Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/619,778

COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING WOUNDS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 05, 2019
Examiner
BOECKELMAN, JACOB A
Art Unit
1655
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Promend Animal Health Inc.
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
36%
Grant Probability
At Risk
8-9
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 36% of cases
36%
Career Allow Rate
86 granted / 237 resolved
-23.7% vs TC avg
Strong +46% interview lift
Without
With
+46.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
96 currently pending
Career history
333
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
§103
52.1%
+12.1% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 237 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant's amendment and argument filed 11/21/2025 in response to the non-final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn. Claims 1, 7, 11, 16, 22, 24-31 are pending of which claims 7, 24-30 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2022. Claims 1, 11, 16, 22 and 31 are being examined on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 11, 16, 22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soon Hoe Kim et. al. (US10278928B2), hereinafter Kim. This rejection is maintained with slight modifications due to the amendments and arguments filed on 05/27/2025. Kim’s general disclosure is to film-forming pharmaceutical compositions for wound healing (see abstract). Regarding claims 1 and 16, Kim teaches a pharmaceutical composition which comprises of chitosan as a film forming substance (see claim 1, (b)) and teaches wherein the composition comprises an acid for dissolving the chitosan (see claim 1 (d)), teaches including different additives such as plasticizer, a thickener, a surfactant, a preservative, a flavoring agent, a stabilizer, a defoamer, an adhesive, a gellant, an emulsifier, an opacifier, a humectant, and mixtures thereof, which when considered and with the broadest reasonable interpretation can act as the instantly claimed excipient, because an excipient is an inactive substance which serves as a vehicle or medium for active substances. Acetic acid can act as the solvent (with water) with 1 to 4 carbon atoms as described by Kim and as an acid for dissolving chitosan in an amount from 0.1 to 10 wt%, because Kim teaches both (see claim 1). Also Kim teaches wherein water is used in the preparations of the film-forming gels (see examples 1-6, 7-9, 10, 11-14 etc. comparative example 1). Kim also teaches wherein chitosan, the film forming substance can be used in amounts of 0.4 to 10 wt % (see column 17, lines 39-42) and chitosan would be the biopolymer being instantly claimed. Kim further teaches that “the content of chitosan in the composition of the present invention shall be an amount sufficient to maintain a proper viscosity and to form a film having a sufficient strength upon application to the skin. The amount of chitosan may preferably be 0.3 wt %” (see column 8, lines 15-24). Kim teaches that the active ingredient can be a disinfectant or sanitizer (see claim 7) and when considered with the broadest reasonable interpretation can act as the antiseptic as so broadly claimed. Kim teaches that the composition may include povidone-iodine, ethanol, isopropyl ethanol, silver nitrate, chlorohexidine or salts thereof as disinfectants/sanitizers (see column 7, 2nd para.) and these components would act as the antiseptic as claimed. Kim further teaches the composition may include an anti-inflammatory agent (see claim 7) and teaches wherein the composition is in a formulation of a gel or ointment during storage period (see column 2, line 53 or column 4, lines 5-10, or column 10, lines 30-32) and turns into a film upon application. Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the acid is present in an amount of 0.2 to 20 wt % with respect to the total weight of the composition (see claim 13). Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches controlling the viscosity to a degree that can supply the insufficient thickening ability of the chitosan (see column 9, lines 26-28). Kim does not particularly teach wherein the viscosity of the composition is greater than 500 centipoise, however Kim teaches wherein viscosity is intentionally controlled by the amount of chitosan and teaches amounts of chitosan at 0.3 wt% which is within the amount being claimed. Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to persons skilled in the art to create the instantly claimed composition for treating wounds and to control for the viscosity as instantly claimed because Kim teaches similar compositions and teaches wherein the viscosity can be controlled by the use of the biopolymer chitosan. Optimizing the viscosity to be greater than 500 centipoise is an optimization well within the purview of any skilled artisan and a matter of mere judicious selection, depending on the end products design and formulation. For instance one could create a cream, a gel, a hydrogel or an ointment and controlling the viscosity would be of importance. It would have also been obvious to select each component and to be within the instantly claimed ranges because Kim teaches the same ingredients within the same ranges and for the same purpose. Also it would have been obvious to select the salt form of chlorhexidine, being that of chlorohexidine digluconate as claimed in claim 7, because this is known to those skilled in the art as the most common form of chlorohexidine used for antiseptic/antibacterial purposes and Kim suggests where either chlorohexidine or its salt form may be used. It would further have been obvious to create a spray consisting of 0.1 to about 2% chitosan dissolved in 5% acetic acid and chlorhexidine digluconate in an excipient for topical administration. Although Kim does not teach a spray formulation this is a common formulation of the art. Kim teaches each active component and within the instantly claimed ranges. Kim teaches chitosan at 0.3% and being dissolved in acetic acid to be useful as a biopolymer and film-forming substance, and teaches use of chlorhexidine salts as effective sanitizers and disinfectants for early stages of wound healing along with excipients. Therefore it would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art to create a formulation such as a spray or for being sprayed onto a wound as this can merely comprise of liquid formulations made able to be sprayed onto a surface. There would have been more than a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instant invention because the claimed ingredients are known for having antiseptic/antibacterial properties and combining them into formulation as instantly described for such a purpose has been described in the art. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Kim does not teach a spray. Kim teaches each structural component and creating a spray would have been prima facie obvious as it is a mere formulation of the already described active ingredients and one which is common and conventional in the art. Persons having ordinary skill in the art can determine how to disperse the components through a spray nozzle and this would not structurally be any different than what the instant applicant is claiming or what the art already teaches. The same ingredients within the same ranges would inherently have the same properties of being able to be dispersed as a spray. The applicant argues that Kim’s working examples include formulations which require other thickeners or thickening agents, such as cream bases, to control for the viscosity of the composition and require chitosan percentages that are more than what is claimed. Kim may teach multiple compositions and give working examples of formulations which are to various compositions outside the range of the instant claims, however Kim also teaches the instant invention and does not necessarily require additional thickening agents as the applicant argues. Kim’s claim 1, does not require there to be a different thickening agent, as can be appreciated from the reliance on a Markush group which describes other additives which can be used as the instantly claimed excipient. Kim is merely giving examples of a variety of composition which include the active ingredients being claimed along with other formulations and actives to be included, however not required. The applicant argues that Kim requires the inclusion of an additional thickener or cream base which is different from the applicant’s invention because the applicant does not require any additional thickener. Kim specifically claims in claim 1, “a cream base component is not present in the composition” and so the applicant’s argument describeing that Kim requires a cream base as an additional thickening agent appears merely to be one example of one formulation taught by Kim. Conclusion Currently no claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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. JACOB A BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655 /ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2019
Application Filed
Jun 21, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 07, 2022
Response Filed
Oct 17, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2023
Response Filed
May 09, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 26, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 24, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 28, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 23, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 08, 2024
Response Filed
May 07, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 18, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Dec 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 27, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599630
SERUM EXOSOME WITH HIGH OSTEOGENESIS AND HIGH ANGIOGENESIS, PREPARATION METHOD, AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594303
COMPOSITION COMPRISING EXOSOMES DERIVED FROM INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL-DERIVED MESENCHYMAL STEM CELL PROGENITOR FOR PREVENTION OR TREATMENT OF NON-ALCOHOLIC STEATOHEPATITIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594315
Use of Liriodendron Chinense (Hemsl.) Sarg. or Extract thereof in the Preparation of Medicament for Reducing Serum Uric Acid Level and Preventing and Treating Uric Acid Nephropathy
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575575
METHOD FOR PREPARING MUSHROOM ANTIBACTERIAL AGENT AND ANTIBACTERIAL AGENT MADE THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12551522
HERBAL COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING AND PREVENTING SARS-COV-2 VIRUS INFECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
36%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+46.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 237 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month