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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination and Amendment filed on 11/28/2026.
Claims 1, 6-8, 12-13, 15, 17, 20-21, 23-25 have been amended.
Claim 25 has been added.
Claims 1-15, 17-21, 23-25 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 19, 21 have been previously withdrawn from consideration.
Note, rejections and objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-15, 17-18, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASTILLO (US 2003/0054017) in view of TING et al (CN110638832A; wherein a machine translation is provided) and MOELLER et al (US 2018/0235232).
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, 15, and 23, CASTILLO teaches a composition comprised of: Carbopol 940 (see [0036]), which is a polyacrylate polymer; an anesthetic (see [0037], such as lidocaine (see [0034]); and emulsifiers (see [0036]), which would form emulsions; water (see [0042]); and volatile solvents (see abstract), such as alcohol (see [0038], which reads on liquid carrier. The volatile solvent, such as alcohol, is evaporated (see abstract). Additional disclosures include: anionic emulsifier (see [0080]), which reads on anionic surfactant; “low carbon alcohols have a relatively low value of heat of vaporization, which makes them able to evaporate quickly at room temperature. It is this characteristic that gives the user the "cooling" sensation realized during application.” (see [0027]).
CASTILLO does not teach silver nanoparticles; or the size of the emulsion is micro-emulsion.
TING teaches the prior art had known of using lidocaine as an anesthetic (see [0004]) in combination with nano-silver with particle sizes in the nanometer range (see [0005]), which reads on silver nanoparticle, for antibacterial activity (see [0005]), wherein the combination solves the problem of wound pain and pain caused by shingle virus (see [0007]).
MOELLER teaches the prior art had known of incorporating silver particles into emulsions (see abstract), wherein the emulsions may be microemulsions. Additional disclosures include: may contain a therapeutic agent, such as lidocaine (see [0051]); silver particles in sizes from 1-100 nm (see [0004]); and Ag4O4 (see [0004]), which reads on silver tetraoxide; 10-40 ppm concentration of silver particles (see [0004]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate silver nanoparticles, such as silver tetraoxide nanoparticles. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications, because the composition can further treat wounds and pain caused by the shingle virus, and reasonably would have expected success because the prior art had known of using lidocaine and silver together.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the size of the emulsion as micro-emulsion. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications and reasonably would have expected success because emulsions, such as micro-emulsions are known in the prior art.
Note, the prior art’s composition would have been capable of the intended used of “after application to a tissue and loss of at least a portion of liquid carrier” resulting to “form an oxygen permeable, elastic, antimicrobial, anesthetic solid polymer film after application to a tissue and loss of at least a portion of the liquid carrier” because the prior art’s composition has the same ingredients as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claims 2, and 9, CASTILLO teaches cellulose thickeners (see [0074]), which reads on gel-forming cellulose.
Regarding claim 3, the references would “set to a clear solid layer on the tissue through at last evaporation of the evaporable liquid carrier’, because the references composition has the same ingredients as claimed by Applicant, unless proven otherwise.
Regarding claim 4 and 14, as discussed above, CASTILLO teaches Carbopol 940 (see [0036]), which is a polyacrylate polymer.
Regarding claim 5, MOELLER teaches polyacrylates, such as (meth)acrylates (see [0084]).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art’s alcohol, such as ethyl alcohol, would be capable of “the alcohol allows the evaporable liquid carrier to remain liquid at a freezing temperature of water”, because the prior art has the same alcohol and water as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 17, CASTILLO teaches water (see [0042]) and ethyl alcohol (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art’s composition would have been capable of “reconstituting after freezing or boiling” because the prior art’s composition has the same ingredients as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art’s anionic surfactant would inherently form a layer around the silver particle, because this is the function of emulsifiers/surfactants to form emulsions.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 12, 14, 23, the references do not specifically teach adding the ingredients in the amounts claimed by Applicant. The amount of a specific ingredient in a composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal amount of each ingredient to add in order to best achieve the desired results, such as viscosity/thickening from the thickening/gelling polymer ingredients for ease of handling, spreading, etc.; therapeutic effects of the active ingredients, increasing/decreasing coolness intensity, etc. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of ingredient amount would have been obvious at the time of Applicant's invention.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-18, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASTILLO (US 2003/0054017) in view of TING et al (CN110638832A; wherein a machine translation is provided) and MOELLER et al (US 2018/0235232) and GORDY et al (US 2009/0110738).
As discussed above, the references teach Applicant’s invention.
Regard claims 11, the references do not specifically teach using specific monomers, such as butyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate, to make the polyacrylate.
GORDY teaches the prior art had known of making polyacrylates from acrylic acid, butyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate (see [0050]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate monomers, such as butyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate, to make the polyacrylate. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications and reasonably would have expected success because acrylic acid, butyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate are functional equivalents of monomers used to make polyacrylates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 24 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.
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKE MINH VU whose telephone number is (571)272-8148. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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 Hartley can be reached at (571) 272-0616. 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.
/JAKE M VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Prosecution Insights