DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (6 – 22 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's rejection relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction and fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Gabbay / Gabbay as modified does not teach the feature of the plurality of first particles must have a particle size distribution wherein 90% of the plurality of first particles have a particle size in the range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of the antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber.
Gabbay / Gabbay as modified merely teaches absolute particle sizes (1 to 10 microns) and absolute fiber diameters (50 to 70 microns) (Gabbay, [0028], [0057]). Gabbay is completely silent as to any correlation, ratio, or proportion between the particle size and the fiber diameter.
Importantly, Gabbay / Gabbay as modified does not disclose or even contemplate the concept of an "average fiber diameter." Gabbay merely refers to a nominal or target fiber diameter determined by the size of the spinneret holes (Gabbay, [0057]: "spinneret with holes that yielded fibers of between 50 and 70 microns in diameter'.
The prior art does not teach or suggest that the particle size distribution must be scaled as a percentage of the final extruded fiber's average diameter. Nobbmann merely defines the mathematical concept of D90 and span in a general particle-sizing context. Nobbmann provides absolutely no link between particle size distribution parameters and the physical dimensions of an extruded fiber. There is no teaching in either reference to select the D90 or the maximum particle size specifically as a ratio of 5% to 20% of the average fiber diameter.
In the present case, the parameter being optimized is not an absolute particle size in isolation, but rather the ratio of the plurality of first particles (specifically the D90 and maximum particle diameter) to the average diameter of the antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber.
The present invention achieves an optimal balance where the copper particles are large enough to bridge into the active outer annular zone (maximizing efficacy) but small enough to prevent fiber weakening and breakage during extrusion (Specification, [0052], [0053]). Because the claimed range produces a synergistic and unexpected combination of high antimicrobial activity and optimized fiber strength.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Gabbay / Gabbay as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As detailed above applicant’s argument is directed towards hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As noted in the office action of (5 – 4 – 2026) Gabbay was found to teach a plurality of first particles must having a particle size in the range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of the antimicrobial fibers, namely on ([0057]) Gabbay discloses that the two mixtures were run through a spinneret with holes that yielded fibers of between 50 and 70 microns in diameter. As such, 5 % to 20 % of the average diameter of a range of 50 and 70 microns provides for a range for particles of (.05 * 50) to (.20 * 70) i.e., 2.5 µm to 14 µm. ([0057]) expanding the range of Cu powder by adding, that the since the Cu++ releasing powder was ground to particles of less than 20 microns (in particular 1 to 10 microns) provides for no obstructions in the spinneret holes. As such, optimizing the particle size to less than 20 microns is understood to provide for eliminating or reducing the obstructions in the spinneret holes. Highlighting, that the largest (maximum particle size) noted for the particle powder is less than 20 microns. As such, a largest / maximum particle size of less than 20 microns is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of maximum particle diameter of the plurality of first particles is in the range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of the polymeric fiber i.e., (2.5 µm to 14 µm).Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the maximum particle diameter of the plurality of first particles being in the range of 5 % and 20 % of the average fiber diameter. However, due to the particle size and the maximum particle size impacting and providing for eliminating or reducing the obstructions in the spinneret holes, the particle size / maximum particle size are both understood to be a result effective variables. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). While Nobbmann was found to disclose optimizing 90% of the particle size distribution i.e., the D90 of a particle size distribution. Namely, Nobbmann teaches in (Abstract) that the Span of a distribution reflects the width. Size distributions are a description of the fact that not every component in the sample has the same size. There is a range of sizes present, which we mathematically described by a distribution. The span is one parameter to characterize this range. The parameter D90 signifies the point in the size distribution, up to and including which, 90% of the total volume of material in the sample is ‘contained’. For example, if the D90 is 844nm, this means that 90% of the sample has a size of 844nm or smaller. An additional parameter to show the width of the size distribution is the span. The span of a volume-based size distribution is defined as Span = (D90 – D10) / D50. Which gives an indication of how far the 10 percent and 90 percent points are apart, normalized with the midpoint (D50). As such, optimizing and tailoring the D90 is understood to be impact the Span of a particle size distribution utilized. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited for the D90. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
As noted by applicant’s own argument a particle sizes (1 to 10 microns) and fiber diameters (50 to 70 microns) (Gabbay, [0028], [0057]). Which meets applicant’s requirement that the particles are in the range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of the fiber. Thus, Gabbay is completely teaches the ratio and / or proportion between the particle size and the fiber diameter as required by applicant.
While the exact average of the fibers is not given, i.e., the fibers are between 50 and 70 microns in diameter. The average and maximum of said fibers must fall within the range of between 50 and 70 microns i.e., the average particle size can’t be less than 50 microns or more than 70 microns. Consequently, by tailoring the absolute diameter of the fibers, the average fiber diameter is also impacted. Adding, that choosing a diameter for the fibers produced it is understood to impact the size of the spinneret hole implemented (the spinneret holes fabricate the fibers). As such, the diameter of the fibers is understood to be a result effective variable. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Furthermore, the size of particle being disclosed as particles of less than 20 microns and in addition to also recognizing the particle size as being result effective due to providing no obstructions in the spinneret holes. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may again be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
While the prior art may not teach or suggest explicitly that the particle size distribution must be scaled as a percentage of the final extruded fiber's average diameter. The prior art does teach the variables implemented in combination with the ratio, i.e., selecting the D90 or the maximum particle size specifically as a ratio of 5% to 20% of the average fiber diameter such that its optimized overlap with applicant’s range. Namely, the D90, the maximum particle size and average fiber diameter are found to provide numerical values which satisfies and overlap the conditions of applicant’s ratio in combination with the fact these variables, i.e., the D90 and/or the maximum particle size are recognized as result effective variables. Accordingly, the prior provides for ranges and condition which teach and meet the limitation requiring that the particle size distribution must be scaled as a percentage of the final extruded fiber's average diameter, in particular selecting the D90 or the maximum particle size specifically as a ratio of 5% to 20% of the average fiber diameter.
As noted, Gabbay provides for a fiber diameter range and, average particle size range and maximum particle size range. While Nobbmann was found to disclose optimizing 90% of the particle size distribution i.e., the D90 of a particle size distribution. Namely, the D90, the maximum particle size and average fiber diameter are found to provide numerical values which satisfies and overlap the conditions of applicant’s ratio in combination with the fact these variables, i.e., fiber diameter, the D90 and/or the maximum particle size are recognized as result effective variables. Providing for optimizing the ratio of the plurality of first particles (specifically the D90 and maximum particle diameter) to the average diameter of the antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed range produces a synergistic and unexpected combination of high antimicrobial activity and optimized fiber strength, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., high antimicrobial activity and optimized fiber strength) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, as detailed above, Gabbay / Gabbay as modified is found to teach the same structure as applicant’s antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber. In combination with applicant’s features which are not recited in the rejected claim(s) are found to be functional limitations which stem from the structure of the antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Gabbay / Gabbay as modified.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffrey Gabbay (US 20040224005 A1, hereinafter Gabbay) in view of Ulf Nobbmann (D90, D50, D10, and Span, hereinafter Nobbmann)Regarding claim 1,
An antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber, comprising:
a polymeric material,
wherein the antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber has an average diameter; and
a plurality of first particles having an average particle diameter,
wherein the plurality of first particles are within a particle size range and
90% of the particles are in the range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of the fiber antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber; and
wherein the plurality of first particles has a maximum particle diameter and
the maximum particle diameter of the plurality of first particles is in the range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of the polymeric antimicrobial. antiviral. or antifungal polymeric fiber.
Gabbay teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches an antimicrobial and antiviral polymeric material, having microscopic water insoluble particles of ionic copper in powder form, which release Cu++ encapsulated therein with a portion of said particles being exposed and protruding from surfaces thereof.
(Claim 3) teaches that wherein said polymeric material is a fiber.
([0028]) teaches that the copper dust is ground down to fine powder, e.g., a size of between 1 and 10 microns and introduced into the slurry in small quantities, e.g.,
& e.) ([0057]) teaches that the two mixtures were run through a spinneret with holes that yielded fibers of between 50 and 70 microns in diameter. As such, 5 % to 20 % of the average diameter of a range of 50 and 70 microns provides for a range for particles of (.05 * 50) to (.20 * 70) i.e., 2.5 µm to 14 µm. Adding, that choosing and tailoring a diameter for the fibers produced it is understood to impact the size of the spinneret hole implemented (the spinneret holes fabricate the fibers). As such, the diameter of the fibers is understood to be a result effective variable. Noting, that by tailoring the range of the absolute diameter, you will tailor and influence the average diameter range to change as well. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). ([0057]) expanding the range of Cu powder by adding, that the since the Cu++ releasing powder was ground to particles of less than 20 microns (in particular 1 and 10 microns) provides for no obstructions in the spinneret holes. As such, the size of particles provided less than 20 microns is understood to overlap with applicant’s derived range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of fibers, i.e., (2.5 µm to 14 µm). Highlighting, Gabbay is found to recognize that the size of the particles implemented influences and impacts obstructions in the spinneret holes. Namely, the size of the particle implemented are understood to be a result effective variable. Noting, that by tailoring the range of the absolute diameter, you will tailor and influence the average diameter range to change as well. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may again be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
& g.) ([0057]) teaches that the two mixtures were run through a spinneret with holes that yielded fibers of between 50 and 70 microns in diameter. As such, 5 % to 20 % of the average diameter of a range of 50 and 70 microns provides for a range for particles of (.05 * 50) to (.20 * 70) i.e., 2.5 µm to 14 µm. ([0057]) expanding the range of Cu powder by adding, that the since the Cu++ releasing powder was ground to particles of less than 20 microns (in particular 1 to 10 microns) provides for no obstructions in the spinneret holes. As such, optimizing the particle size to less than 20 microns is understood to provide for eliminating or reducing the obstructions in the spinneret holes. Highlighting, that the largest (maximum particle size) noted for the particle powder is less than 20 microns. As such, a largest / maximum particle size of less than 20 microns is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of maximum particle diameter of the plurality of first particles is in the range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of the polymeric fiber i.e., (2.5 µm to 14 µm). Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the maximum particle diameter of the plurality of first particles being in the range of 5 % and 20 % of the average fiber diameter. However, due to the particle size and the maximum particle size impacting and providing for eliminating or reducing the obstructions in the spinneret holes, the particle size / maximum particle size are both understood to be a result effective variables. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding Claim 1, Gabbay is silent on optimizing 90% (D90) of the particle size distribution. In analogous art for the size distribution of particles, (Abstract), Nobbmann suggests details regarding optimizing 90% (D90) of the particles size distribution, and in this regard, Nobbmann teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that the Span of a distribution reflects the width. Size distributions are a description of the fact that not every component in the sample has the same size. There is a range of sizes present, which we mathematically described by a distribution. The span is one parameter to characterize this range. The parameter D90 signifies the point in the size distribution, up to and including which, 90% of the total volume of material in the sample is ‘contained’. For example, if the D90 is 844nm, this means that 90% of the sample has a size of 844nm or smaller. An additional parameter to show the width of the size distribution is the span. The span of a volume-based size distribution is defined as Span = (D90 – D10) / D50. Which gives an indication of how far the 10 percent and 90 percent points are apart, normalized with the midpoint (D50). As such, optimizing and tailoring the D90 is understood to be impact the Span of a particle size distribution utilized. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited for the D90. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an antimicrobial and antiviral polymeric material, having microscopic particles of ionic copper encapsulated therein and protruding from surfaces thereof of Gabbay. By modifying and optimizing the particle size including the D90 of the particle size distribution, as taught by Nobbmann. Highlighting, one would be motivated to optimizing the particle size including the D90 of the particle size distribution as it provides for tailoring the Span of the particle size distribution, i.e., shrinking the overall distribution of sizes, (What is the D90?). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the polymeric antimicrobial. antiviral. or antifungal polymeric fiber is one of a polyester fiber and a polypropylene fiber.
Gabbay teaches the following:
([0027]) teaches that he polymeric material of the present invention can be in the form of a film, a fiber, or a yam, wherein said films are used per se and said fibers and yams can be formed into a packaging material for agricultural products. ([0028]) adding said material can be made from almost any synthetic polymer, which will allow the introduction of an anionic, copper dust into its liquid slurry state. Examples of some materials are polyamides (nylon), polyester, acrylic, polypropylene, silastic rubber and latex. As such, the use of both polyester fiber and a polypropylene fiber is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the plurality of first particles has a maximum particle diameter and
the maximum particle diameter of the plurality of first particles is in the range of 5% and 10% of the average diameter of the polymeric antimicrobial. antiviral. or antifungal polymeric fiber.
Gabbay teaches the following:
& b.) ([0057]) teaches that the two mixtures were run through a spinneret with holes that yielded fibers of between 50 and 70 microns in diameter. As such, 5 % to 10 % of the average diameter of a range of 50 and 70 microns provides for a range for particles of (.05 * 50) to (.10 * 70) i.e., 2.5 µm to 7 µm. ([0057]) expanding the range of Cu powder by adding, that the since the Cu++ releasing powder was ground to particles of less than 20 microns (in particular 1 to 10 microns) provides for no obstructions in the spinneret holes. As such, optimizing the particle size to less than 20 microns is understood to provide for eliminating or reducing the obstructions in the spinneret holes. Highlighting, that the largest (maximum particle size) noted for the particle powder is less than 20 microns. As such, a largest / maximum particle size of less than 20 microns is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of maximum particle diameter of the plurality of first particles is in the range of 5% and 20% of the average diameter of the polymeric fiber i.e., (2.5 µm to 7 µm).Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the maximum particle diameter of the plurality of first particles being in the range of 5 % and 10 % of the average fiber diameter. However, due to the particle size and the maximum particle size impacting and providing for eliminating or reducing the obstructions in the spinneret holes, the particle size / maximum particle size are both understood to be a result effective variables. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the plurality of first particles are within a particle size range and 90% of the plurality of first particles have a particle size in the range of 5% and 15% of the average diameter of the fiber antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal polymeric fiber.
Gabbay teaches the following:
([0057]) teaches that the two mixtures were run through a spinneret with holes that yielded fibers of between 50 and 70 microns in diameter. As such, 5 % to 20 % of the average diameter of a range of 50 and 70 microns provides for a range for particles of (.05 * 50) to (.15 * 70) i.e., 2.5 µm to 10.5 µm. ([0057]) expanding the range of Cu powder by adding, that the since the Cu++ releasing powder was ground to particles of less than 20 microns (in particular 1 to 10 microns) provides for no obstructions in the spinneret holes. As such, the size of particles provided less than 20 microns is understood to overlap with applicant’s derived range of 5% and 15% of the average diameter of fibers, i.e., (2.5 µm to 10.5 µm).
Regarding Claim 4, Gabbay is silent on optimizing 90% (D90) of the particle size distribution. In analogous art for the size distribution of particles, (Abstract), Nobbmann suggests details regarding optimizing 90% (D90) of the particles size distribution, and in this regard, Nobbmann teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that the Span of a distribution reflects the width. Size distributions are a description of the fact that not every component in the sample has the same size. There is a range of sizes present, which we mathematically described by a distribution. The span is one parameter to characterize this range. (What is the D90 (or D50, or D10) ? ) teaches that the parameter D90 signifies the point in the size distribution, up to and including which, 90% of the total volume of material in the sample is ‘contained’. For example, if the D90 is 844nm, this means that 90% of the sample has a size of 844nm or smaller. An additional parameter to show the width of the size distribution is the span. The span of a volume-based size distribution is defined as Span = (D90 – D10) / D50. Which gives an indication of how far the 10 percent and 90 percent points are apart, normalized with the midpoint (D50). As such, optimizing and tailoring the D90 is understood to be impact the Span of a particle size distribution utilized. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited for the D90. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the particles plurality of first particles comprise water insoluble copper compounds that release at least one of Cu+ ions and Cu++ ions upon contact with a fluid.
Gabbay teaches the following:
([0036]) teaches that the present invention is directed to the use and preparation of a polymeric material, having microscopic water insoluble particles of ionic copper in powder form, which release Cu ++ encapsulated therein with a portion of said particles being exposed and protruding from surfaces thereof, which is neither taught nor suggested by said publication and which has the advantage that the exposed Cu ++ releasing water. As such, the particles comprise water insoluble copper compounds that release of Cu++ ions upon contact with a fluid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeffery Gabbay (US 20080241530 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The invention provides an antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral polymeric material, comprising rayon fibers and a single antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral component consisting essentially of microscopic water insoluble particles of copper oxide incorporated in said fibers wherein a portion of said particles in said fibers are exposed and protruding from the surface of the fibers and wherein said particles release Cu++ when exposed to water or water vapor.
Vikram Kanmukhla (US 20160120185 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The present invention relates to an antimicrobial and antiviral polymeric drawn fiber and polymeric fiber-based materials comprising same, wherein the drawn fiber is a polymer fiber containing cuprous oxide particles dispersed therein, with particle size ranges from about 0.25 to about 0.65 micron. The invention also relates to processes for preparing the same.
Jeffery Gabbay (US 20070184079 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The invention provides an antimicrobial and antiviral polymeric material, having microscopic particles of ionic copper encapsulated therein and protruding from surfaces thereof.
Bernard Hamling (US 3860529 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) Zirconia fibers and textiles that are stabilized in the tetragonal form by small, carefully controlled amount of oxides of the metals of Group III B of the Periodic Table. The stabilized tetragonal zirconia fibers and textiles are useful as refractories, thermal insulators, battery spacers, fuel cell spacers, and the like.
Cirino et al. (US 4072784 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) Water-soluble multivalent metal salts of carboxyl-containing vinyl monomers are polymerized in situ in fibrous substrates and fixed therein as network polymeric structures. This finish is useful for development of flame retardance, sanitizing characteristics, and other special performance qualities in fibrous compositions and fabrics.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights