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 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 16, 19, 26, 27, & 30 in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 34, 36, 37, 43, & 45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/26.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 26, 27, & 30 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.
Claim 1: The term “reduced” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what level of nonspecific adsorption the claim reads on.
For the purpose of examination if the prior art teachings the same process with the same claimed materials it will be considered to meet the limitation.
Claim 2: Claim 2 recites “trichlorosilane” and “triethoxysilane” as treatment materials which renders the claim indefinite because “trichlorosilane” and “triethoxysilane” do not exist without a fourth moiety on the silicon.
For the purpose of examination, any trichlorosilane or triethoxysilane will be interpreted as reading on the limitation.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 26, 27, & 30: Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 26, 27, & 30 are rejected for being indefinite because they depend from claim 1 and do not remedy the issues of claim 1.
Claim 11 is not rejected for being indefinite because claim 11 remedies the indefiniteness of claim 1 by reciting the basis upon which the reduction in adsorption is compared to.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 26, 27, & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Spray-painted hydrogel coating for marine antifouling, Adv. Mater. Technol. 2021, 6, 2000911; hereafter Yang) in view of Liu et al. (Functional Hydrogel coatings, Natl Sci Rev, 2021, Vol. 8, nwaa254; hereafter Liu).
Claims 1 & 27: Yang is directed towards a method of forming a repellant surface attached hydrogel layer having a reduced nonspecific adsorption of nontargeted species (antifouling hydrogel coating; title), comprising:
spray coating a hydrogel precursor solution onto a surface (title and Fig. 1; Yang), wherein the hydrogel precursor solution comprises a hydrogel precursor dissolved in a solvent (See §4, pgs 8-9, Yang);
drying the spray coated layer (Fig. 1 & §4, pgs 8-9, Yang);
irradiating and heating the spray coated layer to crosslink the hydrogel precursor thereby forming the hydrogel and attaching the hydrogel to the surface (see Fig. 1 & §4, pgs 8-9, Yang).
Yang does not discuss the surface roughness of the hydrogel layer.
However, Liu, which is also directed towards hydrogel coatings (title) teaches that it is known in the art of hydrogel coatings that roughness is a result effective variable based on the desired degree of fouling of the coating (see § Anti-marine creature fouling, pg 7, Liu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the surface roughness of the hydrogel layer to obtain the desired antifouling because is a result effective variable and it is prima facie obvious to optimize result effective variables.
Claim 3: The hydrogel precursor comprises at least first and second monomer units, the first monomer unit being hydrophilic and non-charged and the second monomer unit having at least one side group capable of crosslinking (see § 2, ¶1, pg 2, Yang).
Claim 4: The first monomer unit is an acrylamide (see § 2, ¶1, pg 2, Yang).
Claim 6: Claim 6 is contingent on the selection made in claim 4 and the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 is met by “the first monomer unit is an acrylamide” and thus limitation of claim 6 is not required to be met by the prior art. See MPEP §2111.04.
Claim 8: The hydrogel precursor is present in the hydrogel precursor solution at a concentration of 100 mg/mL (§ 4, pg 8, Yang).
Claim 10: Yang does not teach that the dried spray coated layer has a thickness 10-1000 nm.
However, thickness of a coating is a result effective variable based on the desired durability of the coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the coating thickness to obtain the desired durability because it is prima facie obvious to optimize result effective variables.
Claim 11: The surface attached hydrogel layer results in an at least 30% reduction in nonspecific adsorption of nontargeted species as compared to an uncoated surface (see Fig. 5, Yang).
Claim 12: Yang teaches exposing the spray coated layer to UV light to crosslink the hydrogel layer (Fig. 1, Yang).
Claim 16: The surface is an internal surface of a container (see Fig. 4, the coated objects are solid with holes and thus read on a container, Yang).
Claim 19: The hydrogel precursor is exposed to UV light to crosslink and UV light exposure also produces heat (Fig. 1, Yang).
Claim 26: The spraying coating is performed at 5 psi (0.345 bar, Fig. 4, Yang).
Claim 30: The nontargeted species comprises bovine serum albumin or agarose (i.e. cells or cell components; Fig. 5, Yang).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Liu as applied above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US PG Pub 2008/0026151; hereafter ‘151).
Claim 2: Yang teaches applying an epoxy paint to the surface prior to applying the hydrogel (see Fig. 1) and the epoxy paint provides adhesion by noncovalent and covalent linkages to the hydrogel layer (abstract).
Yang does not teach that the epoxy paint comprises a triethoxysilane.
‘151 is directed towards addition of silanes to coating compositions (title) discloses adding aminopropyl triethoxysilane to improve adhesion (¶ 4) wherein the coatings include epoxy paints (abstract & ¶ 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add aminopropyl triethoxysilane to the epoxy paint of Yang because aminopropyl triethoxysilane is recognized in the art of epoxy paints as a known additive for improve adhesion and would have predictably provided the adhesion properties as desired by Yang.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Liu as applied above, and further in view of Goddard et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0216708; hereafter ‘708).
Claim 7: The combination does not teach using a hydrogel precursor solution comprising a copolymer of poly(dimethylacrylamide) and 5% methacryloyloxybennzophenone dissolved in ethanol.
However, ‘708, which is also directed towards antifouling (¶ 108) hydrogel coatings (¶ 207) discloses that a copolymer of poly(dimethylacrylamide) (¶ 99) and benzoylphenyl methacrylate as the crosslinking moiety (i.e. methacryloyloxybennzophenone; ¶ 118) are suitable copolymers for the antifouling coatings wherein the solvent for coating can be ethanol (¶ 186).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute a copolymer of poly(dimethylacrylamide) and methacryloyloxybennzophenone in ethanol in place of the copolymer in solvent of Yang because it is an art recognized hydrogel precursor copolymer solution in the field and would have predictably provided the desired coating.
The combination does not disclose the particular ratio of monomers.
However, Yang teaches that the ratio of monomers is a result effective variable of the toughness of the film (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the ratio of monomers to obtain the desired toughness because it is prima facie obvious to optimize a result effective variable to obtain a desired result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759