in the first paragraph of the specification, particularly 17/187,135 which is now abandoned. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 4, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 4,971,736 issued to Hagen in view of USPUB 2008/0057809 A1 issued to Rock.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant is seeking a composite material comprising: a plurality of particles configured to generate mechanical force in response to a changing relative humidity; and a plurality of polymers enmeshed with the plurality of particles and configured to transfer the mechanical force throughout the composite material, such that the mechanical force changes a shape of the composite material reversibly and repeatedly: Applicant is directed to the teachings of Hagen discloses a composite material (title, abstract; composite article 10, fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of particles (particles 16, fig. 1); and a plurality of filaments (fibrils 14, fig. 1) enmeshed the plurality of particles (fig. 1 shows fibrils 14 enmeshed the plurality of particles 16).
Hagen fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of particles configured to generate mechanical force in response to a changing relative humidity, a plurality of filaments configured to transfer the mechanical force throughout the composite material.
This is remedied by the teachings of Rock.
Rock, in the field of temperature and moisture responsive smart textile (abstract), teaches a plurality of particles configured to generate mechanical force in response to a changing relative humidity ("As illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 18, the hydrogel 14 exhibits a substantially reversible volumetric change in which the gel volume expands and/or contracts in response to ambient conditions. In this example, the polymer gel particles 16 are actuated by solvent exchange (e.g., moisture, water, and/or liquid sweat), accompanied by expansion ("swelling") or contraction ("de-swelling"), thereby altering the three dimensional configuration of the fabric 10", [¶ 0023]), a plurality of filaments configured to transfer the mechanical force throughout the material (''Referring to FIG. 4A, a temperature and moisture responsive smart textile fabric 200 has a fabric body 210 of knit construction which includes a plurality of interconnected yams and/or fibers including a plurality of responsive yarns and/or fibers 220 interlooped with other yarns and/or fibers 222. The responsive yams and/or fibers 220 each include hydrogel (such as any of those described above with regard to FIGS. 1A-2C) which exhibits expansion or contraction in response to change in relative humidity or exposure to liquid sweat or a combination thereof, adjusting insulation performance and/or liquid management of the textile fabric in response to ambient conditions. The other yams and/or fibers 222 are substantially free of the hydrogel", para. (0031]).
lt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hagen with the teachings of Rock for the purpose of absorbing the moisture and thereby expansion and contraction in response to change in relative humidity (abstract, Rock).
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant is seeking that the composite material of claim 1, wherein the plurality of particles are configured to expand or contract in response to the changing relative humidity; Applicant is directed to modified Hagen in view of Rock as disclosed as the composite material of claim 1.
Hagen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of particles are configured to expand or contract in response to the changing relative humidity.
Rock, in the field of temperature and moisture responsive smart textile (abstract), teaches wherein the plurality of particles are configured to expand or contract in response to the changing relative humidity ("As illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1 B, the hydrogel 14 exhibits a substantially reversible volumetric change in which the gel volume expands and/or contracts in response to ambient conditions. In this example, the polymer gel particles 16 are actuated by solvent exchange (e.g., moisture, water, and/or liquid sweat), accompanied by expansion ("swelling") or contraction ("de-swelling"), thereby altering the three dimensional configuration of the fabric 10", ¶ [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hagen with the teachings of Rock for the purpose of absorbing the moisture and thereby expansion and contraction in response to change in relative humidity (abstract, Rock).
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant is seeking that the composite material of claim 1, wherein the composite material is adhered to a fabric, wherein the composite material affects an evaporation rate of moisture through the fabric; Applicant is directed to Hagen who teaches the use of an adhesive (''The article is substantially uniformly porous, making it suited for use as a chromatographic composite article which can be used as a single self-supporting sheet or a combination of sheets to form a stack or as a composite film adhered to a support such as glass, paper, metals, or polymers", col. 8, lines 34-40).
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant is seeking that the composite material of claim 1, wherein a surface property of the plurality of polymers is configured to be customized and wherein the evaporation rate of moisture through the textile is greater in a humid environment than in a dry environment; With regards to surface property of the evaporation rate sought in this claim, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Hagen/Rock. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same coated particles on a polyester textile). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the combination of Hagen/Rock product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant is seeking that the composite material of claim 6, wherein the surface property is hydrophobicity; With regards to surface property of hydrophobicity sought in this claim, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Hagen/Rock. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same coated particles on a polyester textile). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the combination of Hagen/Rock product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant is seeking that the composite material of claim 5, wherein the fabric is a polyester fabric; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Hagen modified by Rock.
Hagen does not teach that the fabric is a polyester fabric. This is remedied by Rock.
Rock teaches at ¶ 0005, that the textile fabric maybe nylon, polyester, polypropylene, and/or acrylic. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used polyester as the textile or fibril of choice. One would have been motivated to do so as polyester is chosen as the substrate textile/fibril for polyurethane as it provides structural stability, and superior durability when combined with hydrogel-coated technologies. It serves as an ideal carrier, allowing the moisture-responsive hydrogel to manage sweat or humidity while the base fabric maintains its shape, dries quickly, and provides mechanical support.
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant is seeking that the composite material of claim 1, wherein the polymer is polyurethane; Applicant is directed to Hagen modified by Rock.
Hagen does not teach that the polymer is a polyurethane. This is remedied by Rock.
Rock teaches that the coating may be a polyurethane [¶ 0005]. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used polyurethane as the polymer of choice. One would have been motivated to do so as polyurethanes are widely utilized as the polymer matrix for hydrogels that expand or contract in response to relative humidity (RH) or liquid sweat due to its superior mechanical robustness, highly tunable chemical structure, and excellent biocompatibility. Unlike many conventional hydrogels that are brittle and weak, polyurethane provides the necessary toughness and elasticity to act as a durable actuator or sensor, particularly in wearable technologies.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen and Rock further in view of USPUB 20170347664A1 issued to Thompson et al.
The combination of Hagen and Rock is set forth above, however neither teach the limitations sought in claims 2 and 3. This is remedied by the teachings of Thompson et al.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant is seeking that the composite material of claim 1, wherein the plurality of particles comprises a plurality of bacterial spores; Applicant is directed to the combination of Hagen and Rock is set forth above, however both fail to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of particles comprises a plurality of bacterial spores.
This is remedied by the teachings of Thompson et al.
Thompson et al. are in the field of fusion proteins, recombinant bacillus cereus (abstract), teaches wherein the plurality of particles comprises a plurality of bacterial spores ("the present invention generally relates to fusion proteins, recombinant Bacillus cereus family members that express such fusion proteins, and exosporium fragments derived from spores of the recombinant Bacillus cereus family members", [¶ 0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hagen/Rock with the teachings of Thompson et al. for the purpose of delivering enzyme to an individual and thereby avoiding the occurrence of disease as taught by Thompson at ¶ 0003.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant is seeking that the composite material of claim 2, wherein the bacterial spores are selected from the group consisting of Bacillus Subtilis wild type, Bacillus Subtilis CotE, Bacillus Subtilis GerE, Bacillus Thuringiensis wild type, and combinations thereof; Applicant is directed to ails to explicitly disclose wherein the bacterial spores are selected from the group consisting of Bacillus Subtilis wild type, Bacillus Subtilis CotE, Bacillus Subtilis GerE, Bacillus Thuringiensis wild type, and combinations thereof; Applicant is directed the combination of Hagen/Rock, however they both fail to teach the aforesaid types of bacterial spores. This is remedied by the teachings of Thompson et al.
Thompson et al., in the field of fusion proteins, recombinant bacillus cereus (abstract), teaches wherein the bacterial spores are selected from the group consisting of Bacillus Subtilis wild type, Bacillus Subtilis CotE, Bacillus Subtilis GerE, Bacillus Thuringiensis wild type, and combinations thereof ("a Bacillus subtilis serine protease, or a combination of any thereof', [¶ 0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hagen/Rock with the teachings of Thompson et al. for the purpose of delivering enzymes to an individual and thereby avoiding the occurrence of disease as shown by Thompson et al. at ¶ 0003.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 1506119A discloses making composite compositions containing, as the major components, fine hydratable microfibril fibers obtained from cellulose or derivatives thereof and a solid capable of swelling with water, wherein at least part of the surface of the solid is coated with the fine microfibril fibers, and a process for producing the same. The solid capable of swelling with water is exemplified by particulate polymer absorbents to which short fibers have been added as the third component. These composite absorbents may be located on supporting sheets made of, for example, a nonwoven fabric to give composite absorbent sheets applicable to various absorbent products
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti R Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-3:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp