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
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected composition, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 7-13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dudnik et al. (US8877256).
Regarding claims 7-8, 17 and 21, Dudnik teaches forming a polymeric coating from a solution of acrylic acid and methyl acrylate, wherein the two monomers are grafted to form a copolymer coating on a catheter (Example 5) wherein it is noted that the methyl acrylate has a glass transition temperature of 10C.
Regarding clam 9, Dudnik further teaches wherein the treated article is placed in a container comprising Trizma base as cited above.
Regarding claim 10, Dudnik further teaches the use of an antimicrobial silver acetate meeting the claims limitations as cited above.
Regarding claim 11, Dudnik further teaches the use of brilliant green as claimed (Example 3).
Regarding claim 12, Dudnik further teaches the use of the three ingredients claimed in combination (Example 4 and claim 15).
Regarding claim 13, Dudnik further teaches washing in a Trizma base after antimicrobial coating (Example 3).
Regarding claim 15, Dudnik further teaches the use of benzoin photoinitiators (claim 15).
Regarding claim 16, Dudnik further teaches UV exposure as the means for coating formation (claim 15).
Regarding claims 18-19, because the coating of Dudnik is the same as that claimed, formed from the same materials using the similar methodologies, the coating of Dudnik would be expected to have the same properties claimed. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding claim 20, Dudnik teaches wherein the coating may be applied to a plurality of the substrate materials claimed (col. 6, lines 29-44).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudnik et al. (US8877256) as applied to claims 1-13 and 15-21 above and further in view of Gratzl et al. (“Mechanistic approaches on the antibacterial activity of poly(acrylic acid) copolymers” Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 126, 2015, pp. 98-105).
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of Dudnik are as shown above. Dudnik fails to teach protonating the surface of the coating as claimed. However, Gratzl teaches the exposure of PAA polymers to strong acids regenerates antimicrobial activity (see Conclusions) wherein said acid exposure would inherently protonate the acrylic acid monomer section present in the polymer provided. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the polymer of Dudnik with acid as guided by Gratzl in order to provide antibacterial qualities to the catheter of Dudnik as described by Gratzl.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717