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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-6 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.
3. With regard to claim 1, it is unclear what “it uses”. It is not clear if the antimicrobial non-woven uses the aqueous solution of if the method to obtain an antimicrobial non-woven uses an aqueous solution. It is also not clear if the solution applied to the fabric is dried or if just the fabric is dried.
4. With regard to claim 2, it is not clear how the chitosan is dissolved. Is the chitosan dissolved in the water with the citric acid? It is also not clear what the lawsone and zinc oxide are added to.
5. With regard to claim 3, it is not clear what is meant by “each component is added”. The Examiner is not clear what is meant by “each component”. It is also not clear what is mean by “mixed intensive and homogenized”. Do Applicants intent to intensively mix each of the added constituents to form a homogenous mixture?
6. With regard to claim 4, it is not clear what is meant by a temperature of 20 at least 30°C for at least 15 min. Specifically it is not clear what is the temperature limitations.
7. With regard to claim 6, it is not clear when the claimed essential oils of plant origins are added to the solution. The term “the solution of .01-5 wt. % essential oils of plant origins is added” also lacks antecedent basis since claim 1 recites no such essential oils of plant origins. It is also not clear what is meant by “are 25 introduced as final components of the solution” In addition the term “especially” is a relative term. “Especially” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “especially” 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.
8. Claim 5 is rejected for its dependency on claims 1-3 and 4,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H08268821 A in view of Norman, US 20130323228
The published JP application teach an antibacterial agent composition in the form of solution or solid and useful for the antibacterial and antifungal treatment of foods, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, paper, fiber, film, sheet, etc., by including metallic ion having antibacterial activity in chitosan (abstract). With regard to the claimed non-woven, Norman does not specifically teach treating a non-woven fabric; however, the Examiner is of the position that since non-woven fabrics are typically made from fiber using the composition of Norman to also treat a non-woven fabric would be within the skill of a worker in the art. Such a use would be obvious motivated by the desire to expand the number of potential applications of the composition. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
The published JP application teach that preferably, chitosan is dissolved in citric acid or lactic acid solution and silver lactate is used as the metallic ion (abstract). The published JP application teach that it was found that the antibacterial action of the present composition is due to the synergistic effect of the antibacterial action of chitosan and metal ion, and greatly exceeds the antibacterial action of each chitosan metal ion. Examples of antibacterial metal ions include silver, copper, zinc, gold, platinum, tin, lead and nickel. The composition is obtained by adding an antibacterial metal as a water-soluble metal to a chitosan solution dissolved with a dilute acid and stirring the mixture. The acid that dissolves chitosan may be nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, lactic acid, citric acid, an inorganic acid, or an organic acid, but lactic acid and citric acid are preferable in view of discoloration during use. The antibacterial water-soluble metal is preferably selected from water-soluble salts, and can be selected from general industrial chemicals and complex compounds. For example, as silver ions, silver nitrate, silver sulfate, silver acetate, silver lactate, silver perchlorate, Ammine silver sulfate, diammine silver nitrate, etc., copper ion, copper nitrate, copper sulfate, copper acetate, copper formate, copper perchlorate, etc., zinc ion, zinc nitrate, zinc sulfate, zinc acetate, perchloric acid Examples of the metal include zinc and zinc thiocyanate, and the same water-soluble metal salts as those described above can be used for other metals. The concentration of the dilute acid solution that dissolves chitosan may be 0.01% to 20%, preferably 10% or less as long as chitosan is dissolved. The concentration of the chitosan solution adjusted by using this dilute acid solution varies depending on the method of using the antibacterial solution, but it is sufficient if the concentration of the antibacterial metal is 0.01% or more, but considering the viscosity of the chitosan solution 5 %, Preferably 0.1% to 1%. In addition, the amount of antibacterial metal added is 0.2 ppm (based on the chitosan solution) at which the antibacterial property is expressed or more, and the maximum amount (100% based on chitosan) that can be contained in chitosan, preferably in the chitosan solution. On the other hand, 50% is preferable to chitosan at 1 ppm or more. The antibacterial composition prepared in this manner purifies drainage water and circulating water in a solution state, suppresses phytopathogenic fungi, and chitosan has good adhesion to fibers, paper, etc. It can be used in many ways, such as a coating agent for powder, and by kneading into a resin after being pulverized. If a highly safe metal such as silver, zinc or copper is used as the antibacterial metal, it can be used for foods, cosmetics, medicines and the like. Example 8, exemplified a cloth comprising an aqueous solution containing 10% of the solution of Example 2 (chitosan. 02%, silver 0.2ppm), soaked in the same amount as the cloth, and then dried.
The published JP application does not specifically teach the claimed zinc oxide or lawsone; however, absent unexpected results it would have been obvious to formulate the JP composition with the claimed zinc oxide and lawsone.
The published patent application issued to Norman teach a cleansing and anti-acne composition (title) comprising chitosan (paragraph 0061), citric acid (paragraph 007) as well as (zinc oxide and lawsone) as UV absorption agents (paragraph 0038-0039).
The Examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the antimicrobial composition of the published JP application with zinc oxide and lawsone to provide an antimicrobial/cleaning composition that also offers UV protection. Such an addition would be within the skill of a worker of ordinary skill in the art since both cited references are considered analogous and comprise overlapping (chitosan and citric acid) ingredients and are used to form similar compositions. The Examiner is of the position that such a combination of ingredients/active agents can be accomplished with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
With regard to claim 6, the published JP application also does not teach the claimed essential oil derived from plants. The published patent application issued to Norman also teach using moisturizers in the cleaning anti-acne composition such as lavender and peppermint (paragraph 0040-0042). It would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for formulate the antimicrobial composition of the published JP application with the moisturizers of peppermint and lavender of Norman. The motivation to use such moisturizers is found in the desire to provide a soft feeling composition that would be easy to apply to the skin. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
With regard to the specific method processing limitations including the claimed amount of each constituent, the cited combination of prior art does not expressly teach these limitations. Absent unexpected results the Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of a worker in art to formulate the antimicrobial composition using well known amounts of each constituent and typically known processing methods and conditions. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed weight percentages and processing conditions claimed consituents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize these result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789