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 of Group I, claims 1-8 and 15-19, in the reply filed on September 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 9-14 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aizawa et al. (JP 2020-069303, IDS document).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Aizawa et al. teach a molded article/fiber comprising: a calcium compound and a resin (Abstract – biodegradable resin with calcium compound particles included; paragraphs [0021], and [0022] – molded by electrospinning), wherein the molded article has a salt of inositol phosphate with at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of silver, zinc, and copper on a surface thereof (Abstract; paragraphs [0010]-[0012], [0017], [0028] and [0030]; place the fiber in an inositol phosphate solution followed by immersing the fiber in a solution containing silver ions to produce a salt as claimed on the surface and an article having antibacterial properties).
As to claims 2 and 3, Aizawa et al. teach the inositol phosphate is phytic acid (IP6) (paragraph [0013]) and also disclose IP3 and IP5 (paragraph [0023])
As to claim 4, Aizawa et al. teach the calcium compound is an inorganic salt as claimed and disclosed (paragraph [0024]; see paragraph [0064] of the published application).
As to claim 8, the fiber of Aizawa et al. is understood to read upon the claimed “sanitary product” since it is used in a medical application.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aizawa et al. (JP 2010-268917, IDS document).
Regarding claims 1-5, Aizawa et al. teach a molded article/medical device comprising: a calcium compound and a resin, wherein the molded article has a salt of inositol phosphate with at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of silver, zinc, and copper on a surface thereof wherein the same claimed and disclosed materials are utilized and the claimed antibacterial properties are realize (Abstract; paragraphs [0011]-[0014], [0018], [0019], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0028], [0031).
As to claim 8, Aizawa et al. disclose articles that read upon the claimed “sanitary” article and further suggest a range of other suitable applications for the article (paragraph [0011] – “medical equipment” including tableware and toys; paragraphs [0012]-[0014] – medical articles, masks, toilets, wash basins, thermometers, handrails).
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.
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 6, 7, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa et al. (JP 2020-069303, IDS document), as applied claims 1-5 and 8 above, and further in view of or taken with Tanabe et al. (JP 2021-053919).
As to claims 6, 7 and 15-19, Aizawa et al. teach the molded article with components as claimed. Aizawa et al. do not teach including their antibacterial material as an outer layer as claimed in an article that comprises a fiber-reinforced plastic layer as claimed. However, Tanabe et al. teach an analogous article wherein it is disclosed that it is desirable to include an antibacterial outer layer to a fiber-reinforced plastic layer and suggest optimizing the thickness to values that overlap the claimed range (Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0007]-[0016], [0019]-[0024], [0031], [0042] and [0043]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Aizawa et al. and Tanabe et al. and to have combined the antibacterial layer of material of Aizawa et al. with the fiber-reinforced layer of Tanabe et al., as suggested by the references, of producing a range of articles having improved and desired antibacterial properties. It is further noted that the combination of references works equally as well in both directions; namely, either Tanabe et al. or Aizawa et al. are to be understood as being a suitable primary reference in the rejection that is modified by the other reference. Both are understood to be set forth in the rejection.
Claims 6, 7, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa et al. (Aizawa et al. (JP 2010-268917, IDS document), as applied claims 1-5 and 8 above, and further in view of or taken with Tanabe et al. (JP 2021-053919)
As to claims 6, 7 and 15-19, Aizawa et al. teach the molded article with components as claimed. Aizawa et al. do not teach including their antibacterial material as an outer layer as claimed in an article that comprises a fiber-reinforced plastic layer as claimed. However, Tanabe et al. teach an analogous article wherein it is disclosed that it is desirable to include an antibacterial outer layer to a fiber-reinforced plastic layer and suggest optimizing the thickness to values that overlap the claimed range (Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0007]-[0016], [0019]-[0024], [0031], [0042] and [0043]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Aizawa et al. and Tanabe et al. and to have combined the antibacterial layer of material of Aizawa et al. with the fiber-reinforced layer of Tanabe et al., as suggested by the references, of producing a range of articles having improved and desired antibacterial properties. It is further noted that the combination of references works equally as well in both directions; namely, either Tanabe et al. or Aizawa et al. are to be understood as being a suitable primary reference in the rejection that is modified by the other reference. Both are understood to be set forth in the rejection
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose analogous inositol phosphate or salts thereof containing articles
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights