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 .
Claims 64-75arepresented for examination.
Claims 76-83 are withdrawn from examination.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 64-75 in the reply filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 76-83 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/29/2026.
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.
Claim 75 is 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 75, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 64-75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 20150342984 submitted by the applicant) in view of Wong et al. (Bactericidal and Virucidal ultrathin films assembled layer by layer polycationic N-alkylated polyethyleneimines and polyanions (submitted by the applicant) and further in view of Onis et al. (WO 2014174237 submitted by the applicant).
The claims are drawn to A liquid coating composition comprising an alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer and an anionic polymer; wherein the liquid coating composition is suitable for forming an anti-microbial coating.
Regarding claim 64, Cheng teaches antimicrobial cationic polyamines, and more specifically, to cationic modified polyethylene imines for antimicrobial applications. See para [0002]. The use of alkyl urea polyalkyl imine is taught in Paras [0062],[0065] and claims 5-6. Cheng teaches a base polyamine selected from the group consisting of polyethylene imines, partially N-acylated polyethylene imines, and combinations thereof, and ii) a solvent. See Para [0023] and [0127]. The use of an organic solvent, such as, menthol is taught in Para [0089]. Cheng teaches the low average mass, high antimicrobial activity, and low hemolytic tendencies of the cationic polyamines makes these materials attractive as broad spectrum antimicrobial agents for a wide range of medical and household uses, including wound treatments, treatment of infections, antibiotic drugs, treatment of tuberculosis, and disinfectants for household and hospital surfaces and medical instruments. See Para [0144]. Cheng teaches that the film forming compositions can be applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g., dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and “ink jet” coating). See Para [0129]. Cheng teaches that cationic polyamines are soluble in water and are not crosslinked, making them attractive as injectable and aerosol delivered agents. See Para [0287]. Cheng makes clear that the claimed alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer has been used as an antimicrobial coating agent, which can be used as a drug or applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g., dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and “ink jet” coating.
Cheng does not teach the addition of an anionic polymer.
However, Wong teaches contact-killing ionically cross-linked polymeric thin films using Layer-by-Layer
technology. A polycation, N,N-dodecylmethyl-polyethylene imine, with microbicidal activity was
layered with a polyanion, such as poly(acrylic acid), to create films highly effective against both airborne and waterborne Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram negative and positive bacteria, respectively), as well as influenza A/WSN (H1N1) virus. See the Abstract and conclusion.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add an anionic polymer to the composition of Cheng , motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the addition of polyanions and polycations in a film form as a coating was lethal to both airborne and waterborne Gram negative bacteria and gram positive bacteria. To combine ingredients being used for the same purpose would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), wherein the court states “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the cationic antimicrobial coating taught by Cheng and anionic antimicrobial coating taught by Wong, since each is individually used for the same purpose as antimicrobial coating agent.
Regarding claim 65, Cheng teaches cationic polyamines are soluble in water and are not crosslinked, making them attractive as injectable and aerosol delivered agents. See Para [0287].
Regarding claim 66, Cheng does not teach the addition of a cationic polymer, such as an unsubstituted polyalkylene imine polymer or alkylated polyalkylene imine polymer. However, Wong teaches a polycation, N,N-dodecylmethyl-polyethylene imine, with microbicidal activity was layered with a polyanion, such as poly(acrylic acid), to create films highly effective against both airborne and waterborne Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram negative and positive bacteria, respectively), as well as influenza A/WSN (H1N1) virus. It would have been obvious to add another polyalkylene imine polymer having antibacterial activity and being used as a coating agent to the composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the use of polyalkylene imine polymer as a cationic antimicrobial coating agent . The combination of ingredients being used for the same purpose would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), wherein the court states “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art”.
Regarding claim 67, Cheng does not teach the use of a guanidine compound. However, Onis teaches antimicrobial and antithrombogenic polymer or polymeric blend, compounds, which can be used as coating agents. See the abstract. Onis teaches that In some embodiments, the antimicrobial agent may comprise a guanidine group or a quaternary ammonium salt. Preferred guanidine groups may comprise a guanidine derivative, a biguanide group, a biguanide derivative, a polyamino propyl biguanide group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) derivative group, a chlorhexidine group, or a chlorhexidine derivative group. See claim 10. Onis teaches that In some embodiments, it may be desirable to polymerize the polymer compounds described herein with the material of the medical device directly. In other embodiments, the copolymers can be dissolved in solution to be coated onto medical devices using any suitable solution coating method, including dip-coating, spray coating (ultrasonic, electrostatic, thermal), dip-coating with UV cure, or dip-coated and cross-linked with a polyfunctional cross-linker (e.g. polyaziridines, polyisocyanates). See Page 16, lines 20-30. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add guanidine to the composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Onis, which teaches the use of quinidine having antimicrobial activity in a coating composition. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), wherein the court states “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art”.
Regarding claim 68, Onis teaches the claimed cross-linkable polymer, which is a guanidine compound. Ornis teaches a polyfunctional cross-linker (e.g. polyaziridines, polyisocyanates). Polyazaridine has more than one carboxylic acid group.
Regarding claims 69-71, the determination of optimum amounts or the proportions of alkyl urea polyalkylene imine and other cationic polymers is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein the court states “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Regarding claim 73, the determination of optimum amounts or proportions of alkyl urea polyalkylene imine and anionic polymer is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 74, the determination optimum proportion of alkyl urea polyalkylene imine, cationic and anionic polymer is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 75, Cheng teaches antimicrobial cationic polyamines, and more specifically, cationic modified polyethylene imines for antimicrobial applications. See para [0002]. The use of alkyl urea polyalkyllene imine is taught in Paras [0062],[0065] and claims 5-6. Cheng teaches a base polyamine selected from the group consisting of polyethylene imines, partially N-acylated polyethylene imines, and combinations thereof, and ii) a solvent. See Para [0023] and [0127]. The use of an organic solvent, such as, menthol is taught in Para [0089]. Cheng teaches the low average mass, high antimicrobial activity, and low hemolytic tendencies of the cationic polyimines makes these materials attractive as broad spectrum antimicrobial agents for a wide range of medical and household uses, including wound treatments, treatment of infections, antibiotic drugs, treatment of tuberculosis, and disinfectants for household and hospital surfaces and medical instruments. See Para [0144]. Cheng teaches that the film forming compositions can be applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g., dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and “ink jet” coating). See Para [0129]. Cheng teaches that cationic polyimines are soluble in water and are not crosslinked, making them attractive as injectable and aerosol delivered agents. See Para [0287]. Cheng makes clear that the claimed alkyl urea polyalkylene imine polymer has been used as an antimicrobial coating agent, which can be used as a drug or applied to a surface of an object using any suitable coating technique (e.g., dip coating, spray coating, spin coating, roll coating, brush coating, and “ink jet” coating.
Cheng does not teach the addition of an anionic and cationic polymer.
However, Wong teaches contact-killing ionically cross-linked polymeric thin films using Layer-by-Layer
(LbL) technology. A polycation, N,N-dodecylmethyl-polyethylene imine, with microbicidal activity was
layered with a polyanion, such as poly(acrylic acid), to create films highly effective against both airborne and waterborne Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram negative and positive bacteria, respectively), as well as influenza virus. See the Abstract and conclusion.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine an anionic and a cationic polymer to the composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Wong, which teaches the addition of polyanions and polycations in a film form as a coating was lethal to both airborne and waterborne Gram negative bacteria and gram positive bacteria. Furthermore, Onis teaches that In some embodiments, the antimicrobial agent may comprise a guanidine group or a quaternary ammonium salt. Preferred guanidine groups may comprise a guanide derivative, a guanidine derivative, a biguanide group, a biguanide derivative, a polyamino propyl biguanide group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) group, a poly(hexamethylene biguanide) derivative group, a chlorhexidine group, or a chlorhexidine derivative group. See claim 10 . Onis teaches that In some embodiments, it may be desirable to polymerize the polymer compounds described herein with the material of the medical device directly. In other embodiments, the copolymers can be dissolved in solution to be coated onto medical devices using any suitable solution coating method, including dip-coating, spray coating (ultrasonic, electrostatic, thermal), dip-coating with UV cure, or dip-coated and cross-linked with a polyfunctional cross-linker (e.g. polyaziridines, polyisocyanates). See Page 16, lines 20-30. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add guanidine to composition of Cheng, motivated by the teachings of Onis, which teaches the use of guanidine having antimicrobial activity in a coating composition. The combination of ingredients being used for the same purpose would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), wherein the court states “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art”. The relied upon references, teach all the components of claim 75 being used individually as antimicrobial coating agents. The determination of optimum proportions or amounts are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights