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 claims 12-18 in the reply filed on May 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method and material, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 29, 2026.
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.
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) 12-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN-105568669 to Lai.
Regarding Claims 12-13
Lai teaches a textile material comprising fibers, a nanostructured titanium dioxide film and metallic nanoparticles such as silver nanoparticles (Lai, abstract, paragraphs [0092]-[0098]). In the event it is shown that Lai does not disclose the claimed invention, with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Lai discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination, to successfully practice the invention based on the totality of the teachings of Lai.
Regarding Claim 14
Lai teaches that the textile is antimicrobial, wear resistant and comprises non-toxic materials (Lai, paragraphs [0003] and [0029]). Regarding the textile being specifically resistant to E.coli, mechanical peeling and non-toxic, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose the specific resistances and toxicity of the finished product, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the Lai reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding Claim 18
Lai teaches that the textile is added to a titanium dioxide film forming solution, which would necessarily result in essentially all surfaces of the fibers comprising the metallic nanoparticle semi-conductor film (Id., fig 1.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai as applied to claims 12-14 and 18 above, in view of “Antimicrobial effect of surgical masks coated with nanoparticles” to Li.
Regarding Claims 15-16
Lai does not specifically teach that the textile is utilized as a face mask or garment. However, Li teaches utilizing silver and titanium dioxide coated fabrics in order to form facemasks and protective clothing (garments) which protect from infectious agents and reduce the risk of transmission (Li, summary, discussion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the textile of Lai and to apply it as a facemask or garment as taught by Li, motivated by the desire to form a conventional antimicrobial, wear resistant fabric which protects from infectious agents and reduces the risk of transmission in human populations and medical settings.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai as applied to claims 12-14 and 18 above, in view of “Antimicrobial effect of surgical masks coated with nanoparticles” to Li.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai as applied to claims 12-14 and 18 above, in view of USPN. 10,190,253 to Niedermeyer.
Regarding Claim 17
Lai does not appear to teach the inclusion of gold nanoparticles. However, Niedermeyer teaches a nanoparticle treated fibrous article which comprises silver nanoparticles and a plurality of gold nanoparticles in addition (Niedermeyer, column 3, lines 10-28). Niedermeyer teaches that the gold provides further anti-odor functionality, improved strength, durability and color-fastness of the nanoparticle treated material (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the nanoparticle treated fabric of Lai and to further apply gold nanoparticles as taught by Niedermeyer, motivated by the desire to form an antimicrobial fabric having further odor reducing properties, strength, durability and color-fastness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights