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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11, 13, 20, and 25 have been canceled. Claims 12, 14-19, 21-24, and 26-31 remain pending.
Withdrawn Rejections and Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims 13, 20, and 25 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancelation of these claims. Applicant’s arguments filed 9/14/2026 (hereafter, “Remarks”) have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
Regarding the previously issued rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that a prima facie case has not been made particularly in view of the amendments because Rizzi allegedly has no relevance of the field of wound dressing bandages. Applicant concludes on page 7 of Remarks that Rizzi and Rezaei are directed to different solutions to different problems and asserts that Rezaei’s materials are expensive and not practical and cost-effective to provide bandages as discussed in the instant specification as filed. In reply, this argument is not persuasive since Rizzi and Rezaei’s products are both directed to functional textile materials, and the references are considered in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention even if they address a different problem and/or the references are considered reasonably pertinent to the problem at hand since both pertain to graphene platelets on polymeric substrates in the shape and/or structure of a film product. Moreover, practical and statistically significance evidence has not been presented in support of Applicant’s allegation of improved results with regard to cost and practicality.
Applicant alleges that compared to complexities of expense and an electrospinning process, the claimed invention provides a simple and effective solution not employed by Rezaei. In reply, this argument has been considered but is not considered to constitute evidence of practical and statistical significance to overcome the rejection of record. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record.
Applicant argues that Rezaei does not teach the claimed quantitative range of graphene and continues on pages 9 and 10 of Remarks citing sections of Rezaei. On pages 10 and 11 of Remarks, Applicant continues that the claimed invention in alleged contrast with Rezaei’s is directed to nonfunctionalized graphene with low amount of oxygen and that this feature is responsible for antibacterial activity without additional components such as curcumin. In reply, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of Rezaei’s teaching of graphene platelets loaded onto polymer fiber materials. Arguments against functionalized graphene are not persuasive because they amount to limitations not claimed, particularly in view of the claim language reciting “a composition comprising graphene” as in claim 12 for instance. In other words, the instant claim language does not exclude Rezaei’s platelets which may be associated with active agents such as curcumin. Moreover, it is maintained that Rizzi teaches nanoplatelets and C/O ratio parameters overlapping and/or included by the instantly claimed range.
Applicant argues that Rezaei does not provide rationale for modification. In reply, this argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of what Rezaei reasonably suggests when considered as a whole, which are wound dressing applications including polymeric fibers in structural analogy with Rizzi’s polymer fibers and graphene nanoplatelets, where both teach graphene platelets on polymeric substrates in the shape and/or structure of a film product.
Modified Rejections Necessitated by Amendments of 9/14/2026
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 12, 14-19, 21-24, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO2018/202747A1 (“Rizzi”, cited by Applicant in IDS dated 6/5/2024) in view of “Rezaei” (Nano-curcumin/graphene platelets loaded on sodium alginate/polyvinyl alcohol fibers as potential wound dressing, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2021, No. 35, abstract; cited by Applicant in IDS dated 6/5/2024 in the file wrapper). No new reference cited. The instant claims are drawn to a method comprising producing a bandage to be applied to wounds wherein the bandage uses a textile article comprising a textile substrate selected from a polymeric film, fabric, and a nonwoven [material] and a graphene component as further specified in the claims.
Rizzi teaches the same or substantially the same method of making a polyurethane film containing graphene at Rizzi’s Example 1 which includes a graphene content of approximately 5% by weight. Rizzi’s method includes the very same process of adding graphene powder, silica, catalyst, and flow additive and subsequent blending and spreading and treatment as in the instant invention (see Rizzi Example 1, Steps A-E). Rizzi’s Example 1 appears to be the same or substantially the same as Example 4 in the instant specification as filed at pages 16 and 17; it is noted that the instant specification defines the product produced by this method to have an amount of graphene which is 3 g/m^2, a value within the instantly claimed range. Rizzi’s nanoplatelets and C/O ratio parameters are the same and/or narrower as in the instant claims (see Rizzi claim 1)(limitations of claims 12, 18, 19, and 21). Rizzi’s film product appears to be the same or substantially the same as a film product which is used as a bandage in a topical application method and indicates dispersal of the graphene in or on a polymeric film which may be a textile article as in the instant claims 12 and 14 (see Rizzi abstract). As to claim 23, Rizzi teaches the product may include a thermoadhesive material (page 13, paragraph 3) which may be made by layering.
As to claim 22 which claims a concentration of graphene in the textile article to be from 4 to 15 g per square meter, Rizzi does not teach an example necessarily within this instantly claimed range. However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been prima facie obvious to adjust the amount of graphene per square meter of textile article to control and optimize its efficacy. Rizzi teaches that relatively high graphene desirably allows for high breathability, high impermeability, high resistance to abrasion, and additional benefits (see page 10, paragraph starting “The graphene nano-platelets having the above-mentioned dimensional…” of Rizzi), Moreover generally teaches a composition generally having 1 to 30% by weight of graphene indicating that its presence may desirably be adjusted in the final film product (see Rizzi page 11, section (A)). As to the graphene concentration, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
While Rizzi’s product may be considered a textile article which may be applied on wounds, it is not apparent that it necessarily teaches a bandage and the structure and/or function required by this claim language.
Rezaei cures this deficiency. Rezaei teaches graphene platelets loaded onto polymer fiber materials wherein an active agent which is curcumin is also included and the products are expressly used as wound dressings (bandages) (see abstract, in particular)(limitations of claims 12. Rezaei further teaches crosslinked fibers wherein the polymer material is linked to graphene nanoparticles which are in the shape and size of nanoplatelets (“binding agent” as in claim 15). Rezaei’s curcumin constitutes a phytotherapeutic substance as in claims 16 and 17.
Both Rizzi and Rezaei are directed to graphene platelets on polymeric substrates which are in the shape and/or structure of a film product. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Rizzi’s polymer fibers and graphene nanoplatelets in combination with Rezaei’s wound dressing structures based on polymeric fibers and further including curcumin benefit agent, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate known benefits of graphene film materials with Rezaei’s wound dressing structures and benefits.
The limitations of claims 24 and 26-31 have been addressed above within the structure of claims 12-23.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
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 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 AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
