DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 13-19 & 21, in the reply filed on December 10th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 & 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 10th, 2025.
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 13-19 & 21 are 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 claim 13, the phrase/term “alginate solidified with metal ions” and ”solidified metal alginate” is confusing because it is unclear to what form the alginate is being claimed in. For instance, sodium alginate and potassium alginate are solid but dissolvable within water, wherein alginate can be also solidified into a gelled film by divalent and trivalent ions such as calcium. Therefore, it is unclear what stage and state the metal ions are solidifying the alginate.
Regarding claim 14, the solidified alginate and chitosan being in the form of layers is confusing because it is unclear if each of the layers comprise solidified alginate and chitosan or the solidified alginate and chitosan are correspondent to the layers such as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, the term “each layer” seems to signify that there are multiple layers in the coating, which is not required by claim 13. Furthermore, there is no antecedent basis for any “layer”, let alone multiple layers.
Regarding claim 19, the term “conventional” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the term will be ignored and the term “preservation agent” will be interpreted as any substance that enables or aids the process of preservation such as biocides, oils/waxes, plasticizers, polymers, etc.
Claims 15-17 and 21 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
Claims 13 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (CN 103540203 A) (hereinafter “Gao”).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Gao teaches a protective film, such as against dust and paint [0002], and method of making and coating thereof, the coated film comprising an aqueous solution of sodium (metal ion solidified) alginate and an aqueous solution of chitosan blended together [0002-0003, 0022-0028], which forms a stable, biodegradable, environmentally friendly temporary film [0007, 0011].
Claims 14, 16, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, as applied to claim 13 above.
Regarding claims 14, 16, and 21, a number of coating layers forming the total coating thickness is not taught. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Reichwagen (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0245924 A1) (hereinafter “Reichwagen”).
Regarding claims 17-18, a particular coating (layer) thickness is not taught.
Reichwagen teaches a metal ion solidified/gelled alginate coating for protection of surfaces, such as paint coated surfaces [0002], which is related to alginate coatings known in the foodstuff industry, medical industry (capsules), textile industry, etc. [0014], wherein generally speaking a protective layer of 0.1 to 5 mm (100 to 5000 µm), such as 0.5 to 2 mm (500 to 2000 µm), in thickness is formed [0031], wherein the formation of a multilayer coating would provide a plurality of layers having a fraction of the total thickness, wherein although Reichwagen ranges do not anticipate the claimed rantes, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for similar coatings having given thicknesses.
Claims 13-15, 17, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Naik et al. (WO 2021/260605 A1) (hereinafter “Naik”).
Regarding claims 13-15, 17, and 19, Naik teaches a barrier film (protective coating) formed by a hydrogel of superposed layers [059-060, 064] of solution/composition B comprising an aqueous solution of alginate cross-linked by calcium or magnesium (ions) [050, claim 5] and solution/composition A comprising an aqueous solution of a non-alginate polymer, preferably chitosan, which can contain the calcium salt cross-linker [040-043], wherein the chitosan reinforced alginate gelled (solidified) film leads to the formation of the barrier film [070, claim 12], wherein in an example solution/composition A is sprayed first followed by solution/composition B having a film thickness of about 1 mm [075-078], wherein in some embodiments solution/composition A can be sprayed over solution/composition B [071, 0125, 0128-0129], and wherein stabilizing/preserving agents can be added to ensure stability and antimicrobiality of the barrier film [051].
Claims 16, 18, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik, as applied to claims 13-14 above.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, while only a bilayer coating film is taught, it would have been obvious to provide repeated film forming dual-sprays (two or more cycles) to ensure coverage and is well-known in the pharmaceutical art, wherein it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Further regarding claim 18, while a total thickness of 1 mm was merely exemplary, it would have been obvious to form layers in and around the micron-range, wherein a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (CN 109294001 A) (hereinafter “Ye”).
Regarding claim 13, Ye teaches a coated membrane/film, potentially applicable in the food and pharmaceutical industries [0033], comprising a sodium alginate solution [0011-0012] and a chitosan/calcium complex solution [0013, 0026-0031], wherein the two solutions are blended and cross-linked (solidified) by the chitosan along with the divalent calcium (metal) ions, which are released with an organic acid [0005, 0033, 0054-0055].
Claims 14-19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Brown (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0289999 A1) (hereinafter “Brown”).
Regarding claims 14-19 and 21, a number of layers or a coating (layer) thickness(es) and the inclusion of a preservation agent are not taught.
Brown teaches a biodegradable material, usable in food packaging [0001], the biodegradable material comprising a coated film [0005] comprising at least an alginate polymer [0075], a second biomass-derived polymer, and an ionic metal linking agent such as calcium [0118-0119], the linking agent ionically bonding to the alginate polymer and links to the second polymer via any bonding mechanism including coordinate bonding [0117, 0120], wherein the biodegradable material may be applied in a single layer or as two or more layers, such as 2 to 12 layers, which can be correspondent to first and second sequential polymer layers [0012-0014] and comprising an overall thickness of 2 to 500 µm [0069], and additionally comprising any preservative known for polysaccharide polymers [0138].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for similar coatings having a similar application for exemplary/known layer structures, thicknesses, and additives for protective polysaccharide polymer coatings.
Claims 14-19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Reichwagen (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0245924 A1) (hereinafter “Reichwagen”) or vice-versa.
Regarding claims 14-19 and 21, a number of layers or a coating (layer) thickness(es) and the inclusion of a preservation agent are not taught.
Reichwagen teaches a metal ion solidified/gelled alginate coating for protection of surfaces, such as paint coated surfaces [0002], which is related to alginate coatings known in the foodstuff industry, medical industry (capsules), textile industry, etc. [0014], wherein generally speaking a protective layer of 0.1 to 5 mm (100 to 5000 µm), such as 0.5 to 2 mm (500 to 2000 µm), in thickness is formed [0031], wherein the formation of a multilayer coating would provide a plurality of layers having a fraction of the total thickness, wherein the formation of a multilayer coating would be performed by applying the alginate solution followed by the calcium (metal) ion solution [0024, claim 5], wherein the calcium may be in the form of calcium chloride [0023] or calcium carbonate that can be subsequently released by the addition of a weak acid such as gluconic acid [0027], wherein the aqueous polysaccharide solution can be provided with a biocide to protect or guard against the growth of bacteria or fungi, which are customary in nature [0030, claim 13].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for similar coatings having a similar application for exemplary/customary layer structures, thicknesses, and additives for protective polysaccharide polymer coatings.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to at least partially replace the calcium chloride solution or the calcium carbonate with that of chitosan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an organic acid released crosslinking that prevents non-uniform crosslinking/gelling [0005, 0033].
Claims 13-19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Loth et al. (EP 897964 A2) (hereinafter “Loth”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Loth, optionally in view of Sava et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0228422 A1) (hereinafter “Sava”) and optionally further Reichwagen (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0245924 A1) (hereinafter “Reichwagen”).
Regarding claims 13-19 and 21, Loth teaches a protective polymer film/coating, usable on walls or vehicles, comprising an aqueous solution of cationic chitosan which may include additional cationic components that may assist in mechanical stability of film formation and dissolve in water or dilute acids [0009, 0012, 0020, 0025] and aqueous solution of anionic alginate complexed (solidified) with sodium [0009, 0012, 0025, 0027], wherein the aqueous alginate primer solution is applied before the oppositely charged/cationic aqueous chitosan topcoat solution [0012, 0025, 0027], wherein while the anionic layer and cationic layer solutions are applied in repeatedly alternating stages such as at least two primer layers (four layer coating) forming a polyelectrolyte complex multilayer solidified/gelled coating having a total thickness of 5 to 200 µm, preferably 10 to 100 µm, with individual layers comprising a fractional thickness thereof [0014-0015], that is more mechanically stable in the environment [0014-0016] and the other chitosan layer providing additional antimicrobial and mechanical stability when it is provided as an outer layer [0037], wherein aqueous polysaccharide solutions additionally contain preservatives to suppress biological susceptibility [0005].
However, in the event that the alginate is not considered solidified by metal ions:
Sava teaches a multilayer protective coating, wherein alginate and chitosan are known to form gels with each other, wherein with alginate this gellification is enhanced via divalent ions, calcium ions in particular [0005], wherein the combination of alginate and chitosan, especially with addition of the divalent metal ion has particular relevance for gellification and stability of the multilayer coating, wherein alginate is an inner layer and chitosan is an outer layer [0014-0015, 0018].
Furthermore, Reichwagen teaches a metal ion solidified/gelled alginate coating for protection of surfaces, such as paint coated surfaces [0002], which is related to alginate coatings known in the foodstuff industry, medical industry (capsules), textile industry, etc. [0014], wherein the formation of a multilayer coating would be performed by applying the alginate solution followed by the calcium (metal) ion solution [0024, claim 5], wherein the calcium may be in the form of calcium chloride [0023] or calcium carbonate that can be subsequently released by the addition of a weak acid such as gluconic acid [0027], wherein the aqueous polysaccharide solution can be provided with a biocide to protect or guard against the growth of bacteria or fungi, which are customary in nature [0030, claim 13]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide at least the chitosan solution/layer with a divalent metal/calcium ion to further crosslink (solidify/gel) the alginate in addition to the chitosan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide additional stabilization/strength [Sava], such that a non-sticky protective coating would have increased strength/resistance to water that could be easily overcome and then washed off with the addition of a weak acid [Reichwagen; 0005-0006, 0012, 0032, 0036].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Huang et al. (CN 108014367 A) teach a rapid curing protective film comprising simultaneously sprayed aqueous solutions of alginate and chitosan and calcium chloride, wherein the ionic reactions between the two solutions proceed rapidly to form a dense and transparent gel film [0007]. Furthermore, as related to claims 14-16, both Reichwagen and Naik teach that alginate solution and the calcium chloride (with chitosan for Naik) containing solution for forming a solidified gel film can be sprayed in parallel (simultaneously) or sequentially [Reichwagen; 0024 & Naik; 0125-0130].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 January 2nd, 2026