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 have been canceled. Claims 12-31 are pending and under current examination as presented by preliminary amendment (4 page document) filed 6/5/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/5/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 12-31 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). 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 as in the instant claims (see Rizzi claim 1)(limitations of claims 12, 13, 18-21). 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 teaches 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 24-31 have been addressed above within the structure of claims 12-23.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
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
Prosecution Insights