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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 212204617 U) in view of Saito (JP 3018684 U) and Laloyaux (LALOYAUX et al., "Temperature-Responsive Polymer Brushes Switching from Bactericidal to Cell-Repellent,” Advanced Materials, Vol. 22, No. 44, pp. 5024-5028 (2010).).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a flame producing assembly (abstract, a cigarette lighter).
Guo fails to teach that the flame producing assembly has an antibacterial coating, wherein the antibacterial coating comprises a bactericidal component and an antifoulinq component and is configured to at least partially destroy and/or inactivate pathogens on the antibacterial coating.
However, Saito teaches that the flame producing assembly has an antibacterial coating (abstract, the antibacterial properties of the surface of the pipe mouthpiece), wherein the antibacterial coating is configured to at least partially destroy and/or inactivate pathogens on the antibacterial coating (abstract).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Guo by applying an antibacterial coating to the lighter, as taught by Saito, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Guo with these aforementioned teachings of Saito with the motivation of reducing the task of the LED sterilizing lamp and giving the lighter some protection when the lamp is out of battery.
Saito fails to teach a bactericidal component and an antifoulinq component.
However, Laloyaux teaches a bactericidal component (title, the bactericidal component of the brushes) and an antifoulinq component (title, the cell-repellent component of the brushes).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Guo by making the coating switch between antibacterial and cell-repellent states, as taught by Laloyaux, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Guo with these aforementioned teachings of Laloyaux with the motivation of having the lighter kill germs when below a certain temperature, and only repel cells when above that temperature (e.g., when the lighter is operating and a user may be inhaling nearby, preventing them from inhaling a harmful antibacterial).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the antibacterial coating is further configured to at least partially destroy and/or inactivate pathogens on the antibacterial coating below a first transition temperature (Laloyaux, page 1, column 1).
The combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux fails to teach that the first transition temperature is between about 300C to about 50C.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the transition temperature between 300 and 50C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Page 1, column 2 of Laloyaux discloses a transition temperature between 22and 40C), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that transition temperature is a result effective variable because it affects the scenarios where the substance would be useful (i.e., transitioning between medical procedures and storage, or between lighting a cigarette and storage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the transition temperature between 300 and 50C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the antibacterial coating is further configured to at least partially repel pathogens and/or remnants thereof (page 1, column 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the antibacterial coating is further configured to at least partially destroy and/or inactivate pathogens on the antibacterial coating below a second transition temperature (page 1, column 1).
The combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux fails to teach that the second transition temperature is between about 300C to about 50C.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the transition temperature between 300 and 50C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Page 1, column 2 of Laloyaux discloses a transition temperature between 22 and 40C), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that transition temperature is a result effective variable because it affects the scenarios where the substance would be useful (i.e., transitioning between medical procedures and storage, or between lighting a cigarette and storage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the transition temperature between 300 and 50C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the bactericidal component comprises a bactericidal agent comprising an antibiotic, an antimicrobial peptide, a polycationic polymer, metal ions (Saito, “an antibacterial agent, for example, Kanebo Chemical Co., Ltd. It is formed by mixing the product name "BACTEKILLER" and molding it.” Bactekiller contains a silver zinc zeolite powder, which contains metal ions), nitric oxide, a nanosized metal, a nanosized metal oxide, an antimicrobial enzyme, a quaternary ammonium salt, an N-halamine and/or a quorum sensing inhibitor.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the antifouling component is hydrophobic or hydrophilic (Laloyaux, the material becomes hydrophylic or hydrophobic depending on temperature).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the antibacterial coating is configured to expose the bactericidal component at the outer surface at temperatures below the first transition temperature and to expose the antifouling component at the outer surface at temperatures above the second transition temperature (Laloyaux, page 1, column 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the bactericidal component or parts thereof are configured to undergo a conformation change when heated above the second transition temperature and to reverse the conformation change when cooling to a temperature below the first transition temperature (Laloyaux, page 1, column 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the bactericidal component is configured to be in an elongated state at temperatures below the first transition temperature, thereby extending from the outer surface, and wherein the bactericidal component is in a collapsed state at temperatures above the second transition temperature, thereby resting on the outer surface and/or retracting into the outer surface (Laloyaux, page 1, columns 1 and 2, the antibacterial).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the bactericidal component comprises a thermoresponsive polymer (Laloyaux, “Such systems are invariably based on thermoresponsive polymer coatings”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the thermoresponsive polymer comprises poly(N-vinyl caprolactam), poly(N- isopropylacrylamide) and/or poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) co-polymer (Laloyaux, “a seminal example of such coatings are brushes of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)”), more specifically wherein the poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) co-polymer comprises poly(N- isopropylacrylamide-co-caprolactam) and/or poly(N-isopropylacrylamide-co-2- carboxyethyl acrylate).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the first transition temperature is a lower critical solution temperature of the thermoresponsive polymer, wherein the lower critical solution temperature is between about 35C and 45C (Page 1, column 2 of Laloyaux discloses a transition temperature between 22and 40C).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the antifouling component forms an outer surface of the antibacterial coating, wherein the bactericidal component is bound to the antifouling component or parts thereof (Laloyaux, the two components are bound together and form an exterior coating).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the first transition temperature and the second transition temperature are the same temperature (Laloyaux, page 1 column 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the antifouling component is hydrophobic or hydrophilic (Laloyaux, the material becomes hydrophylic or hydrophobic depending on temperature), and wherein the bactericidal component comprises a thermoresponsive polymer (Laloyaux, “Such systems are invariably based on thermoresponsive polymer coatings”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the flame producing assembly comprises a heat conductive layer (Guo, the metallic layer of the lighter conducts heat).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches that the antibacterial coating is thermally conductive (Saito, the coating may conduct heat).
Regarding claim 19, Guo teaches a flame producing assembly (abstract, a cigarette lighter)
Guo fails to teach that the flame producing assembly has an antibacterial coating, wherein the antibacterial coating is configured to at least partially destroy and/or inactivate pathogens on the antibacterial coating, wherein the antibacterial coating comprises a bactericidal component and an antifouling component, wherein the antifouling component is hydrophobic and/or comprises poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate), and wherein the bactericidal component comprises a thermoresponsive polymer.
However, Saito teaches that the flame producing assembly has an antibacterial coating (abstract, the antibacterial properties of the surface of the pipe mouthpiece), wherein the antibacterial coating is configured to at least partially destroy and/or inactivate pathogens on the antibacterial coating (abstract).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Guo by applying an antibacterial coating to the lighter, as taught by Saito, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Guo with these aforementioned teachings of Saito with the motivation of reducing the task of the LED sterilizing lamp and giving the lighter some protection when the lamp is out of battery.
Saito fails to teach that the antibacterial coating comprises a bactericidal component and an antifouling component, wherein the antifouling component is hydrophobic and/or comprises poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate), and wherein the bactericidal component comprises a thermoresponsive polymer.
However, Laloyaux teaches that the antibacterial coating comprises a bactericidal component (title, the bactericidal component of the brushes) and an antifouling component (title, the cell-repellent component of the brushes), wherein the antifouling component is hydrophobic (Laloyaux, the material becomes hydrophylic or hydrophobic depending on temperature) and/or comprises poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate), and wherein the bactericidal component comprises a thermoresponsive polymer (Laloyaux, “Such systems are invariably based on thermoresponsive polymer coatings”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Guo by making the coating switch between antibacterial and cell-repellent states (which are hydrophobic/hydrorepellant at different temperatures and are made of a thermoresponsive polymer coating), as taught by Laloyaux, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Guo with these aforementioned teachings of Laloyaux with the motivation of having the lighter kill germs when below a certain temperature, and only repel cells when above that temperature (e.g., when the lighter is operating and a user may be inhaling nearby, preventing them from inhaling a harmful antibacterial).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux teaches a process for manufacturing a flame producing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the process comprises: coating a pre-assembled flame producing assembly with a heat conductive layer; coating the pre-assembled flame producing assembly with an antifouling component; binding a bactericidal component to the antifouling component (the various layers of the combined assembly above must be formed and added together).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-20 above, and further in view of Borque (US 20230056079 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Guo, Saito, and Laloyaux fails to teach coating parts of the pre- assembled flame producing assembly with a thermochromic coating.
However, Borque teaches coating parts of the pre- assembled flame producing assembly with a thermochromic coating (paragraph 5, a chromatic coating may allow the surface to change colors responsive to heat).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Guo by including a thermochromic, as taught by Borque, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Guo with these aforementioned teachings of Borque with the motivation of giving the surface an interesting visual effect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762