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 .
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘925 (KR 10-2022-0019425) in view of KR ‘958 (KR 10-2340958).
Claim 1 – KR ‘925 teaches a method of manufacturing an antimicrobial film-coated substrate configured to directly form antimicrobial particles (Abstract, aggregated particles commensurate with antimicrobial particles of the claim), the method comprising:
mixing a metal compound with a hydrophobic solvent to prepare a coating solution (e.g. Claims 4 and 8, in claim 8 ethanol and methanol are hydrophobic);
coating a surface of a plastic or polymer substrate with the coating solution (Claim 10, at least PVA is a plastic substrate).
KR ‘925 does not expressly teach or suggest the use of a metal salt, nor does it expressly teach or suggest the heat treatment to form said antimicrobial particle layer. KR ‘958 is drawn broadly to surface coatings and specifically to antimicrobial coatings (Abstract); KR ‘958 discloses the use of metal salts as metal sources (e.g. Claims 13-15) and heat treatment as part of the coating process (Claim 29). The substrates may be e,g, plastic substrates (Claim 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of KR ‘925 to use metal salts as metal sources for the antimicrobial composition and to perform a heat treatment in the coating process as suggested by KR ‘958, as both references want to make antimicrobial coatings using plastic substrates and KR ‘958 discloses materials and techniques demonstrated to be suitable for the purpose.
Claim 2 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic solvent comprises at least one of ethanol or methanol (KR ‘925 Claim 8).
Claim 3 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the plastic is a thermoplastic plastic (KR ‘925 Claim 10, PVA is thermoplastic).
Claim 4 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the metal salt comprises metal nitrate-based material (KR ‘958 Claim 15).
Claim 5 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 4, wherein the metal comprises copper (Cu) (KR ‘958 Claim 14).
Claim 6 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the heat-treating comprises inducing an oxidation reaction and an aggregation reaction to fix the antimicrobial particles to the surface of the plastic or polymer substrate (KR ‘958 abstract, see also the paragraph bridging pages 18-19, the titanium oxide coating is derived from titanium isopropoxide; per KR ‘958 Claim 29, the coating is subjected to heat treatment which oxidizes the titanium and agglomerates it by driving off solvent via desiccation).
Claim 7 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a concentration of the metal salt is 0.001 M (molar concentration) to 0.1 M. The metal salt is discussed at Page 14 in concentrations of 0.03 – 3 wt% for the preferred copper metal precursor, but it is disclosed that the metal precursor is being added to improve or alter the antimicrobial action (Page 14). Therefore, selection of a desired molar concentration to effect the desired change in antimicrobial function is held to be prima facie obvious.
Claim 8 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 7, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a size of the antimicrobial particles increases as the concentration of the metal salt increases. This is held as prima facie obvious as part of the processing conditions; as the solvent is desiccated from the coating solution, surface tension of the remaining liquid will tend to agglomerate the metal precipitates, with greater metal content leading to greater metal precipitates.
Claim 9 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 7, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein transmittance of the antimicrobial particle layer increases as the concentration of the metal salt decreases. This is held as prima facie obvious as part of the processing conditions; as the solvent is desiccated from the coating solution, surface tension of the remaining liquid will tend to agglomerate the metal precipitates, with greater metal content leading to greater metal precipitates (and by extension, with lesser metal content leading to lesser metal precipitates which will exhibit less of a blocking or scattering effect).
Claim 10 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the metal salt comprises one of copper (II) acetate (Cu(CH3COO)2), copper (II) nitrate (Cu(NO3)2), or copper(I) chloride (CuCl2) (KR ‘958, copper acetate, nitrate and chloride generally disclosed; selection of desired valence is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of an unexpected result derived from the selection).
Claim 11 – KR ‘925 teaches a method of manufacturing an antimicrobial film-coated substrate, the method comprising:
mixing a metal compound (Claim 4) with an alcohol-based solvent (Claim 8, diverse alcohols listed) to prepare a coating solution;
coating a surface of a plastic or polymer substrate with the coating solution (Claim 10, at least PVA is a plastic substrate).
KR ‘925 does not expressly teach or suggest the use of a metal salt, nor does it expressly teach or suggest the heat treatment to form said antimicrobial particle layer. KR ‘958 is drawn broadly to surface coatings and specifically to antimicrobial coatings (Abstract); KR ‘958 discloses the use of metal salts as metal sources (e.g. Claims 13-15) and heat treatment as part of the coating process (Claim 29). The substrates may be e,g, plastic substrates (Claim 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of KR ‘925 to use metal salts as metal sources for the antimicrobial composition and to perform a heat treatment in the coating process as suggested by KR ‘958, as both references want to make antimicrobial coatings using plastic substrates and KR ‘958 discloses materials and techniques demonstrated to be suitable for the purpose.
Claim 12 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 11, wherein the heat-treating comprises inducing an oxidation reaction and an aggregation reaction to fix the antimicrobial particles to the surface of the plastic or polymer substrate (KR ‘958 abstract, see also the paragraph bridging pages 18-19, the titanium oxide coating is derived from titanium isopropoxide; per KR ‘958 Claim 29, the coating is subjected to heat treatment which oxidizes the titanium and agglomerates it by driving off solvent via desiccation).
Claim 13 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 11, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a concentration of the metal salt is 0.001 M (molar concentration) to 0.1 M. The metal salt is discussed at Page 14 in concentrations of 0.03 – 3 wt% for the preferred copper metal precursor, but it is disclosed that the metal precursor is being added to improve or alter the antimicrobial action (Page 14). Therefore, selection of a desired molar concentration to effect the desired change in antimicrobial function is held to be prima facie obvious.
Claim 14 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 13, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a size of the antimicrobial particles increases as the concentration of the metal salt increases. This is held as prima facie obvious as part of the processing conditions; as the solvent is desiccated from the coating solution, surface tension of the remaining liquid will tend to agglomerate the metal precipitates, with greater metal content leading to greater metal precipitates.
Claim 15 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 13, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein transmittance of the antimicrobial particle layer increases as the concentration of the metal salt decreases. This is held as prima facie obvious as part of the processing conditions; as the solvent is desiccated from the coating solution, surface tension of the remaining liquid will tend to agglomerate the metal precipitates, with greater metal content leading to greater metal precipitates (and by extension, with lesser metal content leading to lesser metal precipitates which will exhibit less of a blocking or scattering effect).
Claim 16 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the method according to claim 11, wherein the metal salt comprises one of copper (II) acetate (Cu(CH3COO)2), copper (II) nitrate (Cu(NO3)2), or copper(I) chloride (CuCl2) (KR ‘958, copper acetate, nitrate and chloride generally disclosed; selection of desired valence is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of an unexpected result derived from the selection).
Claim 17 – KR ‘925 teaches an antimicrobial film-coated substrate comprising a metal compound directly formed on a surface thereof (Claims 1 and 4). KR ‘925 does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the metal compound is a metal salt including at least a metal acetate, a metal chloride, or a metal nitrate. KR ‘925 also does not fairly teach or describe wherein the formation includes an oxidation reaction and an aggregation reaction. KR ‘958 is drawn broadly to surface coatings and specifically to antimicrobial coatings (Abstract); KR ‘958 discloses the use of metal salts as metal sources (e.g. Claims 13-15) and heat treatment as part of the coating process (Claim 29). The substrates may be e,g, plastic substrates (Claim 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of KR ‘925 to use metal salts as metal sources for the antimicrobial composition and to perform a heat treatment in the coating process as suggested by KR ‘958, as both references want to make antimicrobial coatings using plastic substrates and KR ‘958 discloses materials and techniques demonstrated to be suitable for the purpose. As to the oxidation and aggregation reactions, this is discussed at KR ‘958 abstract and the paragraph bridging pages 18-19, the titanium oxide coating is derived from titanium isopropoxide; per KR ‘958 Claim 29, the coating is subjected to heat treatment which oxidizes the titanium and agglomerates it by driving off solvent via desiccation).
Claim 18 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the antimicrobial film-coated substrate according to claim 17, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a concentration of the metal salt is 0.001 M (molar concentration) to 0.1 M. The metal salt is discussed at Page 14 in concentrations of 0.03 – 3 wt% for the preferred copper metal precursor, but it is disclosed that the metal precursor is being added to improve or alter the antimicrobial action (Page 14). Therefore, selection of a desired molar concentration to effect the desired change in antimicrobial function is held to be prima facie obvious.
Claim 19 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the antimicrobial film-coated substrate according to claim 18, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a size of the antimicrobial particles increases as the concentration of the metal salt increases. This is held as prima facie obvious as part of the processing conditions; as the solvent is desiccated from the coating solution, surface tension of the remaining liquid will tend to agglomerate the metal precipitates, with greater metal content leading to greater metal precipitates.
Claim 20 – KR ‘925 / KR ‘958 renders obvious the antimicrobial film-coated substrate according to claim 17, wherein the metal salt comprises one of copper (II) acetate (Cu(CH3COO)2), copper (II) nitrate (Cu(NO3)2), or copper(I) chloride (CuCl2) (KR ‘958, copper acetate, nitrate and chloride generally disclosed; selection of desired valence is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of an unexpected result derived from the selection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights