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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “IR lamps” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the term “ The claim should be amended in order to avoid possible 112 6th rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “flexible” in claims 1-18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flexible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 5 recite “…at least 50 g/m”. This is a range with an unbounded upper limit, and, as such, it is unclear as to the extent of density range Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
All the claims dependent of claims 1 and 5 are also rejected.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13. Recites ”... that a ketone or acetate is added before application.” It is unclear what “application” in the method of claim 5 the applicant is referent to, making the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guyot et al. (US 2017/0356130 A1) (“Guyot” herein) and further in view of Kalita et al. (US 2024/0180161 A1- PCT filed 05/14/2021) (“Kalita” herein).
Claim 1.
Guyot discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above, a flexible wall covering with a virucidal coating, comprising: [0009, 0024, 0081]
a substrate layer of a carrier material, the substrate layer comprising a nonwoven, and
the substrate layer having a surface density of at least 50 g/ m²;
a coating layer on the carrier material, the coating layer comprising a vinyl opolycomposition; and
a top layer on the coating layer, the top layer being applied via a printing process;
characterized in that the top layer comprises a the virucidal coating and
optionally inks, (i.e. the presence of biocides helps protect the coating, and consequently the covering, from bacterial and fungal microbes.) [0036, 0051-0062, 0081]
Guyot, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the virucidal coating comprises a mixture of an isocyanate and a methoxysilane.
Kalita teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0039 & 0059 → Kalita teaches this limitation in that the antimicrobial nanohybrids consisting of the above described inorganic/organic materials are surface functionalized with organosilane coupling agents so that the nanohybrid structures contains reactive organofunctional groups. In the present invention, the organofunctional groups may include but not limited to vinyl group, epoxy group, mercapto groups, amino groups, methacryloxy group, isocyanate groups, thiol groups, methoxy groups, and ethoxy groups. Such reactive organofunctional groups can chemically bond with organic materials, and hence, facilitates the organofunctionalized antimicrobial nanohybrids to covalently bond with organic polymers/resins such as PP, PVC, nylon, LDPE, HDPE, PU, etc., as depicted in FIG. 2. The silane functionalization of the antimicrobial nanohybrids can be accomplished by any of several methods known to those skilled in the art, such as, but not limited to reactive mixing treatment, anhydrous liquid phase deposition and vapor phase deposition. Reactive mixing treatment is presented here as a preferred method. The process involves mixing an appropriate organosilane in the form of a concentrate (typically, 0.5-1 wt. % of nanohybrid weight) or a hydrolyzed solution (typically 0.5-2 wt. %) .In one embodiment, the antimicrobial polymer nanohybrids consists of 20 wt. % to 99 wt. % of an organic polymer/copolymer composition and 1 wt. % to 80 wt. % of antimicrobial nanohybrid(s), wherein organic polymer/copolymer materials can be selected from: (a) Thermoplastics—…; (b) .. fluoropolymers, ..; and/or (c) Biopolymers ) for the purpose of o forming unique nanohybrid structures through selective integration of inorganic antimicrobial nanoparticles with other inorganic and organic materials and then, chemically bonding the nanohybrid structures to organic polymers for application as surface coatings, antimicrobial surfacing… to kill, inhibit, and/or reduce the growth of pathogenic/infectious/contaminating microorganisms and their biofilms. [0023]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill int the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guyot with the above limitation, as taught by Kalita, in order to kill, inhibit, and/or reduce the growth of pathogenic/infectious/contaminating microorganisms and their biofilms.
Claim 2.
Guyot discloses the flexible wall covering with the virucidal coating according to claim 1, characterized in that the top layer comprises 0.5-20 g of the virucidal coating per m². [0081-0052]
Claim 3.
Guyot discloses flexible wall covering with the virucidal coating according claim 1, characterized in that the vinyl composition comprises: polyvinyl chloride (PVC); polyurethane (PU); pigments, at least one pigment; and one or more fillers, wherein the vinyl composition comprises 1-50 weight percent fillers. [0034, 0061-0063]
Claim 4.
Guyot discloses a flexible wall covering with a virucidal coating, comprising:
a substrate layer of carrier material, the substrate layer comprising a nonwoven, and
on the substrate layer, the top layer being applied via a printing process; characterized in that the top layer comprises the virucidal coating and
optionally inks, (i.e. the presence of biocides helps protect the coating, and consequently the covering, from bacterial and fungal microbes.) [0036, 0051-0062, 0081]
Guyot, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the virucidal coating comprises a mixture of an isocyanate and a methoxysilane.
Since Guyot discloses the same wall covering comprising a nonwoven substrate layer, it would substrate layer having a coefficient of friction of maximally 0.4;
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties”. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and /or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01 (I), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985) , In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Wareen Corp v DF Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY1934).
Guyot, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the virucidal coating comprises a mixture of an isocyanate and a methoxysilane.
Kalita teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0039 & 0059 → Kalita teaches this limitation in that the antimicrobial nanohybrids consisting of the above described inorganic/organic materials are surface functionalized with organosilane coupling agents so that the nanohybrid structures contains reactive organofunctional groups. In the present invention, the organofunctional groups may include but not limited to vinyl group, epoxy group, mercapto groups, amino groups, methacryloxy group, isocyanate groups, thiol groups, methoxy groups, and ethoxy groups. Such reactive organofunctional groups can chemically bond with organic materials, and hence, facilitates the organofunctionalized antimicrobial nanohybrids to covalently bond with organic polymers/resins such as PP, PVC, nylon, LDPE, HDPE, PU, etc., as depicted in FIG. 2. The silane functionalization of the antimicrobial nanohybrids can be accomplished by any of several methods known to those skilled in the art, such as, but not limited to reactive mixing treatment, anhydrous liquid phase deposition and vapor phase deposition. Reactive mixing treatment is presented here as a preferred method. The process involves mixing an appropriate organosilane in the form of a concentrate (typically, 0.5-1 wt. % of nanohybrid weight) or a hydrolyzed solution (typically 0.5-2 wt. %) .In one embodiment, the antimicrobial polymer nanohybrids consists of 20 wt. % to 99 wt. % of an organic polymer/copolymer composition and 1 wt. % to 80 wt. % of antimicrobial nanohybrid(s), wherein organic polymer/copolymer materials can be selected from: (a) Thermoplastics—…; (b) .. fluoropolymers, ..; and/or (c) Biopolymers ) for the purpose of o forming unique nanohybrid structures through selective integration of inorganic antimicrobial nanoparticles with other inorganic and organic materials and then, chemically bonding the nanohybrid structures to organic polymers for application as surface coatings, antimicrobial surfacing… to kill, inhibit, and/or reduce the growth of pathogenic/infectious/contaminating microorganisms and their biofilms. [0023]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill int the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guyot with the above limitation, as taught by Kalita, in order to kill, inhibit, and/or reduce the growth of pathogenic/infectious/contaminating microorganisms and their biofilms.
Claim 5.
Guyot discloses a method for manufacturing a flexible wall covering with a virucidal coating, comprising:
providing a substrate layer of a carrier material,
the substrate layer comprising a nonwoven, and
the substrate layer having a surface density of at least 50 g/m²,
applying a coating layer to the substrate layer,
applying at least one top layer on the coating layer through a printing process; drying the at least one top layer; and
optionally providing a relief by embossing in the coating layer, characterized in that the at least one top layer comprises the virucidal coating and
optionally inks, (i.e. the presence of biocides helps protect the coating, and consequently the covering, from bacterial and fungal microbes.) [0036, 0051-0062, 0081, 0089-00100]
Guyot, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the virucidal coating comprises a mixture of an isocyanate and a methoxysilane. and optionally a fluoropolymer.
Guyot, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the virucidal coating comprises a mixture of an isocyanate and a methoxysilane.
Kalita teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0039 & 0059 → Kalita teaches this limitation in that the antimicrobial nanohybrids consisting of the above described inorganic/organic materials are surface functionalized with organosilane coupling agents so that the nanohybrid structures contains reactive organofunctional groups. In the present invention, the organofunctional groups may include but not limited to vinyl group, epoxy group, mercapto groups, amino groups, methacryloxy group, isocyanate groups, thiol groups, methoxy groups, and ethoxy groups. Such reactive organofunctional groups can chemically bond with organic materials, and hence, facilitates the organofunctionalized antimicrobial nanohybrids to covalently bond with organic polymers/resins such as PP, PVC, nylon, LDPE, HDPE, PU, etc., as depicted in FIG. 2. The silane functionalization of the antimicrobial nanohybrids can be accomplished by any of several methods known to those skilled in the art, such as, but not limited to reactive mixing treatment, anhydrous liquid phase deposition and vapor phase deposition. Reactive mixing treatment is presented here as a preferred method. The process involves mixing an appropriate organosilane in the form of a concentrate (typically, 0.5-1 wt. % of nanohybrid weight) or a hydrolyzed solution (typically 0.5-2 wt. %) .In one embodiment, the antimicrobial polymer nanohybrids consists of 20 wt. % to 99 wt. % of an organic polymer/copolymer composition and 1 wt. % to 80 wt. % of antimicrobial nanohybrid(s), wherein organic polymer/copolymer materials can be selected from: (a) Thermoplastics—…; (b) .. fluoropolymers, ..; and/or (c) Biopolymers ) for the purpose of o forming unique nanohybrid structures through selective integration of inorganic antimicrobial nanoparticles with other inorganic and organic materials and then, chemically bonding the nanohybrid structures to organic polymers for application as surface coatings, antimicrobial surfacing… to kill, inhibit, and/or reduce the growth of pathogenic/infectious/contaminating microorganisms and their biofilms. [0023]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill int the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guyot with the above limitation, as taught by Kalita, in order to kill, inhibit, and/or reduce the growth of pathogenic/infectious/contaminating microorganisms and their biofilms.
Claim 6.
Guyot discloses the method according to claim 5. Guyot however does not explicitly disclose characterized in that
1-15 w% fluoropolymer,
1-10 w% isocyanate and
0.2-15 w% methoxysilane are mixed with at least one solvent to obtain the virucidal coating. (Same as claim 5)
Claim 7.
Guyot discloses the method according to claim 5, characterized in that the printing process for applying at least one top layer comprises a roller coating technique using a first and a second gravure cylinder. [0060, 0130-0133]
Claim 8.
Guyot discloses the method according to claim 7, characterized in that a side of the substrate layer where the coating layer is provided lies against the first gravure cylinder and in which the second gravure cylinder provides a pressure on the substrate layer and the provided coating layer between 0.2 and 2.5 bar. [0130-0134]
Claims 11-12.
Guyot discloses the method according to claim 5, characterized in that the at least one top layer is dried in an oven with IR lamps with a total electrical power of 50-500 kW for 1-100 min and the substrate layer is passed through the oven at a speed between 50 meters per minute (mpm) and 100 mpm. [0130-0135]
It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be a characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA).
Claim 14.
Guyot discloses the method according to claim 5, characterized in that the coating layer is provided with a minimum surface density of 100 g/m. [0051-0062]
Claim 15.
Guyot discloses a flexible wall covering with a virucidal coating manufactured by means of a method according to claim 5. (See claim 5 )
Claims 1-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guyot, Kalita, and further in view of
Claim 13.
Guyot discloses the method according to claim 5. Guyot, however, does not explicitly disclose that a ketone or acetate is added before application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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 and there is no other rejection pending against the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Butikofer et al. (US 2009/0075096 A1) Organoalkoxysilanes teaches The present invention relates to organoalkoxysilanes containing a urea or thiourea or carbamate or thiocarbamate group of formula (I), as well as preparation and use thereof. It further relates to a composition containing the organoalkoxysilane of formula (I). Such compositions are especially suitable as adhesives and sealants, and have high stretchability and high strength, Bollstrom et al. (US 2011/0293851 A1) METHOD FOR CREATING A SUBSTRATE FOR PRINTED OR COATED FUNCTIONALITY, SUBSTRATE, FUNCTIONAL DEVICE AND ITS USE teaches The invention relates to a method for creating a substrate for printed or coated functionality. The method comprises obtaining a base web substrate comprising cellulose and/or wood fibres, coating the base web substrate with a barrier layer, and coating the barrier layer with a top coat layer comprising mineral and/or pigment particles. The invention relates also to a substrate for printed or coated functionality, comprising a base web substrate layer comprising cellulose and/or wood fibres, a barrier layer, coated on the base web substrate layer, and a top coat layer comprising mineral and/or pigment particles, coated on the barrier layer. The invention relates also to a functional device and its use, and Vasnev et al. (US 2013/0267652 A1) METHODS OF HYDROPHOBIZING MATERIALS WITH SILOXANES CONTAINING HYDROCARBYLIMINOALKYL OR QUATERNARY AMMONIUM SALTS teaches method of coating a surface of a base material, includes: providing a base material having a surface; applying a solution of a siloxane oligomer represented by Chemical Formula 1 to the surface of the base material and drying and/or heat-treating the surface comprising the solution of the siloxane oligomer applied thereto to obtain a siloxane-modified surface; and applying a solution of a hydrocarbyl halide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616 08/21/2026
Prosecution Insights