DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 20, 2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ claimed invention filed on 05/20/2024 in the matter of Application N° 18/711,723. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after May 20, 2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Thus, claims 1-20 represent all claims currently under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
one Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 07/05/2024, is acknowledged and have been considered.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian et al. (CN111691001A), in view of Qingwang et al. (CN107163748B), and Joydeep et al. (US20200120938A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 16-19, Lian et al. disclose a method for preparing biocompatible polyamide fibers. The fibers are produced through a polymerization process that utilizes ionic liquids, including 1-hexadecyl-3-methylimidazole, 1-propyl-3-methylimidazole, and N-octylpyridine, among others. A thermal stabilizer, such as phthalic acid, is included in the composition. The disclosure further teaches those antimicrobial additives, for example nano-copper or cuprous oxide, may be incorporated in amounts ranging from 0.01% to 2% by weight. In one embodiment, polyamide 56 is synthesized by initially combining an amine and an acid in an aqueous solution, followed by conducting polymerization at elevated temperature and pressure. Subsequently, the ionic liquid (approximately 19% by weight) is introduced, after which the mixture is cooled and the polyamide material is formed. The initial polymerization product is obtained in an aqueous solution containing approximately 30% to 70% water (See abstract, claim 1, claim 2, claim 5, claim 7, and claim 9, and General examples number 2).
However, Lian et al. do not disclose wherein a copper-containing material is from about 5 wt % to about 30 wt% and an ionic liquid is from 5 wt% to about 30 wt% and a thermoplastic polymer from 60 wt% to about 90 ;’/[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[wt%.
However, Qingwang et al. disclose an antifouling coating intended for use in marine environments, particularly on structures exposed to seawater. The coating composition comprises approximately 10-30% solvent and about 20-50% of an acrylic resin modified with a polymerized ionic liquid. The formulation further includes 15-30% of an antifouling agent, such as copper pyrithione used in combination with cuprous oxide and zinc oxide. The ionic liquid employed to modify the acrylic resin constitutes about 5-15% of the total monomer content used in forming the ionically modified acrylic resin (See Abstract and claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the relative amounts of copper-containing material, ionic liquid, and thermoplastic polymer in the compositions of Lian et al. in view of Qingwang et al. as these components are recognized as affecting antimicrobial performance, coating integrity, and material properties. The concentration of antimicrobial agents and ionic liquids in polymer systems constitutes a result-effective variable. Optimization of such known variables through routine experimentation to achieve a desired balance of antimicrobial efficacy, material strength, and processability would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed ranges represent predictable variations of the prior art compositions and do not appear to demonstrate criticality or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to modify the composition of Lian et al. in view of Qingwang et al. to arrive at the claimed weight percentage ranges.
Regarding claim 4, Lian et al. disclose wherein the composition includes an antistatic agent selected from copper powder, copper oxide, cuprous oxide, or combination thereof, present in an amount of about 0.1% to 2% by weight (See claim 7)
Regarding claim 7, although Qingwang et al. discloses broader or partially overlapping quantitative ranges (e.g., 15-30 wt% antifouling agent including copper compounds; ionic liquid incorporated at 5-15% of monomer content) (See Abstract and claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the concentration of both the copper-containing material and the ionic liquid within lower ranges, including 0.5-5 wt%, as a matter of routine formulation adjustment. It is well established that where the prior art discloses the same components and recognizes them as affecting the same properties (i.e., antimicrobial/antifouling activity), discovering an optimum or workable range through routine experimentation does not render the claimed invention patentable. See MPEP 2144.05 (Optimization of Result-Effective Variables).
Qingwang et al. teaches that copper compounds function as the antifouling (antimicrobial) agent and that the ionic liquid modifies the acrylic resin to impart desired coating properties. Because both components are expressly identified as functional ingredients contributing to antimicrobial performance and coating characteristics, their concentrations constitute result-effective variables. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the copper content to lower amounts to minimize toxicity and environmental impact, reduce material costs, and maintain sufficient antimicrobial efficacy, while correspondingly adjusting the ionic liquid concentration to maintain coating integrity and performance.
The claimed ranges of 0.5-5wt% represent merely a predictable, lower concentration subset of the broader compositions taught by Qingwang et al. Adjusting component amounts within known compositions to achieve suitable antimicrobial balance would have been routine experimentation yielding predictable results. Absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated specifically with the claimed 0.5-5wt% ranges for both the copper-containing material and the ionic liquid, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Lian et al. disclose a method for preparing biocompatible polyamide fibers. Lian teaches polymerizing an amine and an acid in aqueous solution to form polyamide (e.g. polyamide 56); conducting polymerization under elevated temperature and pressure; introducing an ionic liquid in an amount of approximately 19wt%; Incorporating antimicrobial additives such as nano-copper or cuprous oxide in amounts of 0.01-2wt%; and forming the polyamide material after cooling (See abstract, claim 1, claim 2, claim 5, claim 7, and claim 9, and General examples number 2). Thus, Lian et al. teaches a thermoplastic polymer composition (polyamide) containing both ionic liquid and copper-based antimicrobial additives. Although Lian et al. does not explicitly disclose a weight ratio of “another thermoplastic” to an “antimicrobial polymer composition” of 5-30 wt% Lian et al. clearly teaches blending and forming thermoplastic polymer compositions containing antimicrobial components and ionic liquid additives. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the antimicrobial polymer composition into an additional thermoplastic polymer matrix at conventional blending ratios, including 5-30 wt% as a matter of routine formulation design. Blending a functional polymer composition into a second thermoplastic polymer at minor-to-moderate loading levels (e.g. 5-30 wt%) represents a standard approach in polymer compounding to improve mechanical properties (e.g. strength, flexibility, processability); adjust antimicrobial efficacy; optimize fiber spinning performance; and reduce cost while maintaining functional performance.
The claimed 5-30 wt% range constitutes a typical and predictable blending range used in polymer alloying and composite formation. Adjusting the proportion of a functional antimicrobial polymer composition relative to a base thermoplastic polymer would have been a matter of routine optimization of result-effective variables, namely antimicrobial performance and mechanical properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
Further, Lian discloses compositions containing significant amounts of ionic liquid (19wt%) within the polymer system and antimicrobial copper additives, demonstrating that relatively substantial functional additive loadings were contemplated. It would have been obvious to vary the relative proportions of the thermoplastic polymer components within conventional blending ranges, including 5-30 wt%, to achieve a desired balance of antimicrobial activity and mechanical performance. Absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the specific 5-30 wt% ratio, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of known polymer blending techniques.
Regarding claim 10, Lian et al. disclose a method for preparing biocompatible polyamide fibers. Lian teaches polymerizing an amine and an acid to form polyamide (e.g. polyamide 56); conducting polymerization in aqueous solution under elevated temperature and pressure; Introducing an ionic liquid (19 wt%); Incorporating antimicrobial additives such as nano-copper or cuprous oxide (0.01-2 wt%); Forming the thermoplastic polyamide material. Polyamides inherently comprise amide functional groups (-CONH-) formed by condensation of amine and carboxylic acid monomers. Thus, Lian discloses a thermoplastic polymer comprising a first functional group (amide groups) (See claim 1, claim 2, claim 5, claim 7, and claim 9, and General examples number 2).
Although Lian et al. does not explicitly disclose that both the thermoplastic polymer and “another thermoplastic polymer” each comprise the same first functional group, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select compatible thermoplastic polymers having identical or similar functional groups when forming blended or composite polymer systems. It is well established in polymer science that polymers sharing common functional groups (e.g. amide-containing polymers) exhibit improved intermolecular interactions (e. g. hydrogen bonding), Miscibility and compatibility, Mechanical integrity, phase stability, and processability.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize another thermoplastic polymer comprising the same functional group (e.g. another polyamide containing amide linkages) in order to improve blend compatibility, Maintain uniform dispersion of antimicrobial additives, avoid phase separation, and preserve fiber-forming or molding properties. Selecting polymers with matching functional groups is a predictable design choice.
Regarding claim 11, Lian et al. disclose preparation of thermoplastic polyamide compositions (e.g. polyamide 56); Incorporation of antimicrobial additives such as nano-copper or cuprous oxide (0.01-2 wt%); Introduction of an ionic liquid (19 wt%) into the polymer system; Formation of polyamide material suitable for fiber or shaped article production. Lian et al. therefore teaches an antimicrobial thermoplastic polymer composition containing copper additives and ionic liquid components. Further, Lian teaches conventional thermoplastic processing of polyamide materials, which inherently includes melting/softening and forming into shaped articles (e.g. fibers) (See Abstract, claim 2, claim 5, claim 7, and claim 9, and General examples number 2).
Qingwang et al. discloses polymer compositions comprising copper-containing antifouling agents (e.g. copper pyrithione, cuprous oxide); Ionic liquid-modified polymer systems; polymer matrices designed for antimicrobial/antifouling performance. Qingwang et al. reinforces the known use of copper containing materials and ionic liquids within polymer matrices for antimicrobial purposes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the antimicrobial polymer compositions of Lian, as reinforced by Qingwang’s teachings regarding copper and ionic-liquid -modified systems, in conventional thermoplastic forming processes. Both references teach copper-based antimicrobial agents in polymer matrices; Ionic liquid incorporation into polymer systems; and formation of shaped polymer articles.
Using the same thermoplastic polymer in both the antimicrobial polymer composition and the additional thermoplastic polymer would have been an obvious and predictable design choice. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the same base polymer in both components in order to improve melt compatibility and interfacial adhesion; avoid phase separation, ensure uniform dispersion of antimicrobial agents; maintain consistent mechanical properties; simplify manufacturing and inventory control. In polymer processing, blending a functionalized polymer composition into the same base polymer matrix (i.e. masterbatch-type systems) is a well known and conventional technique. It is common practice to prepare an additive concentrate (e.g. antimicrobial-loaded polymer) and subsequently dilute it into the same polymer resin during forming operations. Thus, selecting the same thermoplastic polymer composition for bot the antimicrobial polymer composition and the additional thermoplastic polymer would have been a routine and predictable optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan. See MPEP 2144 (Design choice and predictable results) and 2144.05 (Optimization of result effective variables).
Because Lian et al. as reinforced by Qingwang et al. teach antimicrobial thermoplastic compositions containing copper additive and ionic liquids and because using the same thermoplastic polymer composition in both blended components represents a conventional and predictable polymer processing approach, claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Lian et al. disclose thermoplastic polyamide compositions; Incorporation of antimicrobial copper additives; Introduction of an ionic liquid (19 wt%) into the polymer system; formation of shaped thermoplastic articles (See Abstract and claim 1). Lian et al. teaches the use of ionic liquids in thermoplastic polymer systems but does not expressly limit the cation to alkyl imidazolium.
Qingwang et al. discloses polymer systems modified with polymerizable ionic liquids for antimicrobial/antifouling purposes. Ionic liquids suitable for polymer modification are known in the art to commonly include imidazolium-based ionic liquids, particularly alkyl imidazolium salts, due to their thermal stability; polymer compatibility; water solubility (depending on anion selection); antimicrobial enhancement properties. Imidazolium-based ionic liquids are among the most widely used classes of ionic liquids in polymer chemistry.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an alkyl imidazolium cation for the ionic liquid used in the polymer composition of Lian et al. particularly in view of Qingwang’s teaching of ionic-liquid modified antimicrobial polymer systems. Selection of a specific ionic liquid cation from among known, conventional ionic liquid species represents routine optimization of a known class of materials. Imidazolium-based ionic liquids were well known and widely used in polymer processing due to their compatibility with thermoplastic matrices, ability to dissolve or disperse additives, thermal robustness during melt processing, and known antimicrobial synergistic properties. Where the prior art teaches the use of ionic liquids generally, and imidazolium-based ionic liquids are well known species within that class, the selection of alkyl imidazolium as the cation constitutes the predictable selection of a known species from a known genus. See MPEP 2144.08 (Obviousness of species within a known Genus). Further, the choice of cation in an ionic liquid is a result-effective variable affecting solubility, compatibility, and antimicrobial performance. Optimization of such known variables through routine experimentation would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Because Lian et al. teach ionic liquids in antimicrobial thermoplastic systems, and Qingwang et al. teach ionic-liquid-modified antimicrobial polymers, and because alkyl imidazolium cations represent well-known and commonly used ionic liquid species in polymer chemistry, claim 12 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 13, and 20, Joydeep et al. disclose wherein in some embodiments, the material exhibits a greater than 3 log reduction in a concentration of staphylococcus aureus, under the test method of EPA for efficacy of copper Alloy as a Sanitizer testing conditions (See Abstract). The phrase “Health Benefit” includes materials that display adequate antimicrobial efficacy to enable the claim of a public health benefit under most government regulatory standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard requires a greater than 3 log reduction in Staphylococcus aureus under its Test Method for Efficacy of Copper Alloy as a sanitizer (See paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 14, Joydeep et al. disclose wherein the combination of the copper containing glass and such other materials or carriers may be suitable for injection molding, extrusion or coatings or may be drawn into fibers (See paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 15, Lian et al. disclose thermoplastic polyamide compositions; Incorporation of antimicrobial additives such as nano-copper or cuprous oxide; Incorporation of ionic liquid into the polymer system; Formation of shaped thermoplastic materials. Lian et al. therefore teaches antimicrobial thermoplastic polymer compositions comprising copper containing materials and ionic liquids. While Lian et al. teaches combining these materials, Lian et al. does not explicitly disclose forming the antimicrobial polymer composition via extrusion prior to feeding into a forming apparatus as recited in claim 15.
Joydeep et al. disclose that copper-containing materials (e.g. copper-containing glass) may be combined with polymer carriers and processed using conventional thermoplastic processing techniques, including; Injection molding, Extrusion, fiber drawing, and coating processes. Joydeep et al. therefore expressly teaches extrusion as a suitable method for incorporating copper containing antimicrobial materials into polymer matrices (See paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use extrusion to mix the copper-containing material, ionic liquid, and thermoplastic polymer of Lian etal. To form the antimicrobial polymer composition prior to further forming. Extrusion is a well-known and conventional technique in polymer processing for: Melt compounding additives into thermoplastic polymers; Achieving uniform dispersion of antimicrobial agents; Forming masterbatch compositions; Improving distribution and consistency prior to shaping operations. Joydeep et al. expressly teaches that copper-containing materials may be combined with polymer carriers using extrusion. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this known extrusion compounding technique to the antimicrobial polymer system of Lian et al. in order to: Ensure homogeneous dispersion of copper containing material; Improve processing efficiency; Facilitate downstream forming operations; produce a consistent antimicrobial polymer composition.
The use of extrusion to premix additives into a thermoplastic polymer prior to shaping represents routine polymer compounding practice and would have yielded predictable results. See MPEP 2144 (Use of known technique to improve similar device/method) and 2144.04 (known prior art elements performing the same function).
Because Lian et al. teaches antimicrobial thermoplastic compositions containing copper and ionic liquid, and Joydeep et al. teaches that copper-containing materials may be incorporated into polymer carriers via extrusion, it would have been obvious to premix the copper-containing material, ionic liquid, and thermoplastic polymer in an extruder to form the antimicrobial polymer composition as recited in claim 15.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615