DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
Claims 1-28 are pending and under examination in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed October 10, 2024. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
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.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 11-17, 19, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharkawy et al. ((Applicant’s IDS) in view of Borges et al. (Applicant’s IDS)
With regards to instant claim 1, Sharkawy teaches a method of producing microparticulate emulsion (see pg 5518, lft col.) by mixing the chitosan in acetic acid (see sec. 2.2, pg 5517, rt col.) wherein the mixture was emulsified, wherein the emulsifier is polyglycerol (see abstract as required by instant claim 19) then the pH was adjusted to 35 (see pg 5518, lft col.) and adding a crosslinking agent (see same) wherein the molecular weight of the chitosan is 80,000-200,000 Da (which falls within the recited molecular weight of instant claim), wherein the diacylation is in the range of 88-95 % (see sec 2.1) and the active oil is corn oil (see table 1, pg 5518). The reference teaches the formulation is impregnated on the fabric i.e., textile (see pg. 5521) and it’s a functionalized cotton fabric (ie., an antibacterial treated fiber (see abstract) .
However Sharkawy fails to teach using lactic acid and the temperature and the specific oil as recited Nonetheless a natural oil was used and one of ordinary skill in the art can modify or substitute the oil with the expectation of success that the natural oil will behave the same.
Borges teaches that lactic acid is an agent for dissolving chitosan in water and because of this teaching one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute acetic acid for lactic acid as they both belong to the same class of organic acid and therefore would expect the switch to behave the same.
With regards to the concentration of the hydrophobic solution, it is within the purview of the skilled artisan to determine as the is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable that achieves a recognized result and, therefore, the determination of the optimum or workable dosage range would have been well within the practice of routine experimentation by the skilled artisan, absent factual evidence to the contrary, and, further, absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference between the compositions used and the criticality of the amount(s)
Claims 3, 7-10, 18 and 20-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 8/11/26
Prosecution Insights