DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 6-9 in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 have been canceled. Claims 6-9 are pending and under consideration.
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.
3. Claims 6-9 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.
Independent claim 6 recites that “the mass fraction of anhydrous acetic acid in the acetic acid solution is preferably 1-3wt%” however the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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.
4. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domand et al. (US 2005/0084677 A1).
Domand et al. disclose a support covered at least on one of the faces thereof with a chitosan-based layer, characterized in that the layer is obtained by depositing a chitosan-based aqueous solution (equivalent to the multifunctional and environmentally friendly coating of the claimed invention) and the layer is in the form of a continuous film. The chitosan is dissolved in an aqueous solution in the presence of an organic or inorganic acid chosen e.g. from the group comprising the lactic, acetic, hydrochloric, nitric, and citric, acid and the selection of the acid has an influence on the fluidity of the aqueous chitosan solution. For any given concentration of chitosan, of a determined molar mass, a viscosity varying depending on the selection of the acid and amount was obtained. The chitosan is deposited in an amount of 7 g/m2 as dry matter (meeting the limitations of claim 8). The support can be used for several applications such as filtration, food packaging (meeting the limitation that the coating is used in food packaging papers) or others such as patches, cosmetic and pharmaceutical supports etc. In order to enhance the barrier properties to gas and water vapor in a humid atmosphere, the chitosan layer is covered with wax and in one embodiment, the wax is introduced in the form of an aqueous emulsion, in the chitosan solution, the wax representing between 0.1 and 20% by weight of the chitosan. The plant wax is chosen from the group comprising the candelilla wax and the carnauba wax, and the second being obtained from the palm tree. When the chitosan layer is covered with a plant wax, the wax is applied either in the form of an emulsion as a mixture with the chitosan (meeting the limitation that a palm wax is added to the acidic chitosan), or by itself on a first chitosan-based layer. (See Abstract and paragraphs 0013, 0021-0033, 0038, 0049-0054)
With regards to the limitations that the mass fraction of anhydrous acetic acid in the acetic acid solution is 1-3wt%, the mass ratio of chitosan to anhydrous acetic acid is 1:1, and the mass ratio of palm wax to chitosan is 3:7-9:1, the Examiner would like to point out that workable physical properties and concentrations are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties, particularly given that Domand et al. specifically state that for any given concentration of chitosan, the viscosity can be varied by varying the acid and the amount and the barrier properties to gas and water vapor in a humid atmosphere can be enhanced by the use of waxes (See paragraphs 0022 and 0030).
With regards to the limitations of claims 6-7 and 9, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights